Recent content by Hussar

There are all sorts of board games where that's true. Asymetrical board games have been around for years. Good grief, Heroquest has been around since '89. GW has made an entire empire out of that sort of thing. I would hardly call them role playing games though. What people call Thespian...

That's like saying I take on the role of the shoe in Monopoly. In very gamist play, being a fighter or a cleric or whatever, doesn't really change anything. They are just tools for resolving things in the game. It's essentially purely pawn stance where your character is just that - a token in...

Again, since we all actually KNOW what's meant here, the actual verbiage is less important than simply getting on with the discussion. I'm groovy with calling it Throat Warbler Mangrove if that works.

Well, not really. In very gamist play, the idea of role assumption isn't a priority at all. Early D&D, for example, was strongly characterized by this. Heck, the idea of role assumption was strongly pooh poohed for a long time by a pretty vocal segment of gamers. I've certainly played with...

Can we now move on?

Then I suggest moving forward, we simply use Playing Childhood heroes. Would that be acceptable to everyone? So, if we take the original quote and replace "Princess Play" with "Playing Childhood Heroes", is the criticism then acceptable?

Sorry I missed that. What word would you prefer?

Since you understand the meaning, why not suggest an acceptable term and we can all use that and move on instead of endlessly kvetching about a term?

Allow me to introduce you to the apparent paradox of tolerance. "Oh, it's okay. You don't have to read it." "Oh, it's okay, you don't have to see it." "Oh, it's okay, it doesn't really impact you" are excuses at best. Sweeping making broad swaths of the fandom uncomfortable under the...

Really? The "majority" of it fits right in? I've already debunked the whole psycho hag murders children example. What other one would you like to bring up? Again, nothing you're claiming seems to actually be in touch with reality. You keep making vague presentiments that if WotC builds...

And, just for the general reader here, and not aimed at anyone specific, the reason I'm very combatative here is because I find my patience at an end after all this time. Years of hearing the same tone-deaf arguments get trotted out every single time WotC decides to not resurrect some content...

Highly combatative? Possibly. I get a bit impatient when people jump into conversations without any context in order to be right. If you weren't actually adding to the conversation, why bother? But, that's neither here nor there. You refuse to actually show what the content would look like...

I refer you to @Umbran ’s very solid responses since they are far more patient than mine.