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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="El Mahdi" data-source="post: 5890026" data-attributes="member: 59506">I read the Flying Snowman piece, and I'd have the same question for John Scalzi as I do for those here... Why does it matter so much that people may be making illogical choices as to what bothers them and doesn't bother them? Why is it so important for one to point out the irrationality or ridiculessness of others choices? Are anybodies choices so perfectly reasonable and sound, that they can become a universal reference point for determining when someone else has strayed from what's reasonable and sound? Aren't those who point out peoples irrationality about their preceptions of believability, also choosing what irrationalities to be bothered by? And, is it really a choice to be bothered by one thing and not another? Are people really choosing things on purpose to break their suspension of disbelief? Or is it just a byproduct of how our individual minds work and percieve the world around us? If one doesn't believe it's a choice, that what bothers one might not bother another (and vice versa), and that we have no real choice in the matter (it's just how our particular reasonings work)... Then why try so hard to point out how illogical others perceptions are, and fight so hard for the inclusion of ones own perceptions, and the exclusion of others perceptions, when it comes to the next edition of D&D? I've seen it mentioned here in this thread many times (and specifically by yourself numerous times) that D&D at it's core, is illogical and ridculous. It's make believe with no real correlation to the real world. Yet we all have chosen to play this illogical game of make believe. However, I'm also sure that we also understand there needs to be a certain level of commonality as to expectations at our individual tables. Otherwise we're just talking gibberish to eachother. So, we group together in groups that have a (mostly) shared perception of believability. And we play this illogical game based on those perceptions.  So, as said earlier: Why is it so hard for one to accept other peoples choices as to what they consider rational, realistic, or acceptable at their tables...and that if there is enough people who feel the same, why their ideas, styles, and assumptions can't also be presented in D&D Next?  And if one can accept these differences, then what are we still arguing about?</blockquote>

Verification