Dude, why does he have to make a game theory argument?? He is simply explaining what he enjoys about the game, and your telling him well if you can't explain the theory behind why you like it, then your point doesn't matter. Basically making his point for him. This is admittedly a person who is not into D&D, picked up the game, and is simply trying to explain why HE likes it. Guess what, maybe he just doesn't give a sH&t about D&D 5e, and just wants to play a game that is fun with him? I think that is the point a lot of you are missing in this whole big, page after page argument. There is going to be 100s of thousands of players that buy this game that don't give a shit about the theory of 5e.
Because making an argument about why a change to a system is good while openly admitting you don't know anything about the system is ridiculous. He outright says a point is wrong, but then immediately follows that up by saying he doesn't really know what the point is. He has no idea what is a good or bad design decision here, like he's outright arguing that advantage isn't that big a deal. It's not fair on anyone else to get into an argument like that without putting in even a tiny bit of effort to understand the topic. It's not like I didn't try to explain points to him.
100s of thousands of players won't ever get halfway through the game, building a game entirely around the casual audience is never a good idea. Should they just not bother including a good ending because only like 10% of people will even see it, and even less will be able to articulate why they have issues with it?
If you've got nothing constructive to add to a discussion, just don't comment.
