A good forum to discuss 5E

[lokiare]

There are more important things than enjoyment. Like getting to the truth or having a consensus on a subject.

Discussing things and finding new knowledge should be a goal that overrides 'enjoyment'. You can find enjoyment all over the internet (Don't search for any terms that amount to affection for animals, you won't like the result...or maybe you will). Forums are for discussing things, and while people derive enjoyment from discussing things sometimes, that's not the primary purpose of forums, which is again, to discuss things.

If you are unable to discuss things in a forum because it might impinge on someone elses enjoyment, then the forum is not fulfilling its primary purpose, to discuss things, and therefore is worthless and useless.

[Terquem]

lokiare wrote:

My opinion is that... There are more important things than enjoyment. Like getting to the truth or having a consensus on a subject.

Discussing things and finding new knowledge should be a goal that overrides 'enjoyment'. You can find enjoyment all over the internet (Don't search for any terms that amount to affection for animals, you won't like the result...or maybe you will). Forums are for discussing things, and while people derive enjoyment from discussing things sometimes, that's not the primary purpose of forums, which is again, to discuss things.

If you are unable to discuss things in a forum because it might impinge on someone elses enjoyment, then the forum is not fulfilling its primary purpose, to discuss things, and therefore is worthless and useless.

There, fixed that for you. Oh, and by the way, as a 50 year old man, married to the same woman for 32 years, with four adult children, I would like to say that it is My opinion that there is nothing more important than enjoyment, and getting to the truth, or having a consensus is not even on my list.

[PatientWolf]

lokiare wrote:

There are more important things than enjoyment. Like getting to the truth or having a consensus on a subject.

Discussing things and finding new knowledge should be a goal that overrides 'enjoyment'. You can find enjoyment all over the internet (Don't search for any terms that amount to affection for animals, you won't like the result...or maybe you will). Forums are for discussing things, and while people derive enjoyment from discussing things sometimes, that's not the primary purpose of forums, which is again, to discuss things.

If you are unable to discuss things in a forum because it might impinge on someone elses enjoyment, then the forum is not fulfilling its primary purpose, to discuss things, and therefore is worthless and useless.

Not when it is related to a freaking game! If we were talking deep moral or philosophical issues sure but we aren't.

[lokiare]

Go look up the definition of 'forum' you won't find the word enjoyment in it anywhere. If your marriage is based on enjoyment it won't last through the hard times. You might seek out enjoyment as a side effect, but marriage is about love and commitment whether there is enjoyment or not.

Thus forums are for discussion, whether there is enjoyment all around or serious talk seeking answers to questions. Because that is their purpose, to discuss things.

This isn't my opinion. Its the definition of s forum. I'd copy and paste it here for clarity, but I'm on my phone.

[Hitdice]

Omigod, I had no idea enjoyment wasn't in the dictionary definition of forum! See, Paizo? See?! The so called most important rule be damned, because the dictionary says so!

Now will someone please provide a forum to discuss 5E, which sucks in every way possible?

[LazarX]

lokiare wrote:

Go look up the definition of 'forum' you won't find the word enjoyment in it anywhere. If your marriage is based on enjoyment it won't last through the hard times. You might seek out enjoyment as a side effect, but marriage is about love and commitment whether there is enjoyment or not.

Thus forums are for discussion, whether there is enjoyment all around or serious talk seeking answers to questions. Because that is their purpose, to discuss things.

This isn't my opinion. Its the definition of s forum. I'd copy and paste it here for clarity, but I'm on my phone.

In order for there to be a discussion there needs to be a common frame of reference. It's really hard to establish anything in common with you when you claim that your personal opinions on game aesthetics and design are objective truth. Fact of the matter is when it comes to gaming, almost everything about the hobby is subjective.

[Sebastian]

If only the people who created this forum had told us what it was about.

Oh wait, they did:

Quote:

What are the messageboard rules?

The most important rule: Don't be a jerk. We want our messageboards to be a fun and friendly place.

Here's where you can find answers to additional FAQs regarding the forums on Paizo and their purpose:

Paizo FAQ

I might've missed the part where they indicated that these forums are intended to be a white hot crucible of burning truth, placing frank discussions and OMG Very Serious Discussions over having fun and friendliness, but given that this a forum dedicated to discussing a system for pretending to fight monsters and take their loot, I kinda suspect that if Paizo has to choose between a friendly and fun forum and one devoted to OMG Very Serious Discussions, they will choose the former over the latter.

[Kryzbyn]

I honestly don't know what there is to discuss. The people that the OP has issue with are WotC employees, and I don't think they're gonna discuss it here.

[lokiare]

Woo nice! Three people dictating my opinion to me.

Being a Jerk is subjective. To some pointing out facts, numbers, and quotes is 'being a jerk' to others liking the color purple is being a jerk.

@HitDice
Nice try. I have never said and will never say that 5E is horrible in every way, or even most ways. However I will maintain that they aren't doing what they said they would. Which is a fact. I will also maintain that for the "balanced tactical options" play style 5E does not deliver. I'll also add that this is the time to complain about it, not 5 months after release.

@LazarX
I'm not claiming my opinion is truth. Every claim I put forward can be tested and proven true or false. That makes it a fact. Are you denying that there are people out there that seek out "balanced tactical options"? If not then what I am posting is actual fact.

@Sebastian
If they want me to leave I'm sure they'll let me know. Until then, I'm going to continue to post facts, numbers, and quotes that show 5E is definitely falling short of its design goals. Like I said before it doesn't matter what they call it or what rules they set up. I could set up rules that you can't eat pie without urinating on it. It doesn't mean pie is meant to be eating with urine. Forums are for discussing things and stifling that discussion in any way makes a forum not worth the server cost its hosted on. I don't personally care if they use words like 'jerk' to describe people that have legitimate concerns with the industry or specific products from their competitors. If they ask me to leave I'll simply go somewhere else where open discussion is allowed and where we might actually further a discussion and solve problems instead of patting each other on the back and telling each other how awesome everything is as the walls and ceiling falls in on us.

@Kryzbyn
I have issues with quite a few people. Some of them are employees of WotC, but mostly they are managers or people that have no business being in certain positions and only managed to get those positions because of the massive lay offs that took place. To me being the last one standing after 90% of the staff is laid off is not a badge to tote around.

Seriously. If you want to talk openly about 5E then lets talk. Their latest article on the Warlock should concern people. All their spells are at maximum level. That means if they have more spells than 2 at any given time they will be more powerful than other casters and extremely unbalanced. You thought it was bad when a Wizard could cast fireball every encounter, now Warlocks can cast fireball nearly every encounter at 10d6 damage. Imagine if they have 5+ spells at max level. They will be the top tier class putting everything to shame. Factual legitimate concern. Not my opinion. You run the math at any level with 3 spell slots at max spell level. Then throw on their ability to cast certain low level spells at-will. You are talking about a monster.

[Hitdice]

Loki, what are your three favorite things about 5E? Please, if you can, list the three things from 5E that you would include in your ideal version of Dungeons and Dragons.

[lokiare]

1. The rare use of the (dis)advantage mechanic that couldn't be traded for something else, and only represents an extreme advantage or disadvantage.

2. The concentration mechanic.

3. Faster combat.

Simple. I can put together a much longer list. However those things are already in 5E so there is no point in discussing them. I'm pointing out the things that are not in 5E or that are in 5E that need to be made optional or taken out. Things like vancian casting and LFQW.

[PatientWolf]

lokiare wrote:

@LazarX
I'm not claiming my opinion is truth. Every claim I put forward can be tested and proven true or false. That makes it a fact. Are you denying that there are people out there that seek out "balanced tactical options"? If not then what I am posting is actual fact.

The very claim that everything you have said is provable fact is itself untrue. Everything you have put forth is your opinion that you keep asserting is fact. That is what is ticking people off.

You are claiming that the WotC lied when they said they would support all play styles. This claim is based on your personal interpretation of their wording which is not shared by most the rest of us. That claim cannot be tested and proven true or false and the rest of your arguments is entirely based upon that claim. Because if they never promised to support tactical play then the advantage/disadvantage system not providing tactical options isn't an issue. Neither are any of the other "issues" you are arguing. They are only a problem if WotC said they were going to completely support tactical play.

Instead of posting a wall of text with all of your assertions and then saying "WotC lied because I can't reenact the battle of the bulge in complete realistic detail with these rules. 5e sucks! They will never make money! These are facts! Waaaaaaahhh!" Pick one topic, e.g. the advantage/disadvantage mechanic (which I happen to like as is btw). State that you personally don't like the mechanic and why and ask for the opinions of others. I think you will get a much better reception.

[thejeff]

And as I said before, if they produce the perfect game that does everything you want will you still attack them for lying about some design goal that you didn't really care about?

Or if they produce a game that meets all their original buzzword claims but that you don't like, would that be better?

Isn't the important thing whether it's a good game that's compatible with your playstyle rather than whether it meets their initial claims?

[LazarX]

lokiare wrote:

@LazarX

I'm not claiming my opinion is truth. Every claim I put forward can be tested and proven true or false. That makes it a fact. Are you denying that there are people out there that seek out "balanced tactical options"? If not then what I am posting is actual fact.

I'm done with responding to you. Like I said, you want flaming hot vitriol for discussion, you'll find plenty of people to accommodate your tastes on 4chan.

[Sebastian]

lokiare wrote:

If they want me to leave I'm sure they'll let me know. Until then, I'm going to continue to post facts, numbers, and quotes that show 5E is definitely falling short of its design goals. Like I said before it doesn't matter what they call it or what rules they set up. I could set up rules that you can't eat pie without urinating on it. It doesn't mean pie is meant to be eating with urine. Forums are for discussing things and stifling that discussion in any way makes a forum not worth the server cost its hosted on. I don't personally care if they use words like 'jerk' to describe people that have legitimate concerns with the industry or specific products from their competitors. If they ask me to leave I'll simply go somewhere else where open discussion is allowed and where we might actually further a discussion and solve problems instead of patting each other on the back and telling each other how awesome everything is as the walls and ceiling falls in on us.

*shrug* Do whatever you want, I'm just pointing out the many ways in which you are wrong on any number of topics. I'm not saying that your poor understanding of what this particular forum is based on your understanding of what a platonic ideal of a forum is might be indicative of a recurring defect in your arguments and reasoning, but it does seem clear to most in this thread that you have a very hard time separating what you like and prefer from objective facts. Similarly, you predicated much of your criticism on the idea that the designers had made a binding commitment to you personally to implement choice quotes selected by you in a manner you prefer. I suppose that objectively that might be true - maybe all of the WotC designers are stalking you and making statements and releasing products specifically to raise your ire. Stranger things have happened.

But, in any event, it is you who is failing the forum, not the other way around. The substantive discussion keeps getting sidetracked by these ridiculous meta-conversations regarding your behavior and style. Given that you arrived here with that meta-conversation pre-packaged for our consumption, it's difficult to believe that your primary interest is in discussing the topic of 5e rather than putting on a show to prove how smart and persecuted you are.

Either way, good luck with all that.

[Chris Lambertz]

Locking. Personal attacks, edition warring and discussion of other community happenings are not OK here.