Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TheAuldGrump" data-source="post: 5597620" data-attributes="member: 6957">I was joking. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />As far as I am concerned the only way to be 'Subjectively wrong' is to deny that you are being subjective, and that other people's subjective views are also valid.I have objective preferences for my subjective liking and disliking of games - I can point at those objective preferences and say 'this is why my game is better'. But the game is better because I have a subjective liking for those objective causes.I like handling NPCs and monsters in the same fashion as PCs, I prefer long stat blocks - it was why I liked RuneQuest and it was why I liked 3.X..The games handling PCs, NPCs, and Critters the same way is objective, it can be measured and demonstrated.If I say 'that is why I like 3.X better' I am being objective. I like the game, and it can be demonstrated that I do.If I say 'that is why 3.X is better' then I have started being subjective. Liking long stat blocks is a subjective preference.And if you then say '4e is better because it has smaller stat blocks!' then you are being subjective.And if we begin arguing about it... welcome to the war, soldier!If you say 'I like 4e better because it has shorter stat blocks' you are being objective, both are quantifiable. But if I counter with 'you're wrong, you silly ninny-hammer! Long stat-blocks FTW!!1!!!' then I am provoking an edition war. (And I will be grammar clubbed by my fifth grade English teacher.)And, as an aside, I played HOL, and did not much like the game as it was run. Whether I would have liked it better with a different GM?... I dunno. (The same GM ran a really good Nephelim game, though.)I think that the designers of 4e did focus over much on combat and encounter. But I also think that what the designers envisioned may not be what folks are running.The Auld Grump</blockquote>

Verification