Scribble said:
While for the most part I agree with you, you can't do that for every single thing in the game that eventually will bug someone. I disagree that it's possible.
Perfection is an impossible dream of extremists, but that doesn't mean that improvement is not possible in most cases.
Scribble said:
Especially when it's things like the aforementioned Katana that are just based on someone's world view, and we disagree completely. How do you come to a perfect match there?
In these cases, you generally allow a choice. The more you enable a true choice (and not a false kind of "Well, you
technically can..." kind of choice), the more robust your game is against this possible failure. It will never be perfect, but it can be more solid.
Scribble said:
And I'm not really sure I'm would even want to game with someone who every time something came up that disagreed with their worldview, and they didn't get their way went to play laser flashlight or whatever in the woods...
It's my opinion that no one should feel OBLIGATED to ENDURE a game of D&D. If the purpose of D&D is enjoyment, and it fails at that purpose for you (for whatever arbitrary reason you think it fails), you shouldn't be playing it (or at least not in that way). It's not unreasonable, if you're not enjoying the game, to go do something else with your time. If the experience isn't enjoyable to me, and I try to point that out, and the response is "Take it or leave it!", then there's really zero incentive for me to take it. Repeated over and over again across multiple tables it becomes a strategy of jamming your fingers in your ears and going "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" rather than actually facing the horrifying prospect that you might have to
allow people to do things differently if you'd like them to play your game. And if you don't want them to play your game, well, mission accomplished!
There are things D&D can't change. D&D will probably never be a game for those who think heroic fantasy is stupid. It will probably not be a very good game for playing outdoors (though LARP is an interesting variant!). It will not replicate the graphics and sound feedback loop of a videogame. It won't be very good at scratching a competitive itch.
There are things D&D can change, or at least allow the option for individual tables to change (since what people want is arbitrary). Things like...the level of assumed magic in your game (which 3e had trouble changing) or using minis on a grid (which 4e didn't like you futzing with) or HP representing fate or meat or...etc.
Scribble said:
Sometimes the best way to keep up the fun for everyone at the table is for the person to just accept it, and move on.
Sure, it's usually no big deal.
But lets not make the mistake of being too proud to change, or too Manichean to be flexible. The world is not divided into "rational folks who I can play with and who don't question the game" and "crybaby bellyachin' nancypantses with Problems." Not every beef is an illegitimate whine. Even most illegitimate whines have some grounding in a real experience. Criticism should not be rejected, it should be incorporated.
There's really no reason why D&D has to have some monolithic One Way To Play. Someone who wants a more "realistic" combat system (meaning: grim-n-gritty!) should probably get one (without requiring those who don't care about it to bother with it). D&D should be able to make that adjustment. That's not really an intractable request.