Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Emerikol" data-source="post: 9509194" data-attributes="member: 6698278">Really? Because a human being having to stand on one foot is not anything to do with the campaign setting.&nbsp; If this is all you have it kind of makes my point.A game with rules is a limitation.&nbsp; It's better than no rules at all.&nbsp; Even an average game is better than no rules.&nbsp; You keep wanting to go off the main discussion though.&nbsp; We are talking about the setting and various elements in the game like including certain elements.&nbsp; I'm saying a good game can be had no matter which races you allow.&nbsp; I'm saying a good game could be had no matter which classes you allow.&nbsp; I'm also saying that a DM generated world may be good or bad but the limitations the DM chose for that world are not what is going to make it good or bad.&nbsp; And there is no need to come up with some out of this world example.&nbsp; We are assuming some minimal reasonable bounds.&nbsp; How about all campaign settings ever created seriously by a DM.&nbsp; Okay?&nbsp; Is that not broad enough?&nbsp; So given that arena, I'm arguing that what made a game good or bad was not the limitations.&nbsp; It may have been poorly designed in general but the lack of elves did not kill the setting.&nbsp; I'm saying that all limitations are flavors and that flavors are a matter of taste.&nbsp; A matter of taste cannot be categorically declared good or bad objectively.&nbsp; That was my point forty pages ago.&nbsp; It's because you always seem to take what I say and run off in some weird tangent not at all related to my point.&nbsp; I think sometimes you are just constructing a straw man but other times I just think we aren't communicating.&nbsp; I say something and you respond to something completely unrelated in my eyes to what I said.Of course not.&nbsp; I wasn't accusing so much as venting frustration.I get that but that again is a matter of taste.&nbsp; And for me, I do give the DM the benefit of the doubt.&nbsp; That doesn't mean I assume a DM is good.&nbsp; Many are not.&nbsp; But in my style, for a first timer, there is an implied benefit of the doubt.&nbsp; I suppose at this point I tend to have a lot of trust from my players either by experience or by reputation.&nbsp; I don't tend to do completely new groups.&nbsp; We all are though devoted to players trying to get inside their characters and acting on the game setting through their characters.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Emerikol, post: 9509194, member: 6698278"] Really? Because a human being having to stand on one foot is not anything to do with the campaign setting. If this is all you have it kind of makes my point. A game with rules is a limitation. It's better than no rules at all. Even an average game is better than no rules. You keep wanting to go off the main discussion though. We are talking about the setting and various elements in the game like including certain elements. I'm saying a good game can be had no matter which races you allow. I'm saying a good game could be had no matter which classes you allow. I'm also saying that a DM generated world may be good or bad but the limitations the DM chose for that world are not what is going to make it good or bad. And there is no need to come up with some out of this world example. We are assuming some minimal reasonable bounds. How about all campaign settings ever created seriously by a DM. Okay? Is that not broad enough? So given that arena, I'm arguing that what made a game good or bad was not the limitations. It may have been poorly designed in general but the lack of elves did not kill the setting. I'm saying that all limitations are flavors and that flavors are a matter of taste. A matter of taste cannot be categorically declared good or bad objectively. That was my point forty pages ago. It's because you always seem to take what I say and run off in some weird tangent not at all related to my point. I think sometimes you are just constructing a straw man but other times I just think we aren't communicating. I say something and you respond to something completely unrelated in my eyes to what I said. Of course not. I wasn't accusing so much as venting frustration. I get that but that again is a matter of taste. And for me, I do give the DM the benefit of the doubt. That doesn't mean I assume a DM is good. Many are not. But in my style, for a first timer, there is an implied benefit of the doubt. I suppose at this point I tend to have a lot of trust from my players either by experience or by reputation. I don't tend to do completely new groups. We all are though devoted to players trying to get inside their characters and acting on the game setting through their characters. [/QUOTE]

Verification