Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
Promotions/Press
Organized Play: Can You Learn To Love It?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 7652429" data-attributes="member: 27160"><p>All that is true, but your answer seems to be to replace it with your own view alone - how is that better from anyone's viewpoint but your own? Basing policies on feedback and evidence, however flawed that feedback and evidence may be, seems to me to be much superior to basing it off of one persons views. The only area where I can think that the "lone vision" is better is art, and that is because the feedback/dispersed judgement comes after the creation.</p><p></p><p>But roleplaying games are <strong>not</strong> solely intended to be played at home. I remember playing D&D in a games club sometime around 1977, at the latest. Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson I believe first started playing D&D at their wargames club. Conventions have been around for a loooong time. RPGs never were an "only ever play this at home, kiddies!" thing. They are a pastime as diverse in their location and circumstances of enjoyment as they are diverse in play style, game setting and system focus. You might personally like them best when played with a fixed set of players in the privacy of your own home, but that isn't the entirety of "D&D", or even of RPGs. You are mistaking the bit you see and like for the whole thing.</p><p></p><p>I can agree with all of this - but I could not disagree more with your conclusion that we should therefore disregard research. Some evidence - even flawed evidence - is better than no evidence at all. Always. The alternative to "research isn't perfect" isn't to discard research, just as the solution to the fact that my eyesight isn't perfect isn't poking out my eyes.</p><p></p><p>Except that the company doesn't get a market grown by introducing newcomers to one aspect of a hugely diverse, vibrant and fulfilling hobby through a venue that features particularly <em>their product</em>. This is why the company may choose to materially support organised play -it's a marketing tool, like many others. And if they see benefit in using that tool, why shouldn't they?</p><p></p><p>No, but the goal of <em>business</em> <u>is</u> to make money (specifically in competition with other businesses - which is where the democratisation of "good quality", or at least "good value", come from). The process, as it exists in the world, may not work perfectly, but see my earlier comments on that.</p><p></p><p>"Poor quality" is in the eye of the beholder. As long as there is competition, good quality - as judged by the people in the market collectively - will always win out. If higher production values that involve more cost fail, that is a sign that people as a whole do not consider the additional investment of resources (represented by the money price) worthwhile for the added utility. You may, personally, disagree with the judgement of the consumer base as a whole. I know I do on several points. But to say that ones own opinion should be set above that of the rest of humanity is sheer hubris.</p><p></p><p>Your first difficulty is going to be deciding what constitutes "quality, healthy food". The evidence is somewhat mixed and changes all the time. There are certain constants, sure - but almost all of them have exceptions. A friend of mine eats almost exclusively highly processed food, because if he doesn't he'll likely die (he has Crone's disease, as do thousands of others around the world).</p><p></p><p>The next issue will be that what you decide is "quality, healthy food" will almost certainly conflict with "providing the best possible experience for customers". Even assuming (and it's a big assumption) that I concur with your assessment of what is "quality, healthy food", I am one consumer whose experience would be marred by being told what I can eat "because it's good for me". I had that as a child, and can accept it as it was done then by my mother, but as an adult I would reject it coming from a stranger without hesitation.</p><p></p><p>Personal relationships with people met for the first or second time are different from those with long time friends, for sure, and creative freedom my or may not be constrained by being with new friends rather than old, but I would say that makes the experience different, not "compromised". And variety is the spice of life.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Which is fine, but you have expressed the wish to give that "support" by suppressing other kinds of positive experience that others have had in gaming. That is the wrong way to go about it. Competition among desired alternatives will generate a vibrant and diverse hobby with engaged, fulfilled participants. Only supporting one "approved" way to play will not.</p><p></p><p>Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF300T using Tapatalk 4</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Balesir, post: 7652429, member: 27160"] All that is true, but your answer seems to be to replace it with your own view alone - how is that better from anyone's viewpoint but your own? Basing policies on feedback and evidence, however flawed that feedback and evidence may be, seems to me to be much superior to basing it off of one persons views. The only area where I can think that the "lone vision" is better is art, and that is because the feedback/dispersed judgement comes after the creation. But roleplaying games are [b]not[/b] solely intended to be played at home. I remember playing D&D in a games club sometime around 1977, at the latest. Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson I believe first started playing D&D at their wargames club. Conventions have been around for a loooong time. RPGs never were an "only ever play this at home, kiddies!" thing. They are a pastime as diverse in their location and circumstances of enjoyment as they are diverse in play style, game setting and system focus. You might personally like them best when played with a fixed set of players in the privacy of your own home, but that isn't the entirety of "D&D", or even of RPGs. You are mistaking the bit you see and like for the whole thing. I can agree with all of this - but I could not disagree more with your conclusion that we should therefore disregard research. Some evidence - even flawed evidence - is better than no evidence at all. Always. The alternative to "research isn't perfect" isn't to discard research, just as the solution to the fact that my eyesight isn't perfect isn't poking out my eyes. Except that the company doesn't get a market grown by introducing newcomers to one aspect of a hugely diverse, vibrant and fulfilling hobby through a venue that features particularly [i]their product[/i]. This is why the company may choose to materially support organised play -it's a marketing tool, like many others. And if they see benefit in using that tool, why shouldn't they? No, but the goal of [i]business[/i] [u]is[/u] to make money (specifically in competition with other businesses - which is where the democratisation of "good quality", or at least "good value", come from). The process, as it exists in the world, may not work perfectly, but see my earlier comments on that. "Poor quality" is in the eye of the beholder. As long as there is competition, good quality - as judged by the people in the market collectively - will always win out. If higher production values that involve more cost fail, that is a sign that people as a whole do not consider the additional investment of resources (represented by the money price) worthwhile for the added utility. You may, personally, disagree with the judgement of the consumer base as a whole. I know I do on several points. But to say that ones own opinion should be set above that of the rest of humanity is sheer hubris. Your first difficulty is going to be deciding what constitutes "quality, healthy food". The evidence is somewhat mixed and changes all the time. There are certain constants, sure - but almost all of them have exceptions. A friend of mine eats almost exclusively highly processed food, because if he doesn't he'll likely die (he has Crone's disease, as do thousands of others around the world). The next issue will be that what you decide is "quality, healthy food" will almost certainly conflict with "providing the best possible experience for customers". Even assuming (and it's a big assumption) that I concur with your assessment of what is "quality, healthy food", I am one consumer whose experience would be marred by being told what I can eat "because it's good for me". I had that as a child, and can accept it as it was done then by my mother, but as an adult I would reject it coming from a stranger without hesitation. Personal relationships with people met for the first or second time are different from those with long time friends, for sure, and creative freedom my or may not be constrained by being with new friends rather than old, but I would say that makes the experience different, not "compromised". And variety is the spice of life. Which is fine, but you have expressed the wish to give that "support" by suppressing other kinds of positive experience that others have had in gaming. That is the wrong way to go about it. Competition among desired alternatives will generate a vibrant and diverse hobby with engaged, fulfilled participants. Only supporting one "approved" way to play will not. Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF300T using Tapatalk 4 [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
Promotions/Press
Organized Play: Can You Learn To Love It?
Top