Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 9284582" data-attributes="member: 7006">You bring up a good point and smartly (I think) make it clear that from an &quot;individual&quot; perspective it might be one way, even if it could be the other way for the &quot;non-individual&quot; or &quot;masses&quot; perspective.Having a &quot;behemoth&quot; game such as 5E can easily be a roadblock towards any one individual's happiness or success in the hobby, because for example (as many people have brought up and made mention)... having D&amp;D be so popular makes more people just want to play that game at the expense of any others... reducing that individual's ability to find/run games of other types because there just aren't interested other players.But on the flip side... having a &quot;behemoth&quot; game such as 5E-- a game so big that it can reach out into the &quot;non-gaming&quot; world and help bring many more new players into this world... increases the numbers of players in total, and thus increases the odds that some of them will branch out and try new games.&nbsp; Which is true and great from the amorphous &quot;masses&quot; perspective.&nbsp; More players in the hobby overall means more players amongst the masses potentially available to play non-D&amp;D 5E games.The problem of course though... is that just because there are more players &quot;out there&quot; willing and interested in playing those other games... doesn't mean that any one specific individual will see any of them.&nbsp; So while it's great from a philosophical perspective that the &quot;Roleplaying Game Player&quot; pool has gotten larger... what did this greater player pool actually accomplish for that one individual?&nbsp; Potentially nothing.&nbsp; So what use was it?It's the endless philosophical debate... can something that helps a large group of people that does not include (general) you... still be good?&nbsp; And how well or willing can (general) you separate the two?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DEFCON 1, post: 9284582, member: 7006"] You bring up a good point and smartly (I think) make it clear that from an "individual" perspective it might be one way, even if it could be the other way for the "non-individual" or "masses" perspective. Having a "behemoth" game such as 5E can easily be a roadblock towards any one individual's happiness or success in the hobby, because for example (as many people have brought up and made mention)... having D&D be so popular makes more people just want to play [I]that[/I] game at the expense of any others... reducing that individual's ability to find/run games of other types because there just aren't interested other players. But on the flip side... having a "behemoth" game such as 5E-- a game so big that it can reach out into the "non-gaming" world and help bring many more new players into this world... increases the numbers of players [I]in total[/I], and thus increases the odds that [I]some[/I] of them will branch out and try new games. Which is true and great from the amorphous "masses" perspective. More players in the hobby overall means more players amongst the masses potentially available to play non-D&D 5E games. The problem of course though... is that just because there are more players "out there" willing and interested in playing those other games... doesn't mean that any one [I]specific individual[/I] will see any of them. So while it's great from a philosophical perspective that the "Roleplaying Game Player" pool has gotten larger... what did this greater player pool actually accomplish for that one individual? Potentially nothing. So what use was it? It's the endless philosophical debate... can something that helps a large group of people that does not include (general) you... still be good? And how well or willing can (general) you separate the two? [/QUOTE]

Verification