Recent content by SableWyvern

I choose the one I'd enjoy having a beer with, who I know from experience is someone I get along with and isn't likely to cause drama. All the information above is mostly irrelevant to my decision-making process. "Being the best you can be" isn't something I strive for as an important goal at...

It can, but I think the degree to which it does is often overstated, and there is certainly no guarantee that spending time as a player will be more helpful than spending that same amount of time as a GM instead. I am certain that understanding what the players at my table want from a game and...

No argument there. So many issues I see people talk about come down to a failure to set clear expectations and an agreed understanding what the game is about.

Which is all a good reason for you not to play at Lanefan's table. But it's pretty obvious if you see enough of their posts that they have a clear idea what they want from the hobby and a group that has bought in. It works for them.

That's Traveller: The New Era, which uses the same system as 2nd edition Twilight 2000. I believe there was a brief period when GDW was looking to use it as a house system for various games.

It is highly likely I missed additional clarifications as I skimmed through this fast moving thread. Also, I feel I should acknowledge my previous post was a bit passive aggressive, so I have to give you credit for not really rising to the bait.

The context is that the part that was quoted was phrased as a summation of the entire proceeding post. However, if you're saying you're now walking that back and you don't really believe that you can't be a good player or good GM without playing multiple games, I'm happy to accept that.

Well, no. @Swarmkeeper did just quote you clearly stating that people who don't play multiple games will never be any good.

Yes, that seems like one pretty reasonable solution to me.

Having someone run a game they don't enjoy running might be attainable, but it feels to me that someone would have to be pretty selfish to consider it an attractive option. Honestly, I just can't imagine wanting to spend my leisure time hanging out with someone who thinks that I should be doing...

We're all answerable to the people we game with, absolutely. Just not randos on internet forums. @AlViking seems to get plenty of gaming done, and I see no reason to assume he has a dysfunctional group based on the posts I've seen here. Yes and no. The sort of compromises you make will depend...

That something can be done is not a compelling argument that it should be done. While I do play a range of games, I am extremely selective about what I play, and there is absolutely no way I'm exchanging nearly 10% of my annually available sessions (~22 to 24 most years) to play a game that...

I agree with the statement, "broadening your experiences is likely to improve your GMing". I disagree with any attempt to then append statements such as, "And, therefore, you should broaden your experiences." or "And, therefore, if you don't broaden your experiences, you won't be a good GM."

Yes, I agree that both extremes are wrong -- although, in my experience, the people I've seen making unreasonable comments about their single-game preferences typically only do so after they've already been attacked for their preference. It's quite common for people to moan about people that...

I agree that argument is wrong. It's also, as I mention, a strawman, and people are arguing against it because they've got their backs to the wall. They're being attacked, called ignorant and the like, simply for doing what they enjoy, by a bunch of people acting like playing a range of games...