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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 6765922" data-attributes="member: 2525">FIRST - Stop breaking up posts into three running different posts.  It's spamming and annoying to other people who don't want to read our spat.  It makes it more difficult for them to skip our stuff when you do that - and don't think I miss the irony of you splitting up something into more work for people unnecessarily given the context of this debate <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=":)" />That's a strawman.  I was not talking about a policy concerning new content, I was talking about the figuring out the impact of the new content itself.  Screw policy - you need to figure out that new content, and how it interacts with the world, the existing rules, the existing house rules, the plans for the campaign, etc.. You're asking them to do more, every time new content comes out.  That's a burden.  OK then re-word what I said to be, ''The problem becomes worse with each new option a player presents that comes out. The amount they have to assess increases, the number of potential interactions increases, and the amount of time they need to spend to assess it won't likely be there like it was for the core books prior to campaigns starting. Bottom line, the more options come out that players like and want, the more this issue gets aggravated." That doesn't change my point really at all, and it remains the same.  New options results in more work for these guys.  You're not disputing that.Most DMs play in homebrew worlds (that's what the survey said) and assess new content as it comes up (which is also what the survey said).  They borrow stuff from different settings (again from the survey results).  So again the point remains.  You're placing an additional burden on people with new options.  But you can slow the rate in official options, which WOTC has done, which is the topic we're discussing.  Let's not find something else to talk about, it's distracting. Again, it's not just AL DMs.  You didn't ever really challenge the other arguments, you just brought up side issues with them that were mostly distractions and minor diminished scope issues.  It's still more of a burden for round-robin DMs (you never made any argument that it's not).  It's still more of a burden on non-designer-expert DMs to assess how options that players request interact with all existing rules and campaigns and house rules (if there are 500 rules, and the new option might interact with 20% of them, that's 100 rules interactions you have to examine based on your campaign, for example).  It's still a problem of WOTC likely coming out with future books which reinforce and expand on previously presented options (like Paizo has) which you may not have used in your games. You didn't refute any of those issues, all you did was try and nibble away at the scope of those problems and then declared they went away entirely when they did not.I already addressed this point above, and now you're acting like it was not addressed and simply repeating your point.  It's not an off/on switch.  It's not an issue of "either you accept all restrictions or you accept no restrictions" type situation.  It's a continuum with those two things on each extreme, and every DMs personal threshold somewhere on that line between those two extremes.  The more options added, the more DMs who hit their threshold along that line.  Adding more options adds more burden, which harms more DMs, which causes fewer people to want to DM AL.  That's the nature of this issue - a slow aggravation of a trend, not a switch being thrown. That's the issue you would need to address if you care to address the issue at all.  Simply repeating your already-disputed claim isn't conversation.  [I cut the rest of your conversation about a guy on the WOTC board and licenses because it's a different topic and I am trying to drill down on this one topic].Can you agree now that the more options they come out with, the more burden on some DMs, without it being a "you have a hard time saying no" or "you're just selfish" type issue? Can you agree there really are legitimate issues for some people and, while those issues shouldn't necessarily override your preferences, they shouldn't simply be dismissed out of hand? Again I am not asking you to concede you're wrong in your preferences, just that I've explained why others might logically, reasonably have their own preferences that conflict with your preferences.</blockquote>

Verification