Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 8158835" data-attributes="member: 87792">So if you value speed in cars being told that another car is faster than yours or that F1 cars or Indy 500 cars are faster than stock cars is offensive?Me, if I value something and someone else tells me that something else does it better my reaction isn't &quot;that's offensive&quot; it's &quot;that's interesting. How does it do that?&quot; This comes twice over when the people saying that are familiar with both sides of the argument - and almost everyone posting on ENWorld (a D&amp;D forum) also plays D&amp;D so they are familiar with both approaches. This isn't &quot;Fans of game A vs fans of game B&quot; - it's &quot;fans of both coming down very consistently on the side of B doing this specific thing better&quot;. Which doesn't say what D&amp;D does better (IME long term campaigns - in part because the players are less empowered so the campaign doesn't spiral off in completely unexpected directions).I also could comment on the accusations of &quot;shallow and self-serving analysis&quot; when I've recently replied to one about how not all social disadvantages have the same drawback and how there have been comments about &quot;authoring something out of existence&quot;. However I prefer to assume good faith.And &quot;a is better than b at x&quot; is not in and of itself offensive. Even if it isn't true then you start by assuming good faith on the other side. It can become offensive when it's objectively untrue and a point refuted a thousand times or it's deliberately being used to exclude. None of that applies here.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 8158835, member: 87792"] So if you value speed in cars being told that another car is faster than yours or that F1 cars or Indy 500 cars are faster than stock cars is offensive? Me, if I value something and someone else tells me that something else does it better my reaction isn't "that's offensive" it's "that's interesting. How does it do that?" This comes twice over when the people saying that are familiar with both sides of the argument - and almost everyone posting on ENWorld (a D&D forum) also plays D&D so they are familiar with both approaches. This isn't "Fans of game A vs fans of game B" - it's "fans of [I]both [/I]coming down very consistently on the side of B doing this specific thing better". Which doesn't say what D&D does better (IME long term campaigns - in part because the players are less empowered so the campaign doesn't spiral off in completely unexpected directions). I also could comment on the accusations of "shallow and self-serving analysis" when I've recently replied to one about how not all social disadvantages have the same drawback and how there have been comments about "authoring something out of existence". However I prefer to assume good faith. And "a is better than b at x" is not in and of itself offensive. Even if it isn't true then you start by assuming good faith on the other side. It can become offensive when it's objectively untrue and a point refuted a thousand times or it's deliberately being used to exclude. None of that applies here. [/QUOTE]

Verification