Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 5793669" data-attributes="member: 177">Since I have made the same basic comment in response to others, no, it isn't directed at you in particular.They have weaknesses, yes.&nbsp; But so did 1e and 2e, and OD&amp;D, and Basic.&nbsp; One can easily argue that 1e and 2e's flaws were notably worse that those of 3e and 4e.&nbsp; Strange, though, how people had fun with those games for *decades*, despite the flaws. Oh, really?&nbsp; I double-dog dare you to name a game that *nobody* here will say doesn't have significant, genuine problems. I don't buy it.&nbsp; If there were such a paragon of design perfection, with no &quot;genuine problems&quot; that could stand improvement, it would by now have overtaken D&amp;D (and Pathfinder, as it still carries most of 3e's basic flaws) as the dominant game in the market.&nbsp; We communicate too much for such a thing to remain secret.&nbsp; Ergo, no such game, beyond improvement, exists.&nbsp; Doubly so, seeing as &quot;genuine problem&quot; is not an objective truth, but in the eye of the beholder.Instead, I say to you that if you go looking for flaws, you will find them.&nbsp; The question is how much you allow those flaws to get under your skin, how much you concentrate on them.I submit that, with a decent group of people, there are actually few games that are so abysmally bad that you can't have a good time with them.&nbsp;&nbsp; And, conversely, there's no ruleset so good that the game cannot be ruined by the people at the table.&nbsp; The players matter more than the rules.&nbsp; IMHO, at least.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 5793669, member: 177"] Since I have made the same basic comment in response to others, no, it isn't directed at you in particular. They have weaknesses, yes. But so did 1e and 2e, and OD&D, and Basic. One can easily argue that 1e and 2e's flaws were notably worse that those of 3e and 4e. Strange, though, how people had fun with those games for *decades*, despite the flaws. Oh, really? I double-dog dare you to name a game that *nobody* here will say doesn't have significant, genuine problems. I don't buy it. If there were such a paragon of design perfection, with no "genuine problems" that could stand improvement, it would by now have overtaken D&D (and Pathfinder, as it still carries most of 3e's basic flaws) as the dominant game in the market. We communicate too much for such a thing to remain secret. Ergo, no such game, beyond improvement, exists. Doubly so, seeing as "genuine problem" is not an objective truth, but in the eye of the beholder. Instead, I say to you that if you go looking for flaws, you will find them. The question is how much you allow those flaws to get under your skin, how much you concentrate on them. I submit that, with a decent group of people, there are actually few games that are so abysmally bad that you can't have a good time with them. And, conversely, there's no ruleset so good that the game cannot be ruined by the people at the table. The players matter more than the rules. IMHO, at least. [/QUOTE]

Verification