I knew Jeremy Crawford didnt know shit when he said melee and ranged combat is completely equivelent.

Quote from: jhkim;1132951Yeah, I'm with this. The overall message of the video is "These spoiled brats today don't know how to have fun properly. They need to play the way that *I* play, then they'd really have fun." Like some old man trying really hard to convince kids that checkers is more fun than their Nintendo.

Incidentally, while "It was all a dream" is usually a bad idea, I do have a great fondness both for the original AD&D Ravenloft module as well as its sequel "Ravenloft II: The House on Gryphon Hill." The latter uses "it was all a dream" to good effect -- in keeping with gothic horror traditions.

I actually get where you two are coming from, but this is the gaming equivalent of getting a participation prize. I'd argue this is far less about people's fun and more about "rewarding" mediocrity.

Also, had no idea who Jeremy Crawford was before this thread. I guess I remain happily unaware of the "D&D hipster crowd".

This seems like it fits into the larger pattern of trying to defang risk from everything, which among other things, destroys the human brain's perception of reward and affects perception of meaning. Jordan Peterson talks about this idea quite a bit in terms of self-improvement. Learning to deal with failure and dare to look foolish or be injured or generally fall on one's face is an important part of humanity, and stripping it out of games runs counter to some of the purpose of games to begin with. If a group chooses it of course I'm not going to claim it's badwrongfun, but better leadership would be to encourage groups to dare and to take individual situations on a case-by-case basis.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-power-prime/201902/you-have-risk-it-the-biscuit-sports-success

QuoteThe dictionary defines risk as a situation in which you expose yourself to danger. Though physical risk is an inevitable part of many sports, the risks I'm talking about are more psychological and emotional in nature. Clearly, risk is essential for success not only in sports, but in every aspect of life, whether winning an Olympic gold medal, starting a tech company, or telling someone, "I love you." If you don't take risks, you won't improve, grow, or achieve your athletic goals. And, importantly, you will never find out what you are truly capable of or how far you can go.

This kind of risk comes when you face a test of your ability, effort, and preparation. You are putting your self-identity, self-esteem, goals, hopes, and dreams on the line. After the competition, you will learn whether you succeed or not at the test. The risk then becomes clear: failure!

Given the risks of taking risks, there are obvious upsides to not taking risks. You stay safe. You never get uncomfortable. And you minimize the risk of failure. Of course, there are far more significant downsides to not taking risks. You will be perpetually stuck where you are. You will never be truly successful. You will feel really frustrated. And you will never be completely satisfied with your efforts.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/freedom-learn/201404/risky-play-why-children-love-it-and-need-it

QuoteResearchers have devised ways to deprive young rats of play, during a critical phase of their development, without depriving them of other social experiences.  Rats raised in this way grow up emotionally crippled.[3, 4]  When placed in a novel environment, they overact with fear and fail to adapt and explore as a normal rat would.  When placed with an unfamiliar peer, they may alternate between freezing in fear and lashing out with inappropriate, ineffective, aggression.  In earlier experiments, similar findings occurred when young monkeys were deprived of play (though the controls in those experiments were not as good as in the subsequent rat experiments).

Such findings have contributed to the emotion regulation theory of play--the theory that one of play's major functions is to teach young mammals how to regulate fear and anger.[4]  In risky play, youngsters dose themselves with manageable quantities of fear and practice keeping their heads and behaving adaptively while experiencing that fear.  They learn that they can manage their fear, overcome it, and come out alive.  In rough and tumble play they may also experience anger, as one player may accidentally hurt another.  But to continue playing, to continue the fun, they must overcome that anger.  If they lash out, the play is over.  Thus, according to the emotion regulation theory, play is, among other things, the way that young mammals learn to control their fear and anger so they can encounter real-life dangers, and interact in close quarters with others, without succumbing to negative emotions.

I tried to watch a video with Jeremy and another fellow talking some D&D once.  I got to hear about his husband 3 times in around 5 minutes.  I do not care to hear about anyone's spouse on a rule discussion for D&D.   Read more about him and decided I dont know how much I cared for anything he had to say about D&D or RPGs.

WotC loser makes loser noises. News at 11.

WTF is wrong with these people?
If you play a card game or board game, you might lose. You learn why you lost and play again.
If you play a co-op boardgame, your whole team might lose. You learn why you lost and play again.

Why is this utterly basic dynamic impossible for the amazing new players WotC brought into the hobby?

I think the problem is

1. The game has evolved to involve much more investment in characters than it did in the old days;
2. The game has not correspondingly evolved to come up with setbacks or loss conditions other than 'character death.' Indeed, the removal of things like energy drain and permanent loss of magic items has arguably pushed it more in the 'death is the only loss' condition.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1133004WotC loser makes loser noises. News at 11.

WTF is wrong with these people?
If you play a card game or board game, you might lose. You learn why you lost and play again.
If you play a co-op boardgame, your whole team might lose. You learn why you lost and play again.

Why is this utterly basic dynamic impossible for the amazing new players WotC brought into the hobby?

Bulldozer parents.

Quote from: insubordinate polyhedral;1132965This seems like it fits into the larger pattern of trying to defang risk from everything, which among other things, destroys the human brain's perception of reward and affects perception of meaning. Jordan Peterson talks about this idea quite a bit in terms of self-improvement. Learning to deal with failure and dare to look foolish or be injured or generally fall on one's face is an important part of humanity, and stripping it out of games runs counter to some of the purpose of games to begin with. If a group chooses it of course I'm not going to claim it's badwrongfun, but better leadership would be to encourage groups to dare and to take individual situations on a case-by-case basis.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-power-prime/201902/you-have-risk-it-the-biscuit-sports-success

So... You're saying that Crawford's RPGs *literally* cause brain damage?!? I've heard similar claims about certain RPGs before, but I found them hard to credit.

Personally, I play my games based on what I find fun, not for self-improvement. If some psychology journal tells me that the games that I don't find fun are better for my brain, I'm more likely to be skeptical of the psychology journal rather than change my game playing habits. Psychology and social sciences deserve a lot of skepticism, given the problems with reproducibility that I've seen. I suppose I could be convinced, but it's a high bar.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1132956Why I'm not surprised to see you in agreement with a rule that removes all consequences from the characters actions?

Speaking of Nintendo, you do know that videogames have lives for the exact same reason? If you expend all your lives (Hit Points) you really die and have to start over, in some games from the very beginning in others from a certain prior save point. Said save point is the equivalent of inheritance rules in RPGs, you die and will your earthly possessions to your brother, sibling, comrade, etc. So your new character doesn't have to start poor.

The expression "Nintendo Hard" rings any bell?

First, I don't play Nintendo or much of any video games. I like high-risk games, but I also like some low-risk games. Regardless of my personal tastes, though, I also don't go lecturing my son about what video games I think he should be playing. It's (a) ineffective, and (b) unsupported.

As for save points -- it seems to me that a save point is pretty much exactly a "do-over". You can't back up an arbitrary amount, but you can back up to a fixed point with no consequences for prior to that.

Quote from: jhkim;1133028So... You're saying that Crawford's RPGs *literally* cause brain damage?!? I've heard similar claims about certain RPGs before, but I found them hard to credit.

Recent double blind randomised trials found that DnD 5e did 1d2 San damage.

You can not argue with Science.

Quote from: jhkim;1133028So... You're saying that Crawford's RPGs *literally* cause brain damage?!? I've heard similar claims about certain RPGs before, but I found them hard to credit.

Personally, I play my games based on what I find fun, not for self-improvement. If some psychology journal tells me that the games that I don't find fun are better for my brain, I'm more likely to be skeptical of the psychology journal rather than change my game playing habits. Psychology and social sciences deserve a lot of skepticism, given the problems with reproducibility that I've seen. I suppose I could be convinced, but it's a high bar.


First, I don't play Nintendo or much of any video games. I like high-risk games, but I also like some low-risk games. Regardless of my personal tastes, though, I also don't go lecturing my son about what video games I think he should be playing. It's (a) ineffective, and (b) unsupported.

As for save points -- it seems to me that a save point is pretty much exactly a "do-over". You can't back up an arbitrary amount, but you can back up to a fixed point with no consequences for prior to that.

Except it's not, you do have a price, a consequence, you were at point f, you died and re-spawn to point c.

Where's the price for the characters in a "It was all a dream" snowflakery?

I think you mentioned it in the video, but I reserve do-overs for things like decisions based on misunderstandings. If the GM fails to adequatley explain a situation or if the players fail to communicate their intent clearly.
If the players and GM understand the situation, even if the players understand they don't have all the info, then let it ride.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1133040I think you mentioned it in the video, but I reserve do-overs for things like decisions based on misunderstandings. If the GM fails to adequatley explain a situation or if the players fail to communicate their intent clearly.
If the players and GM understand the situation, even if the players understand they don't have all the info, then let it ride.

1000% Agreed.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;11330131. The game has evolved to involve much more investment in characters than it did in the old days;

How?

Maybe that could be argued for the earliest days when wargamers were the core OD&D audience, but why would B/X or AD&D players have less investment than 5e players? Speed of chargen doesn't explain it because 5e chargen is the same speed or faster than 3e or 4e.

And unlike almost every other RPG, D&D has Raise Dead...and its gotten cheaper/easier over editions. Even Raise Dead had penalties back in AD&D, it was not unusual for 7th to 10th level characters to have 2-3 deaths under their belts.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1133020Bulldozer parents.

Here's my problem.

• Plenty of people the same age as WotC's new D&D audience also play CCGs, 40k and boardgames.
• There must be an audience crossover with D&D and these games.
• Thus, if they can handle total loss in non-RPGs (even total smackdowns), why shit themselves when it comes to RPGs?
• Seems weird that "playing a character" vs. "playing a game" triggers some mental failure.

Quote from: Chris24601;1132944My honest opinion; isn't this what Hit Points are for?

You fail, you lose some hit points and try again if applicable.

um... no. Very not. Unless your definition of "re-roll or do-over" is "everything on earth"...

HP are the slow wearing down from exertion and any incidental nucks and cuts till the final blow fells you. You dont spent them on re-rolls like inspiration points.

Quote from: jhkim;1133028So... You're saying that Crawford's RPGs *literally* cause brain damage?!? I've heard similar claims about certain RPGs before, but I found them hard to credit.

Wow, I think that's my first-ever jhkim bizarro-world reply! Does this make me an official member now? Not only did I claim no such thing, I even made sure to allow for it possibly being the right thing sometimes. Wow. Also, I was referencing the advantage of RPGs being a place to be risky for fun with very low actual danger/damage potential, i.e. the opposite of causing brain damage.

Quote from: jhkim;1133028Personally, I play my games based on what I find fun,

Cool, so we're in agreement. Because I'm sure as heck not lecturing anyone on how to play, just questioning the quality of the advice on this specific point.