Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="thecasualoblivion" data-source="post: 5878421" data-attributes="member: 59096">I see no reason that those goals are or must be sacred, beyond criticism or scorn. Also, the primary goal is something I see as having little to do with the resulting game, the &quot;reunification&quot; part. Not caring about &quot;reunification&quot; has no relevance to my acceptance of the resulting game, though it is certainly doing nothing to make me want to buy into it during development. The other goal would be bringing back old players, which again I could care less about. I don't want to play old style D&amp;D anymore, and I most likely won't be gaming with those people if I do end up playing 5E. That being said, the game is said to be modular, and that contains the distinct possibility of the ability to remove of all the old crap I'd rather not have in my D&amp;D. Both of these core goals can be an anathema to me without affecting my opinion of the resulting game, as they are both marketing and business goals, not system goals. &nbsp;Its not making up my mind against it, its a prepared response against a predicted outcome. If the outcome turns out contrary to predictions, the response changes. Right now, things appear negative. If things turn out as they currently appear, the result will be negative to me and my response will be negative.&nbsp;To discuss D&amp;DNext. I don't see the discussion as having to be a big happy hugbox of positivity. I'm not happy with what I've been seeing, and I say so. &nbsp;&nbsp;That's your conclusion, one I've repeatedly denied.&nbsp;Express disapproval of what they say they're doing in the hopes it will get changed?&nbsp;Why can't it? Complaining works. The way you say objective or constructive makes it sounds like only happy positive thoughts can be those things. Its called dissent. &nbsp;I'm here to discuss. I read the article that started this thread, and I had things to say about it. I've had things to say about what some people have posted in this thread. I wasn't aware that a purpose beyond that was necessary.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="thecasualoblivion, post: 5878421, member: 59096"] I see no reason that those goals are or must be sacred, beyond criticism or scorn. Also, the primary goal is something I see as having little to do with the resulting game, the "reunification" part. Not caring about "reunification" has no relevance to my acceptance of the resulting game, though it is certainly doing nothing to make me want to buy into it during development. The other goal would be bringing back old players, which again I could care less about. I don't want to play old style D&D anymore, and I most likely won't be gaming with those people if I do end up playing 5E. That being said, the game is said to be modular, and that contains the distinct possibility of the ability to remove of all the old crap I'd rather not have in my D&D. Both of these core goals can be an anathema to me without affecting my opinion of the resulting game, as they are both marketing and business goals, not system goals. Its not making up my mind against it, its a prepared response against a predicted outcome. If the outcome turns out contrary to predictions, the response changes. Right now, things appear negative. If things turn out as they currently appear, the result will be negative to me and my response will be negative. To discuss D&DNext. I don't see the discussion as having to be a big happy hugbox of positivity. I'm not happy with what I've been seeing, and I say so. That's your conclusion, one I've repeatedly denied. Express disapproval of what they say they're doing in the hopes it will get changed? Why can't it? Complaining works. The way you say objective or constructive makes it sounds like only happy positive thoughts can be those things. Its called dissent. I'm here to discuss. I read the article that started this thread, and I had things to say about it. I've had things to say about what some people have posted in this thread. I wasn't aware that a purpose beyond that was necessary. [/QUOTE]

Verification