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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 7574088" data-attributes="member: 6696971">I really, really don't want to get bogged down in this "but you said thing x that I take offense to so now the conversation needs to change from analysis of the mechanics and veracity of thing x (to prove or falsify the claim) to the legitimacy of my grievances" because I feel like this this approach happens far too often and all it does is serve to undermine any actual interesting conversation about TTRPGs (which is sort of the point of coming here to converse?).However...allowing for this for a moment, why isn't it helpful to examine controversial claims about aspects of all kinds of play?  In my experience, there is HUGE utility in reflecting on your own play and/or games you advocate for.I can trivially name two off the top of my head.1)  4e's "skip the (implied 'boring') gate guards and get to the fun."  My personal reflection of this (in a game I advocate for) has me of the position that (a) they meant something else (eg the indie axioms of "cut to the action" and "at every moment, drive play toward conflict") and (b) this clumsy iteration of (a) (much like Mearls statement in the 5e playtest of "shouting arms back on") served only to undermine the edition in both (i) needlessly turning a segment of gamers off to no good end and (ii) not actually being REMOTELY as clear as just recapitulate the indie axioms themselves (which are abundantly clear!).So this is bad.  Don't do this again.2)  4e detractors' position that 4e's roles and mechanics are just artificial video games in disguise.  They're obviously not.  But what do they actually resemble?  Magic Decks.  MtG is WotC's primary bread-winner so of course that group consulted on 4e's design.So these two things above (along with other things such as noncombat conflict resolution, keyword architecture being fundamental, and focused themes/premise) combined lead me to (correctly) frame the game design as an action adventure game primarily inspired by indie games and Magic the Gathering.  From that, I'm better able to explain all manner of things to people who don't grok the game or who are trying to learn the game.Sum total, there is enormous utility in provocative positions (even...or perhaps especially...wrong ones) that beg analysis if you're just willing to engage with the ideas (and try to falsify them or be willing to be convinced by them) rather than trying to instead reframe the entirety of the conversation around your offense.</blockquote>

Verification