Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 8635892" data-attributes="member: 7023840">Just because some people say that, doesn't mean that is:(1) the actual reason that they don't want to change (a lot of people don't examine their own thoughts too deeply; cf. Socrates); and(2) the reason it isn't being changed.If you are going to propose a new system of ability scores, it is not enough that it be just better than the current system if you were starting from scratch. In other words, the six ability scores that exist already have a lot of things going for them- they have the buy-in of generations of players, they have interdependencies that exist from OD&amp;D through 5e (from items to classes to memes to spells), and they have a recognition factor built-in.All of that means is that the cost of switching from those core six is very, very high at this point. So any proposal would have to be worth it.People who don't like damage on a miss almost always cite &quot;verisimilitude&quot; or similar reasons. That's not the same thing.Fallacy, not policy. But you actual example isn't a sunk cost fallacy, necessarily. In fact, a lot of time invested learning something that you want to continue to use (especially with a TTRPG) makes a lot of sense.This is why some groups are resistant to taking the time to learn new and complex games. Will the benefit (long-term enjoyment of the new system) be worth the cost (the time invested in learning the system and ramping-up to system mastery).I mean, that's not true.Real grognards know that THAC0 can never beat a TABLE!!!!!!!!!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Snarf Zagyg, post: 8635892, member: 7023840"] Just because some people say that, doesn't mean that is: (1) the actual reason that they don't want to change (a lot of people don't examine their own thoughts too deeply; cf. Socrates); and (2) the reason it isn't being changed. If you are going to propose a new system of ability scores, it is not enough that it be just better than the current system [I]if you were starting from scratch. [/I]In other words, the six ability scores that exist already have a lot of things going for them- they have the buy-in of generations of players, they have interdependencies that exist from OD&D through 5e (from items to classes to memes to spells), and they have a recognition factor built-in. All of that means is that the [I]cost of switching [/I]from those core six is very, very high at this point. So any proposal would have to be worth it. People who don't like damage on a miss almost always cite "verisimilitude" or similar reasons. That's not the same thing. Fallacy, not policy. But you actual example isn't a sunk cost fallacy, necessarily. In fact, a lot of time invested learning something that you want to continue to use (especially with a TTRPG) makes a lot of sense. This is why some groups are resistant to taking the time to learn new and complex games. Will the benefit (long-term enjoyment of the new system) be worth the cost (the time invested in learning the system and ramping-up to system mastery). I mean, that's not true. Real grognards know that THAC0 can never beat a TABLE!!!!!!!!! [/QUOTE]

Verification