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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6320904" data-attributes="member: 2067">I think it's troubling when there's a failure to recognize the psychology behind WHY people choose to play the game in these different ways, when instead the reaction is a dismissal. Like, there's a VALUE to tracking spell components -- it serves a purpose. That value may be more or less valuable than the value of getting rid of that assumption for certain target groups, but the designers should dang well realize that they are getting rid of something that has a constructive point when they get rid of it. Even if only 1% of your audience tracked spell components, the designers should realize WHY they find that a useful addition to their games, and not just write it off as "oh, that's boring."/shrug "If people are only going to use the magic missile spell, it's boring, but we aren't going to stop them."To me, it seems pretty clear that the rule mearls referenced wasn't intended to be used in the way discussed, but that they could be, and there is incentive for them to be (in certain circumstances). Similarly, MM > FB would be unintentional, and there would be an incentive for that (even though in certain circumstances FB might still be used, or MM might be used less), and if the reaction was as above, I'd be making pretty much the same point.  That's really my main point, so I think we're in broad agreement. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> I just noticed a lot of reactions to pointing out a potential problem falling into the camp of "If you think it's a problem, the problem is YOU," starting with Mearls's initial reaction. And I find that position...problematic, if one is serious about it. I think your Player 1 would be better served saying "OK, we'll change it here, but this rule should be changed! I mean, officially! Because what if we're not the only people with this problem?" which is a more constructive outcome there. And then come discuss it on ENWorld! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> Though some certainly get stuck in the loop of simply saying it's bad and we should feel bad. Sure, but can we examine why you think that it's "normal" and why the designers might share that bias and what blind spots those biases can create? That's the meat of that convo. It's not about taking offense to take offense, but about seeing how the process broke down and what might be improved next time to better take this into account.The implied their intention 45 minutes into a 1 hour YouTube video. They should state it in the rules they're writing. They certainly didn't do that, it would seem.</blockquote>

Verification