Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 9513727" data-attributes="member: 6785785">I asked [USER=6747251]@Micah Sweet[/USER] a question and he did not answer. His reply was actually aimed at something I said to you. So I repeated my question. He's now answered it. No issue. Stop making accusations of bad faith toward me. That's the third one. I'm going to stop multi-quoting, though, so hopefully there'll be no more confusion about who a given question may be addressed to.I didn't ask about if they wanted advice. Let's say there's a discussion about general GM practices, and someone there says "I prefer not to build an entire world when I DM. Worldbuilding at that scale doesn't work. By committing to too much upfront, all you're doing is creating the circumstances for contradiction and an incoherent setting." You're telling me you'd defend that statement as a preference? I highly doubt that based on past conversations. No, I have no issue with anyone's preference. When they attribute that preference to some flaw in another preferred method, and I don't think that flaw is accurate, then I'll say something. I'm not saying that you shouldn't prefer your approach to D&D, or that you can dislike the approach I'm talking about. You can do that, and you can do it for whatever reason you want. But if you say something that I don't think is accurate about that method... I mean, let's be honest, you don't play this way and except for perhaps very small examples, never have... I'm allowed to challenge that. Just as you could challenge someone's description of worldbuilding as flawed if you didn't agree with it. If you argued that "having a consistent world available for play actually creates a solid and reliable setting that can serve to scaffold play and need not be inconsistent in any way" you would not be challenging the person's preference, but the logic behind their stated reason for the preference. That's the distinction that I'm taking about.</blockquote>

Verification