Unearthed Arcana Why UA Psionics are never going to work in 5e.

[Maxperson]

First you totally ignore what I’ve said about it being much more than not using it myself, then you grossly exaggerate the difficulties you would face yourself (“hundreds”, max? Really?). And then you accuse ME of false equivalence.

Edit: Never mind. It's not worth it.

 

[Aldarc]

I challenge you to demonstrate that it's false equivalence.

My belief is that "Just leave out the parts you don't like" is basically symmetric with "Just incorporate unofficial content that's missing". Both are easy, and both come with problems. So neither inclusion nor exclusion has the moral high ground.

These are two separate arguments (i.e., #1 use of 3pp and #2 adoption of official content), but these are not equivalent or "symmetric" positions. This is comparing apples to oranges.

Sure. But does that actually make it inclusive/exclusive? Note that "appealing" is not the same as "inclusive". Blades in the Dark is not very amenable to running large-scale tactical miniature battles. Does that mean the publishers are excluding me?

How are you not embarrassed by making this sort of half-baked argument? This is yet another false equivalence. Blades in the Dark is a particular TTRPG with a particular catered experience and aesthetic. It's not trying to be a different type of game. We are only talking about the sort of game within D&D, particularly as it relates to 5e's ability to support the inclusion of past popular character types and stories of prior editions.

Sorry but leaning on "inclusivity" as an argument just strikes me as an attempt to turn a question of preferences into one about morality.

And this strikes me as your attempt to weasel out of the issue of your attempt to gatekeep.

 

[Guest 6801328]

These are two separate arguments (i.e., #1 use of 3pp and #2 adoption of official content), but these are not equivalent or "symmetric" positions. This is comparing apples to oranges.

Perfectly symmetric. In either case you either settle for a game that doesn't perfectly suit your preferences, or you jump through a few hoops to make it so. If you don't understand something as simple as that, I'll have to take a pass at explaining it further.

How are you not embarrassed by making this sort of half-baked argument? This is yet another false equivalence. Blades in the Dark is a particular TTRPG with a particular catered experience and aesthetic. It's not trying to be a different type of game. We are only talking about the sort of game within D&D, particularly as it relates to 5e's ability to support the inclusion of past popular character types and stories of prior editions.

How are you not embarrassed at impugning my motives and character upthread?

But perhaps I am as blind to the hollowness of my own arguments as you are to yours.

It does occur to me, to give you a hefty slice of benefit of the doubt, that we just see the game differently.

I didn't play D&D for many years, and skipped 3e and 4e. It seems to have gone gonzo high-fantasy in the interim, with a huge explosion in character options, and it It became the "kitchen sink" game, discussed elsewhere, that I really don't like. The more concepts it includes under one big tent the less I like it. There's already a TON of official content that I really don't like, and, yes, it lessens my experience in practice. To the extent possible I hope they stop adding more household appliances to the mix.

I have a strong preference for games which are narrowly focused, both in terms of genre and character options. I won't bother going into (and thus starting an argument about) the reasons why, but that's my preference. I've played a wide array of games, with a huge range in character options, and I tend to enjoy the ones that have fewer character options that reinforce a specific flavor and setting.

Perhaps you see the kitchen-sink approach as intrinsic to the game, even the defining characteristic of D&D. Perhaps you can't see any downside to making it broader and more generic. Perhaps if somebody showed up at the table with a Jedi knight, complete with (mechanically balanced) light saber and pet droid, warped in through some kind of temporal rift, your reaction would be to think that's just freakin' awesome. (Spoiler alert: that would not be my reaction.).

Is that accurate? If so, it might explain why you are unable to comprehend my position.

And this strikes me as your attempt to weasel out of the issue of your attempt to gatekeep.

This suggests you have no idea what the term 'gatekeeping' refers to, and/or you assume greatly exaggerated powers on my part to influence WotC.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

When your posts give up on actually mentioning anything having to do with a discussion and instead turns to picking apart vebiage and veracity of what others are posting, then perhaps its time to get back on track or move on to greener pastures?

 

[Aldarc]

Perfectly symmetric.

Perfectly false equivalence.

How are you not embarrassed at impugning my motives and character upthread?

Because it is the honest impression I get about you based upon past debates we've had.

Perhaps you see the kitchen-sink approach as intrinsic to the game, even the defining characteristic of D&D.

I do, and more importantly for this debate, I see this psion as a significant enough part of D&D - its history, its stories, its characters - to warrant its inclusion in 5e.

Perhaps if somebody showed up at the table with a Jedi knight, complete with (mechanically balanced) light saber and pet droid, warped in through some kind of temporal rift, your reaction would be to think that's just freakin' awesome. (Spoiler alert: that would not be my reaction.).

And perhaps you can stop making crap arguments like this that tries to depict the inclusion of a prior player class as equivalent to the inclusion of a Jedi knight?

Is that accurate? If so, it might explain why you are unable to comprehend my position.

I comprehend your position fine, but I still think it's a crap position that doesn't hold much water. Just because you have a position, doesn't mean it's somehow an intrinsically good one or one worth preserving.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

I have a strong preference for games which are narrowly focused, both in terms of genre and character options. I won't bother going into (and thus starting an argument about) the reasons why, but that's my preference. I've played a wide array of games, with a huge range in character options, and I tend to enjoy the ones that have fewer character options that reinforce a specific flavor and setting.

Out of curiosity...what book(s) (or 3rd party add-ons) does your group use for your current 5e D&D campaign?

Similar question, when you played in the 2e era what books did your group use?

 

[Guest 6801328]

Out of curiosity...what book(s) (or 3rd party add-ons) does your group use for your current 5e D&D campaign?

Not much. One person played (in a previous campaign) a Blood Hunter. (Is that Critical Role?) There are two players who love to use optional races from SCAG. Not exactly "3rd party", though.

None of that would be my preference, but it's either that or find a new table.

Similar question, when you played in the 2e era what books did your group use?

I didn't play much 2e, mostly AD&D, and to be honest I don't really remember the differences between them. We didn't use a single supplemental book (were there any?). The only additional content is that we pretty much treated Dragon magazine as fair game, so we had half-ogres, cavaliers, etc. (We were also powergaming teenagers.)

 

[Guest 6801328]

I comprehend your position fine, but I still think it's a crap position that doesn't hold much water.

No, actually, you pretty clearly don't. Your inability to understand very simple analogies leaves me both at a loss for how to explain it, and a steadily decreasing desire to try.

Good day.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Not counting individual adventures or accessories....

1st Edition had 14 books
2nd Edition had 70+ books
3rd Edition had 50+ books
4th Edition had 45+ books
5th Edition has 23+ books

*Data taken from hastily counting things in the Wikipedia entry for List of Dungeons and Dragons Rulebooks.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Not much. One person played (in a previous campaign) a Blood Hunter. (Is that Critical Role?) There are two players who love to use optional races from SCAG. Not exactly "3rd party", though.

None of that would be my preference, but it's either that or find a new table.

I'm not familiar with a Blood Hunter but it's certainly not from an "official" book.

Before thinking about it I would have put your group in the extreme minority (Using the main books only) however with more thought I suspect there are a LOT of new groups and on-and-off groups that also do the same.

My next question for you is....do some of the players WANT to use the additional content you aren't using (like Xanathar's) and get outvoted or do the players just not have an interest in buying/reading/adding additional content?