Forum

[Runestar]

Originally Posted by Umbran

I can make such an argument - judges should be biased towards good products.

That sounds flip, but it is not.

That just ends up saying everything yet nothing at all. How should they decide what constitute good products?

It's very possible that the term objective is being read in different ways. Perhaps you could explain your point without the term.

Pretty much the way Meg says it. For example, I too like dnd, even though I know it is chock full of flaws. But it is the game I grew up with, and I doubt I would switch to another game even if it proved to be a more mechanically robust system, like Saga. If I were to compare it with another gaming system, I would likely just keep seeing flaws in the latter and claiming how dnd is superior because of so and so, or try to diss a certain mechanic and claim how it sucks and is inferior to dnd's version.

Would it be fair to the system since it was never meant to emulate dnd in the first place? No. Can I be objective as a result? Unlikely.

I guess I'll never know why you feel Changeling the Lost is bad, why Animalcast is amateur, or why Epic Role Playing is in a worse class from the rest. You only tell me that they are.

She doesn't need to. What suffices is that she does have her own reasons for liking what she does, and that there are bound to be people who disagree with her choices. The crux here is that I doubt even the judges would be exempt themselves. They are going to have their own rationales for making the picks and decisions they do.

So when someone else has a differing opinion, who is right now? If you say that both are right, just for different reasons and rationales, then what is it that makes the judges' opinions hold any more water/weight than the rest of us? They should be correct because they are an authority in this field, not simply because they are in authority.