Tuesday, June 25, 2019

The Determined Dullard

I'd like to take a moment and explain my present stance on 5th edition, calmly.

I've drawn a line.  I'm no longer interested in debating whether or not 5e has merits or content that is worth looking at.  It doesn't.  After nearly 40 years of playing and designing the game, anything "good" that 5e has to offer can be dismissed as not worth bothering about.  An auditorium of people interested in seeing Nickleback in concert may have one or two people with intelligence, but it isn't worth sorting through all the dreck to find them.  Think of it like a gold mine that isn't worth mining ... not because there isn't any gold in it, but because the process of eeking out that gold from a mountain's worth of dross would bankrupt us.

I enjoy a good discussion on virtually any subject, so long as there are factors involved that need further consideration and examination.  But with any subject there comes a point where the examination of the material fails to dredge up any new information or perspective, and further reaches an impasse where more talking and discussion won't change the individual's mind ... for reasons having nothing to do with the argument.

To be perfectly clear, I'm am not saying that we should, at that point, "agree to disagree."  This is one of the most toxic phrases ever invented by humans, because it presupposes that both sides of an argument have equal merit.  They don't.  One person is wrong, or both people are wrong; but there is no possible instance in reality where both people are "right."

We embrace the argument that persons in conflict can both be right because that sentiment makes it possible to work together towards common goals, while mitigating the likelihood of spontaneous violence between stubborn, mule-headed sociopaths.  Of course, spreading a doctrine that "When encountering someone who believes something with such vehemence that they're prepared to scream in my face, I should retreat from the situation and calmly self-inspect my position to see if it has flaws, because plainly there is a perspective that I don't understand," would also work, but it doesn't fit into three meter-friendly words.

My opinion about 5e results from that self-inspection.  I've read the books.  I've compared the books to other games, to other versions of D&D, to the way the English language works and to much material I've read about game theory and game design.  I've played 5e, I've watched others play 5e, I've watched live stream games of 5e and I've seen the way that 5e has affected game store play.  I have read company policy about 5e and I've read interviews about the designers talking about 5e.  And I've read hundreds of threads online in which people defend 5e.

5e is garbage.  Any rational, informed, game experienced person, that being someone who has played multiple RPGs and other non-RPG games, can see almost immediately that it is garbage, without further investigation.  But the kicker to that is, and this is the really important part, further investigation will not reveal that 5e is something other than garbage.

Before I'm going to believe in a thing, I need evidence of that thing.

If you believe that 5e is inherently, on its merits, better than other role-playing games, then you are wrong.  There's nothing to be debated.  Not because I can't explain why you're wrong, or argue the point ~ but rather, because I have argued the point.  And so have thousands of others.  And so, as things stand, further argument is wasted ... because you, the defender, are incapable of the self-inspection necessary to see why you're wrong.

Please address that shortcoming.

[but not here]

10 comments:

  1. Oh, you do give me a chuckle.
    : )

    This is such sound logic, and I really wish I could take such a determined stance on the subject. I don't know why I continue to engage in the topic of 5E...some optimistic thought of convincing the dullard of the error of their ways or something. It's a pointless exercise...and *I'm* the asshole for continuing to harp on it.

    The whole thing (5E, arguing it) reminds me somewhat of a comment I heard once regarding the Vietnam War. Man, I wish I could remember where I heard it...HBO's bio series on Jane Fonda maybe? Regardless, I wish I could remember the source to get the exact quote but it was something like: "I finally realized that you can't argue the injustice of the [Vietnam] War with someone who's lost a loved one over there." How could anyone expect to wrap their head around the idea that there's no justification of the sacrifice made, of the tragedy their family has suffered? The implication is too horrible.

    Now clearly I'm not equating the publication of an RPG with an unjust war and the consequences of such an event. But similarly, there appears to be an emotional investment in supporting the game system, even in the face of (what I'd consider) clear and logical criticism. And because of that emotional investment, there's no rational argument that will sway the opinion.

    Jeez...and now I feel like I've written these exact same paragraphs (or something much like them) sometime in the past along with an oath or promise to keep my nose out of it all. Ugh...probably written it multiple times. Ah, well...guess I'll just have to try harder.

    Your post *did* make me chuckle, though.
    : )

    ReplyDelete
  2. Testify.
    Popularity acts like a sickness of the mind, impairing critical and rational thought.
    I look forward to 5e never darkening your door again.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Of course, it would be tedious to write "X is garbage, my assessment of X as relating to Y and in accordance with my admittedly subjective set of Z values". I think when you say "X is garbage" though, many who read and think of X also assume that their Z values are the same as yours, or that you think your values are the same as theirs. Hence, the incessant argument usually isn't over new information, or new angles of discussion, but simply because it doesn't compute to people that it's the undisclosed Z values that are messing with the equation.

    And that's what you invite, I think, by expressing your opinions as "X is garbage" as opposed to "I don't like X" - the former sounds like an objective statement, which presumes that everyone in the argument has a fixed, objective set of values relating to the matter. The latter opinion hints at the existence of subjective values in the formation of the opinion, and invites people to "agree to disagree" because both sides realize their subjective values automatically make them wrong in the eyes of the other rational actor.

    It's there where I disagree with your assessment of "agree to disagree". That statement is used not because it implies that both people are right, that somehow the flow of logic from objective facts can lead to an internal contradiction, but rather because it admits the inherent subjective nature of human judgement which causes an attempt at objective argument to be invalid. You might be able to argue that 5e is objectively wrong from your fixed set of values, but I'm not sure you can when taking into consideration every other set of values, such as the desire for a casual game, the desire for elements of nostalgia. These ideas may be anathema to you but that is still just your subjective relation to them, your own preferences. Just don't put all the blame on other people and defend it as their objective wrongness when in reality the disagreement is entirely down to subjectivity.

    (Caveat: I'm sure a lot of the people who have argued with you believe their own assessment of 5e being good to also be "objectively right". There I can definitely understand the frustration of batting off their opinions. Just don't join the camp of "objective opinions" I'd say, it's an endless and unwinnable war without self delusion.)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Cryoshakespeare (or just "Shakespeare," since cryo is an adjective),

    Whatever position I might take on 5e, I can be sure the resistance will be visceral, subjective and persoally defensive. And that is the point. Lovers of 5e won't, or can't, argue the game on its merits ~ why this version and not that version ~ without reaching for their emotional investment.

    I'm "objectively" done with that.

    ReplyDelete
  5. What is, in your estimation, the best single account of 5e's shortcomings that exists on the internet (since such shortcomings will no longer be addressed here)?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Well, this blog, OBVIOUSLY.

    Jojiro, you might just as well ask me what is the best single account of racism being a bad idea.

    But ... if I were forced to give you a straight answer, the very best single account of 5e's shortcomings that exists on the internet can be found at this link:

    http://orc-news.ru/dnd5eng.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  7. This is the part where we throw our heads back in laughter . . .

    ReplyDelete
  8. Ok, but my friends and I still have fun with it and look forward to the Sundays we play together.

    ReplyDelete

If you wish to leave a comment on this blog, contact alexiss1@telus.net with a direct message. Comments, agreed upon by reader and author, are published every Saturday.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.