[5E] Is Mearls planning to snow Hasbro and the fanbase?

[DSMatticus]

wow

No, that shit's true. Being a person only gives you the potential to be worth something. There are plenty of people that have negative worth, if you replaced them with actual nothing, the sum total of things that are of worth would be increased.

I disagree with this in the strongest manner possible.

Then either your metric of value is morally abhorrent, or you think there exist no individuals whose net contributions to the world are negative. Here is a list of serial killers, in descending order of people they murdered. Please explain to me what good they've contributed that makes up for and exceeds the lives they've destroyed. Then there's Hitler, Pol Pot, and so on, and those pretty much speak for themself. And then we get into the mundane modern evils, like Rupert Murdoch and the Koch brothers and that bullshit, whose legacies are massive propaganda machines that throw money and positive media attention at any ideology that furthers the interests of the few they like at the expense of the many they don't, and while they have probably never murdered anyone directly their actions have indirectly cost millions of people their very livelihoods and have cost us as a people a frightening amount of progress in every way imaginable.

You are claiming that these people all have positive value, and the world is better because of them. You are wrong. Please do not fap to bullshit like "the inherent value of human life", because that there are people who are not valuable, inherently or otherwise, is as immediately obvious as the statement "terrible people exist." Your refusal to acknowledge that is not a noble statement about human dignity or what the fuck ever - it is just stupid and offensive. The number of people you owe an apology to is measured in the billions.

Now, I don't think shadzar is worthless, because extrapolating from "says things that are dumb about D&D" to "net contribution to the world is negative," would be placing a hilariously inappropriate value on TTRPG's. I think he's worthless in a discussion about D&D because I disagree vehemently with nigh everything he says, but otherwise he's just a dude.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Can we get back to whining about Mike Mearl ruining D&D forever, please? Take that Care Bears shit to another thread if you must talk about it.

[shadzar]

there isnt much to talk about. we all know MEarls is a fuck up and couldnt design his way out of a paper bag. we all agree, so what is to discuss? a thread ful of people posting "+1"?

[Drolyt]

You are claiming that these people all have positive value, and the world is better because of them.

Who the fuck said that? You are making so many unstated assumptions that it would take hours of cross examination just to unpack them and figure out what your actual position is. Ranting on the Internet is not an adequate way to defend a moral theory.

[Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp]

I wonder to myself what it would take for Mearls to get replaced. I guess from Hasbro's poin of view, it's not Mearls's fault, it's he former management and he inherited a bad product and shaped it up as best he could. Obviously he has plead to Hasbro what he has to us that this edition will be better and unite the fanbase. So it seems that the executives don't really play D&D and have not investigated for themselves the worth of Mearls. Unfortunately I think that all but means that D&D wil crash and burn an only after that point will Hasbro step in. But what I don't like either is that Wotc should itself have capable management who should have outed Mearls a long time ago.

[Username17]

You are claiming that these people all have positive value, and the world is better because of them.

Who the fuck said that? You are making so many unstated assumptions that it would take hours of cross examination just to unpack them and figure out what your actual position is. Ranting on the Internet is not an adequate way to defend a moral theory.

Well... you did say you categorically rejected the idea of any people having negative worth. It's reasonable to infer that you believe that all people have positive worth. I mean, it's not logically impossible from your statement that you believe that some people have precisely zero (yet still non-negative) value, such that the world is completely indifferent to whether they exist or continue to exist, but that is an infinitely narrow edge case.

It is however the only possible disjunction between the two positions you have rejected. Which I remind you are:

• There are plenty of people that have negative worth, if you replaced them with actual nothing, the sum total of things that are of worth would be increased.
• these people all have positive value, and the world is better because of them.

Now, I suppose that you could be a nihilist who literally believes that all people have precisely zero value and that the world is neither better nor worse because of their existence or lack thereof in all cases. But if that's your actually position, it's hard to imagine that you disagree in the "strongest manner possible" with either of the above propositions that you have angrily rejected.

I normally wouldn't even get involved, because armchair misanthropy is as boring as it is common on the internet. But now that you've rejected both the proposition A and -A, I'm intrigued simply as a matter of logic.

-Username17

[Drolyt]

You are claiming that these people all have positive value, and the world is better because of them.

Who the fuck said that? You are making so many unstated assumptions that it would take hours of cross examination just to unpack them and figure out what your actual position is. Ranting on the Internet is not an adequate way to defend a moral theory.

Well... you did say you categorically rejected the idea of any people having negative worth. It's reasonable to infer that you believe that all people have positive worth. I mean, it's not logically impossible from your statement that you believe that some people have precisely zero (yet still non-negative) value, such that the world is completely indifferent to whether they exist or continue to exist, but that is an infinitely narrow edge case.

It is however the only possible disjunction between the two positions you have rejected. Which I remind you are:

• There are plenty of people that have negative worth, if you replaced them with actual nothing, the sum total of things that are of worth would be increased.
• these people all have positive value, and the world is better because of them.

Now, I suppose that you could be a nihilist who literally believes that all people have precisely zero value and that the world is neither better nor worse because of their existence or lack thereof in all cases. But if that's your actually position, it's hard to imagine that you disagree in the "strongest manner possible" with either of the above propositions that you have angrily rejected.

I normally wouldn't even get involved, because armchair misanthropy is as boring as it is common on the internet. But now that you've rejected both the proposition A and -A, I'm intrigued simply as a matter of logic.

-Username17

Sorry, I'm being sloppy. When I said:

Who the fuck said that?

I was responding to the whole claim, but my problem is only really with the second part (bold for emphasis):

You are claiming that these people all have positive value, and the world is better because of them.

DSMatticus is relying on unstated assumptions about how value is measured. My response wasn't technically wrong (I rejected the compound statement, not the individual statements) but it was really sloppy and misleading.

[Omegonthesane]

You are claiming that these people all have positive value, and the world is better because of them.

Who the fuck said that? You are making so many unstated assumptions that it would take hours of cross examination just to unpack them and figure out what your actual position is. Ranting on the Internet is not an adequate way to defend a moral theory.

wow

No, that shit's true. Being a person only gives you the potential to be worth something. There are plenty of people that have negative worth, if you replaced them with actual nothing, the sum total of things that are of worth would be increased.

I disagree with this in the strongest manner possible.

Bolding mine.

There. There is where you said it. Given the context of that quote, it can only be parsed as "I disagree absolutely with the statement that people can have zero or negative value" - this being the meaning of "the strongest manner possible".

Either you believe even the most vile and despicable human life has positive value - a prerequisite of believing every single person has value - or you do not, and therefore do not believe that literally every single person has value, and therefore your disagreement is not in the strongest manner possible.

[Drolyt]

You are claiming that these people all have positive value, and the world is better because of them.

Who the fuck said that? You are making so many unstated assumptions that it would take hours of cross examination just to unpack them and figure out what your actual position is. Ranting on the Internet is not an adequate way to defend a moral theory.

No, that shit's true. Being a person only gives you the potential to be worth something. There are plenty of people that have negative worth, if you replaced them with actual nothing, the sum total of things that are of worth would be increased.

I disagree with this in the strongest manner possible.

Bolding mine.

There. There is where you said it. Given the context of that quote, it can only be parsed as "I disagree absolutely with the statement that people can have zero or negative value" - this being the meaning of "the strongest manner possible".

Either you believe even the most vile and despicable human life has positive value - a prerequisite of believing every single person has value - or you do not, and therefore do not believe that literally every single person has value, and therefore your disagreement is not in the strongest manner possible.

I don't see your point? None of that is contradictory. Someone does not have to make the world a better place for them to have positive value, that is just an assumption DSMatticus made. Until he bothers to explain how he is defining value and what the moral consequences of a person's value are his entire rant is essentially meaningless.

[Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp]

Can you all seriously go play someone on the Internet is wrong somewhere else please?

[...You Lost Me]

Inb4 shitstorm and the revelation that, once again, Drolyt doesn't consider his arguments before he posts them.

[Drolyt]

Inb4 shitstorm and the revelation that, once again, Drolyt doesn't consider his arguments before he posts them.

Do you actually have opinions or do you just like to act high and mighty while pretending to know what the hell you are talking about? There is nothing wrong with reasonable debate, if it makes you that uncomfortable to have your beliefs challenged you might want to see a therapist.

[hogarth]

I mean... Seeing pathfinder selling more than D&D has to have rang someone's bell somewhere.

The fact that Pathfinder sells more than D&D in quarters where D&D doesn't sell anything new is not terribly surprising.

I wonder to myself what it would take for Mearls to get replaced. I guess from Hasbro's poin of view, it's not Mearls's fault, it's he former management and he inherited a bad product and shaped it up as best he could.

I sympathize with Mr. Mearls in the sense that he was given a thankless task: write a version of D&D that will (a) expand their customer base (even though the tabletop RPG market has been declining for years) and (b) come up with a business model that doesn't involve immediately diminishing returns after sales of the core rulebook have peaked.

[ishy]

(even though the tabletop RPG market has been declining for years)

Is this just you guessing / anecdotal evidence?
Because I've never seen any numbers just how big / small the market is.

And even then still see plenty of people sticking with 3.0 or 3.5 over pathfinder even. So if 5e would actually be any good, it shouldn't be hard to do better than 4e?

[Drolyt]

New thread for the moral philosophy derail.

[Midnight_v]

I mean... Seeing pathfinder selling more than D&D has to have rang someone's bell somewhere.

The fact that Pathfinder sells more than D&D in quarters where D&D doesn't sell anything new is not terribly surprising.

I wonder to myself what it would take for Mearls to get replaced. I guess from Hasbro's poin of view, it's not Mearls's fault, it's he former management and he inherited a bad product and shaped it up as best he could.

I sympathize with Mr. Mearls in the sense that he was given a thankless task: write a version of D&D that will (a) expand their customer base (even though the tabletop RPG market has been declining for years) and (b) come up with a business model that doesn't involve immediately diminishing returns after sales of the core rulebook have peaked.

@Hogarth. No, Hog it isn't at all.... should it be?

The point is that D&D isn't making anything new.
Someone mentioned that the execs up top certainly don't play, and haven't looked too closely because not a big enough dent is made by that.
That's the real reason, right there. Ironically, mearls keeps his job because D&D hasn't failed hard enough. The bullshit in that is that he has obviously convinced someone somewhere that his project will manage to get there.
I suppose ultimately the clock is ticking on him, and we'll see.

[hogarth]

The point is that D&D isn't making anything new.

It's clear to me that they started off trying (and failing) to make a version of D&D that would appeal to a larger crowd; that was the whole point of their initial lip service about modularity and trying to appeal to grognards.

The fact that it devolved into a hot mess is neither here nor there.

[Voss]

How is lifting old mechanics and trying/failing to appeal to nostalgia with shit that doesn't work trying something new, though?

The only real way to appeal to grognards is to bring back the old shit they're obsessed with- not creating anything new and innovative.

Really thinking about it, almost all of 5e is an import from one edition or another, and almost everything they released since they gave up on 4e is a reprint of old shit. Even Essentials was more about rehashing crap to make it vaguely functional than doing 'new' stuff.

[shadzar]

How is lifting old mechanics and trying/failing to appeal to nostalgia with shit that doesn't work trying something new, though?

The only real way to appeal to grognards is to bring back the old shit they're obsessed with- not creating anything new and innovative.

Really thinking about it, almost all of 5e is an import from one edition or another, and almost everything they released since they gave up on 4e is a reprint of old shit. Even Essentials was more about rehashing crap to make it vaguely functional than doing 'new' stuff.

the problem is trying to appeal to nostalgia.. see that doesnt work as for those that never left an older edition, there is NO nostalgia, or want to go back, cause they never left.

new =/= innovative

pretty much WotC ignores TSR products completely. they are NEVER going to get old players back with things such as token releases of overpriced LE reprints since the material for ALL old editions is still readily and cheaply available. people don't need the core books reprinted. they need support for the old editions. THAT is how you bring them back into the fold. PF players that were 3.5 were lost long ago and not going to come back. many 3.x player moved back to older edition when they see all the fiddly-bits in 3.x and the ones they are trying to put into DDN.

how many times have i said all these fiddly bits and PC optimization is NOT what older edition were about. the fighter wa the staple entry level character because it had the least fiddly-bits, etc... Feats, Skills, etc is NOT what people that like olde editions want, nor is the "modules" to have to sort through to "build-your-own-D&D-edition".

you are right, they are NOT making progress, and if they want to make something new like they tried and failed with 4th, then they will have to choose a new name, cause as with 4th, D&D doesn't fly being on the cover.

adding those things people didn't like about newer editions to build-your-own-edition is not going to make them want to pay for crap in a book or series of encyclopedias that they do not want from the newer editions. leaving out TSR editions from "Encounters" support will not get people back either.

the saying "evolve or die" comes to mind, and they keep wanting to evolve the game, without evolving their understanding of it, or never understanding it in the first place.

Necromancer was a DM tool, then PCs wanted it.. those poor PCs that had nothing in all the kits and other nonsense from 2nd had to be able to play a necromancer cause without it, they would not be able to have a character.

PrCs a DM tool, but players needed it or else they couldn't play the game.

the current players are the ones ruining D&D and the designers are jsut giving them more as the bean counters tell them to. happened in 2nd, happened in 3rd, happened in 4th, happenings in 5th.

it is time the PLAYERS realize they need to learn to make shit up themselves. let the game go back to a basic framework, stop trying to buy someone else's imagination and figure out how to do things for yourself since their is no graphics engine to drive your use of the controller as you watch the game play out on a 1080p screen.

Mearls just doesnt have the balls like Monte did to quit, cause Mearls is dumb enough to think that the shit he creates and always fails with is what people want. he needs to get laid.

he is a day-care center worker trying to please everyone. the day-care he works at is too busy trying to do anything right and just put smiles on everyone's faces and hide the things they are doing wrong and corners they are cutting.

old-school and new-school just dont work together. new school should have just been made as something else, and it was and evolved into PF...right, wrong, or indifferent.

this gives me an idea to figure out which edition had better designers and writers.....

[TiaC]

he is a day-care center worker trying to please everyone. he needs to get laid.

The way you phrased this sounds like you wand Mearls to be a pedophile.

Also, it sounds like you just want more 2e sourcebooks. However, the reason they're trying for the Grand Unified Edition is that no one segment of their market is big enough. You want them to focus on the smallest and most subdivided segment and you think that is a valid strategy in a company that you acknowledge is focused on profit?! Players like you are going to have to accept that WotC/Hasbro really doesn't care about you. You have something you like and are unlikely to buy anything new.

[Prak]

((thought the Worth of a Human Being thread was a much older, completely unrelated one.))

[DSMatticus]

I think you got the wrong thread. This is in MPSIMS now.

[Previn]

TiaC, shadzar believes that 2e was the pinnacle of D&D. He believes this with the fervent vigor that a fundamentalist believes their religion is the gospel truth and all others are heresy. His posts are incoherent, terribly formatted, and the vast majority of the time nothing but a blight that can be summed up as "2e was the best."

I recommend reading what he says if he says if you've the stomach for it, but to never ever actually try to engage him. It is a losing battle that only pollutes the Den.

[fectin]

Occasionally he gives system-agnostic advice on running games; it's often good.

On 3E+, which is his usual topic, he is talking about his feelings. There is no amount of discussion or logic which can change his feelings, and we've each at one time or another already explored those feelings with him.

[TiaC]

True, but I think every member of the Den needs to get it out of their system at least once. It's a sort of initiation.

I was also curious because there is a difference between someone with a different (insane) point of view that they believe strongly and can rationally argue for and someone who just randomly spews words.

To complete the initiation I will show that I have taken the Den's wisdom to heart and adopted the far more productive debating habits of the senior members, like so.

Shadzar, go suck a barrel of cocks.