WotC WotC needs an Elon Musk

[Clint_L]

Well, to be fair "D&D needs a sociopathic fascist manbaby" - "no it obviously doesn't" is a fairly short conversation. So it is not surprising the thread drifted a bit.

If only I had more "likes" to give!

 

[Henadic Theologian]

And yet, RL did get rid of the core and SJ did get rid of the phlogiston and crystal spheres. Every time these things come up, people try to use "but you could be wrong" to deflect, despite their not being in fact wrong.


The fact is that they ditched the phlogiston and crystal spheres. Whether that is enough to make it "Spelljammer in name only" is a matter of opinion, and in my opinion (and the opinion of whoever said it upthread) it is. It's OK if your opinion is different; opinions can be wrong, but they are not automatically wrong just because they are different from yours.


Well, to be fair "D&D needs a sociopathic fascist manbaby" - "no it obviously doesn't" is a fairly short conversation. So it is not surprising the thread drifted a bit.


Exactly, and people did play with the classic settings back in the 90s, so any argument based on their being unplayable is self-defeating.

They didn't entirely get rid of Crystal Spheres in SJ, Doomspace had a Crystal Sphere that shattered for example, and nothing in SJ actually contradicts E: RftLW saying Eberron has one (it's too important to integrating Eberron into the multiverse).

So Crystal Sphere's are in a weird space because they do get mentioned, but get no real explanation and are other wise ignored in SJ, Crystal Spheres being another example of SJ dropping the ball on key lore, like toss them or keep them or a mix of the two depending on Wildspace system, but at least explain it and make it clear.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Exactly, and people did play with the classic settings back in the 90s, so any argument based on their being unplayable is self-defeating.

I never said that settings from older editions were unplayable. @Micah Sweet was setting up a false dichotomy of Setting Consistency versus Playability. My post was debunking that and saying, if there is a dichotomy, playability is objectively more important because D&D is a game that needs to be playable.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I never said that settings from older editions were unplayable. @Micah Sweet was setting up a false dichotomy of Setting Consistency versus Playability. My post was debunking that and saying, if there is a dichotomy, playability is objectively more important because D&D is a game that needs to be playable.

No, I said I valued one over the other, not that only one mattered.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

No, I said I valued one over the other, not that only one mattered.

But you were putting them in conflict with each other. No one else was doing that.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But you were putting them in conflict with each other. No one else was doing that.

I can see that point of view, but from my perspective I was just stating my preference for setting over playability. Playability is certainly still important, but IMO setting comes first.

 

[glass]

I never said that settings from older editions were unplayable.

Not in so many words. But it is implicit in the whole line of argument that faithful adaptation = unplayability.

@Micah Sweet was setting up a false dichotomy of Setting Consistency versus Playability. My post was debunking that and saying, if there is a dichotomy, playability is objectively more important because D&D is a game that needs to be playable.

Of course it needs to be playable. But since it definitionaly already is, how much you value marginal increases in it compared with how you value other things (like setting consistancy) is a sliding scale or personal preferences, not a dichotomy and definitely not a matter you can be "objectively wrong" about.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I can see that point of view, but from my perspective I was just stating my preference for setting over playability. Playability is certainly still important, but IMO setting comes first.

You're still putting them in conflict. No one else did that. There is no reason to. You can have both. You're acting like there's a dichotomy here. There isn't. And even if there was, your opinion on the matter is objectively wrong for reasons I detailed earlier. "It's my opinion" isn't a defense of a wrong understanding of a false premise.

Not in so many words. But it is implicit in the whole line of argument that faithful adaptation = unplayability. Of course it needs to be playable. But since it definitionaly already is, how much you value marginal increases in it compared with how you value other things (like setting consistancy) is a sliding scale or personal preferences, not a dichotomy and definitely not a matter you can be "objectively wrong" about.

Which I didn't start. I don't think the dichotomy exists. I was just debunking @Micah Sweet's post while engaging in the assumptions of their post. If you want to be mad at someone for acting like that dichotomy exists, be mad at Micah.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You're still putting them in conflict. No one else did that. There is no reason to. You can have both. You're acting like there's a dichotomy here. There isn't. And even if there was, your opinion on the matter is objectively wrong for reasons I detailed earlier. "It's my opinion" isn't a defense of a wrong understanding of a false premise.

Which I didn't start. I don't think the dichotomy exists. I was just debunking @Micah Sweet's post while engaging in the assumptions of their post. If you want to be mad at someone for acting like that dichotomy exists, be mad at Micah.

How is there no dichotomy? You claimed you preferred the World Axis to the Great Wheel because, among other things, the World Axis was more playable. I countered by saying that even if that's true, I preferred setting fidelity (in this case sticking to the Great Wheel), over the possibility that a different cosmology might be more playable.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

How is there no dichotomy? You claimed you preferred the World Axis to the Great Wheel because, among other things, the World Axis was more playable.

No, I said that the World Axis is a better cosmology for D&D because it was designed for adventure.

I countered by saying that even if that's true, I preferred setting fidelity (in this case sticking to the Great Wheel), over the possibility that a different cosmology might be more playable.

That doesn't counter anything I said. Whether or not you like a cosmology has nothing to do with if it's good for the game. My favorite cosmology is Eberron's, but I fully recognize that it would be a bad fit as the core cosmology of D&D and that the World Axis is better for adventures.