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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8275423" data-attributes="member: 16814">Ah, the good old Devil's Advocate canard.  The one often deployed when one realizes they're out of their depth in the conversation and wants to save face.  It's a hard sell, though, because you haven't actually been countering arguments directly, but rather couching your posts in terms of absolutes and personal preferences. The point of being a Devil's Advocate is to improve an argument by helping to show it's possible weaknesses, while you don't actually disagree with the argument.  That doesn't sound at all like what you're doing here. However, it is possible you're being honest, but if that's so, you should really not try to be a Devil's Advocate on a topic where you clearly lack the necessary experience and understanding of the topic to meaningfully do so.I mean, your last statement here is so very much blind to the fact that I've been arguing with you because that's how you've come across -- even to the point of one-true-wayism -- that I find it ridiculous.  Perhaps this is just a Poe's Law violation, it's possible.To deal with your points, though:a)  I suppose you think there's a proper level of seriousness people should have.  If so, where is this objectively stated?  Why can I not care how game structures incentivizes specific play practices?  I mean, who decides this at all?  b) wow, deep thinking, here. c)  no, it really doesn't.  This is someone without experience operating out of a knowledge deficit making the claim that their opinion is equally valid to someone else's.  The only way this is true is in what we like -- that's the only thing really up to opinion.  That games are structured differently, that games encourage different kinds of play, that 5e's basic structure is limiting (as are other game's basic structures, o game is perfect for everthing) are not opinions.  These can be confirmed.  This argument is one I hear people that have really only every had experience with D&D or D&D adjacent games (ie, same general structures) make, and it's one you will never, ever hear from someone that's been exposed to a wider array of games.  It's easily refuted with the simple you don't play Risk if you want to play Monopoly.</blockquote>

Verification