Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Don Durito" data-source="post: 8113488" data-attributes="member: 6687260">Ummm...clearly I didn't answer your question I asked a different one.It's seems to me that iit s relevant because you accuse people of &quot;reinforcing traditional stereotypes on other people's characters—especially when they are not gaming with you?&quot;, when clearly what people are doing is expressing their prefence for what the rules should be, which in this case is also for them remaining what they have been for the last however many years.&nbsp; What the rules are has nothing to do with forcing stereotypes on anyone else.&nbsp; Just as people in this thread have said you can ignore the new rules it was always possible to ignore the old ones.It just seems to me bizarre and somewhat unreasonably aggressive to ask such loaded questions.&nbsp;As I've said before, flexibility was added, then it was clearly deliberately and consciously removed and now it's being added back in.&nbsp; I just think that context and the motives for both original backpedaling and the current backpedaling of the backpedaling are relevant.&nbsp; Did WOTC do research back in DND Next and find that the players overwhelmingly wanted the rules to reflect traditonal archetypes?&nbsp; Or was it purely the preference of the designers?&nbsp; Was it a kneejerk reaction to what they thought the player base wanted.&nbsp; And if enforcing racial archetypes was the player preference do they have any real reason to think that's changed? But I don't know.&nbsp; Everytime lately I've suggested stepping back from an argument, looking at the context and considering a bit more nuance, people tell me that it's irrelevant.&nbsp; I guess a lot of people like being morally indignant and talking past each other endlessly.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Don Durito, post: 8113488, member: 6687260"] Ummm...clearly I didn't answer your question I asked a different one. It's seems to me that iit s relevant because you accuse people of "reinforcing traditional stereotypes on other people's characters—especially when they are not gaming with you?", when clearly what people are doing is expressing their prefence for what the rules should be, which in this case is also for them remaining what they have been for the last however many years. What the rules are has nothing to do with forcing stereotypes on anyone else. Just as people in this thread have said you can ignore the new rules it was always possible to ignore the old ones. It just seems to me bizarre and somewhat unreasonably aggressive to ask such loaded questions. As I've said before, flexibility was added, then it was clearly deliberately and consciously removed and now it's being added back in. I just think that context and the motives for both original backpedaling and the current backpedaling of the backpedaling are relevant. Did WOTC do research back in DND Next and find that the players overwhelmingly wanted the rules to reflect traditonal archetypes? Or was it purely the preference of the designers? Was it a kneejerk reaction to what they [I]thought[/I] the player base wanted. And if enforcing racial archetypes was the player preference do they have any real reason to think that's changed? But I don't know. Everytime lately I've suggested stepping back from an argument, looking at the context and considering a bit more nuance, people tell me that it's irrelevant. I guess a lot of people like being morally indignant and talking past each other endlessly. [/QUOTE]

Verification