D&D General Why TSR-era D&D Will Always Be D&D

So no one else on this thread has ever been on a development of a new project?
I have... I would even say my experence in doing so is part of why I don't assume everything any company or rep for a company says 2 years before the roll out is 100% accurate.
Sometimes you have ideas, things you'd like to do, even think will be possible. Then you go through iterations of design and prototypes and you can't always deliver exactly what you thought you could. You realize that what you had in mind would lead to a worse product and not suit the actual needs of the users.
been there done that
The devs weren't misleading anyone on purpose.
I even accounted for that in my "they don't even have to be lying"
They may have been mistaken, they (particularly Mearls) probably could have phrased things more clearly.
or maybe (as I have said many times now) over the year or so things changed.
This is a pointless argument.
great ending to a post "I said my peace but this is pointless so no need to respond"
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Mannahnin

Scion of Murgen (He/Him)
isn't that a fallacy? someone says no x would ever y so the other comes back with an x doing y so then it's no true x...

used or missused I see it asserted to discount expertise.
That's what I'm telling you. Using it to disregard expertise is definitionally a misuse.

The entire meaning of the fallacy is that saying "X is an expert on Y, therefore what X says about Y is true" is not a valid argument. An expert can still make a false statement. And an idiot or liar can still say a true thing.
 

Whether the designers were "lying," in the sense of intentionally saying things that were not true or which were intended to mislead, is somewhat irrelevant to me.

What is more relevant, to me, is that they presented a set of statements which (pretty clearly by intent) set up particular expectations. Instead of coming forward at any point and saying, "Hey guys. These were the things we intended. It doesn't seem like those things are going to happen now. Times change and projects evolve, and that always means the end result differs from the initial vision, sometimes by a lot. In our case, we see this as missing a few details while really nailing the overall picture, but for some, the devil will always be in the details. We hope that, if you choose to dive into 5e, you too can see that the hopes we had for it are largely fulfilled. The whole team is immensely proud of their work, and we can't wait to see what you do with the game we've made. We hit almost every single goal we wanted to, and the end result is fantastic. I hope you all enjoy your time, whatever games you choose to spend it on!"

This is, obviously, 99.9% corporate drivel by volume, platitudes and happy-speak with little real content. But it would have meant a lot to me for them to say, even through all the PR filters and such, "Yeah, some of that stuff we said we were going to do...we never actually did. Hope you still like the game we made."
 

If you took everything the developers said they wanted/were trying to do as gospel (from the early stages of the game) you could leave very disappointed!
and yet when I say (2 years from new PHB) that I am unsure that what they said a year ago matters... I am getting grief.
 

payn

Legend
Whether the designers were "lying," in the sense of intentionally saying things that were not true or which were intended to mislead, is somewhat irrelevant to me.

What is more relevant, to me, is that they presented a set of statements which (pretty clearly by intent) set up particular expectations. Instead of coming forward at any point and saying, "Hey guys. These were the things we intended. It doesn't seem like those things are going to happen now. Times change and projects evolve, and that always means the end result differs from the initial vision, sometimes by a lot. In our case, we see this as missing a few details while really nailing the overall picture, but for some, the devil will always be in the details. We hope that, if you choose to dive into 5e, you too can see that the hopes we had for it are largely fulfilled. The whole team is immensely proud of their work, and we can't wait to see what you do with the game we've made. We hit almost every single goal we wanted to, and the end result is fantastic. I hope you all enjoy your time, whatever games you choose to spend it on!"

This is, obviously, 99.9% corporate drivel by volume, platitudes and happy-speak with little real content. But it would have meant a lot to me for them to say, even through all the PR filters and such, "Yeah, some of that stuff we said we were going to do...we never actually did. Hope you still like the game we made."
Yeah, im curious what the right amount of exposure is. I mean, D&D is a community game so I appreciate the dev blogs and stuff. Though, how much of it is the big picture and how much is just wagging the dog? What is the best approach to be clear and honest even if you leave some folks disappointed?
 

That's what I'm telling you. Using it to disregard expertise is definitionally a misuse.
I have little use for what things are intended to do... If you build a gun that shoots nails so fast that it is meant to build homes faster, but people shoot other people with it... yes the INTENT was to build homes and yes the use was NOT inteded... but that is how they are used, and as such my experience is being shot at not having a house built...
The entire meaning of the fallacy is that saying "X is an expert on Y, therefore what X says about Y is true" is not a valid argument. An expert can still make a false statement. And an idiot or liar can still say a true thing.
yes, but overall I see the argument used to just shut down conversations... not to say "maybe we should look at this closer" but to say "That doesn't count so we can ignore it" and the same is true of all fallacies I see on the internet
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
So no one else on this thread has ever been on a development of a new project? Sometimes you have ideas, things you'd like to do, even think will be possible. Then you go through iterations of design and prototypes and you can't always deliver exactly what you thought you could. You realize that what you had in mind would lead to a worse product and not suit the actual needs of the users.
Which is fine, except IMO once you* release those ideas into the wild for public consumption you're in effect committing to seeing those ideas through to completion, for better or worse. By making that (IMO foolish) tweet, Mearls committed to putting martial healing in 5e; and though I personally think martial healing is a gawd-awful idea that should never have seen the light of day, that commitment IMO means it has to be there in the finished system. Same for the modularity of design, the earlier-edition compatibility, etc., etc.

Put another way: don't tell us your pie-in-the-sky goals until-unless you've achieved them; and NEVER promise anything you aren't 110% sure you can deliver - or better yet, have already delivered.

* - you-in-general, not you- @Oofta . :)
 


Hex08

Adventurer
yes, but overall I see the argument used to just shut down conversations... not to say "maybe we should look at this closer" but to say "That doesn't count so we can ignore it" and the same is true of all fallacies I see on the internet
This is why pointing out fallacies is bad argumentation. They are meant to help you to reason better, not to toss in peoples faces.
 

So now we’re at the stage in the arguing to argue argument where people say things like “the definition of words doesn’t matter because people can misuse them.”

Well, to that nonsense I can only say: quiche.
yeah, cause how people use something is more important than how the inventor invisoned it's use...

If I told someone I needed Viagra I don't think many would think it was for my heart... even if that is what it was meant for.
 

Mort

Legend
Supporter
So now we’re at the stage in the arguing to argue argument where people say things like “the definition of words doesn’t matter because people can misuse them.”

Well, to that nonsense I can only say: quiche.

I can see from your tone and emphasis that you didn't have a crust on the dish and therefore clearly actually were referring to a frittata!

Such blatant misuse for the correct definition of cooking terms (which I have inferred from your one word usage and am therefore correct) means I now doubt all of your gaming experience (because of the corralive relation you see) ;)
 


Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
For a definition of "doable" so weak and watered-down it would fairly resemble certain popular beers, sure
Oh by doable I think you can get very close to the 4e original classes. Like I keep saying 5e is mechanically closer to 4e than TSR editions.

And no, they didn't decide those things early on--or else they did so and never told anyone. As an example, Mearls explicitly tweeted that there WOULD be martial healing in 5e, and if players didn't like that, they could simply choose not to play those options (or, if DM, choose not to allow those options). And y'know what came of it? Diddly-squat.
Actually they did. The design phase of 5e from the time of announcement to the first year of 5e was tons of flipping and flopping on design goals. 5e could have looked like 4 different things if design and development stopped at certain points.
 

Vaalingrade

Legend
Actually they did. The design phase of 5e from the time of announcement to the first year of 5e was tons of flipping and flopping on design goals. 5e could have looked like 4 different things if design and development stopped at certain points.
Remember when they said the game would be modular, and then people gaslit everyone that looked forward to that for years?
 

Yeah, im curious what the right amount of exposure is. I mean, D&D is a community game so I appreciate the dev blogs and stuff. Though, how much of it is the big picture and how much is just wagging the dog? What is the best approach to be clear and honest even if you leave some folks disappointed?
There's probably no single answer. Few things of this nature are simple enough for that.

But I think we can all agree that "just stop saying anything and hope no one notices" is almost certainly not the correct response most of the time.

Oh by doable I think you can get very close to the 4e original classes. Like I keep saying 5e is mechanically closer to 4e than TSR editions.
I mean, a Fighter who becomes a literal lord, who goes to war actually seems like more of a "Warlord" than the Battlemaster Fighter, in my humble opinion.

But honestly, no, I strongly disagree. There's nothing like the Avenger, Warden, or Shaman--and the """avenger""" and """warden""" Paladins are practically mocking the classes they claim to be, looking essentially nothing like either.

Actually they did. The design phase of 5e from the time of announcement to the first year of 5e was tons of flipping and flopping on design goals. 5e could have looked like 4 different things if design and development stopped at certain points.
"Flipping and flopping" back and forth...doesn't meet the thing I described. Nor does it match, as I noted, the explicit statement that the "warlord fighter" would have martial healing....only for the end result to not do that thing. The Battle Master Fighter doesn't heal anyone, it can't grant saving throws to anyone, and Commander's Strike is hilariously weak as far as ally-empowerment goes. The Battle Master is, in fact, better at imitating a controller from 4e than a leader, because it has plenty of relatively-useful tools for repositioning allies and applying forced movement to enemies.
 


Oofta

Legend
...

great ending to a post "I said my peace but this is pointless so no need to respond"

What else is there to add? I don't think they ever intentionally mislead anyone, there wouldn't have been a reason to do so. Some people want different things, that's always going to be the case. I seem to remember Mearls in particular saying things in a way that could be misconstrued. I think saying that they mislead, that it was corporate drivel and platitudes is insulting to people who did the best they could with what they had.

People seem to forget that 5E was a Hail Mary that was just supposed to keep the IP alive long enough for them to launch some movies. The fact that it's as successful as it is means we should be giving kudos to the devs for being flexible enough to make a game that worked, not insulting them for implementing some pie in the sky ideal.
 

Hex08

Adventurer
An informal logical fallacy (what's being discussed here) is not evidence that the conclusion is incorrect, it's saying that the argument does nothing to assist that conclusion. There aren't exceptions to this -- if it's an informal logical fallacy, it doesn't support the conclusion sought. It also doesn't disprove it.

Formal logical fallacies, on the other hand, are far more rare, much more narrow, and show the falsity of the conclusion in the argument. You usually only see this in very formal structures, like logical proofs, but they turn up from time to time.
I didn't mean to imply there were exceptions in the way you took it. What I meant was that, as I stated in a prior post, is that not everything that sounds like a logical fallacy is one. Appealing to authority isn't always a fallacy, sometimes it's referencing expert opinion.
 
Last edited:

payn

Legend
What else is there to add? I don't think they ever intentionally mislead anyone, there wouldn't have been a reason to do so. Some people want different things, that's always going to be the case. I seem to remember Mearls in particular saying things in a way that could be misconstrued. I think saying that they mislead, that it was corporate drivel and platitudes is insulting to people who did the best they could with what they had.

People seem to forget that 5E was a Hail Mary that was just supposed to keep the IP alive long enough for them to launch some movies. The fact that it's as successful as it is means we should be giving kudos to the devs for being flexible enough to make a game that worked, not insulting them for implementing some pie in the sky ideal.
I don't know if I believe this. Nobody drops a hail Mary to carry them through a decade while waiting for a movie to launch. WOTC put a ton of work into 5E. They spent a lot of time soliciting feedback from players. From the starting point it seemed that they needed this 1E fighter, next to a 3E cleric, next to a 4E wizard idea that was never going to work. Through surveys and playtesting they found the sweet spot and were able to drop the modular stuff and just make a causal game thats been successful for a lot of folks. The bet that they could drop the most difficult items and playstyles and get away with it paid off.
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
Remember when they said the game would be modular, and then people gaslit everyone that looked forward to that for years?
I remember.

And it's basically what I've been saying. 5e borrows SO MUCH from 4e that a rather faithful adaptation or new class conversion of the 4e classes and archetypes could be created with relative ease and a bit of time.

It's just that at some point early, it was decided not to be done anymore. And it was not explicitly said openly until recently.

That's why I keep saying that at publication 5e was a mix of 3.5 and 4.5 with a TSR paintjob.
 

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top