Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 5619143" data-attributes="member: 6668292">Let me take this last sentence, and apply your own opening sentence to it:When the latest edition of the biggest game in the market has embraced a style (metagame mechanics) that rubs much of the previous the wrong way, then I don't honestly see a problem with discussing it. That topic is just people who &quot;want to talk about roleplaying ([and are] posting on an RPG site, after all), including talking about actual play experiences, rules experiences etc.&quot;Giving emotional responses because some people make irrational statements does not contribute to a productive discussion. It just doesn't.And, you may not notice others bash 3e as often, but it most certainly does happen. Look at catastrophic in other threads, or quotes remaining from Nineball (I can't comment more on this, as it's against the forum rules, as far as I know). They're very inflammatory, and they tell people &quot;objectively&quot; what &quot;innovation&quot; must be, and that nobody could &quot;RP wizards without breaking the game.&quot; These are not uncommon statements. Nor are swipes against 4e with posters like Jimlock or the like.I know that it bugs you on a personal level, but, again, I don't see any more of a problem with &quot;meta mechanics detract from RPing&quot; than &quot;powergaming detracts from RPing.&quot; I think both can be true at tables, and both are false as blanket objective statements.People will talk about stuff with which you don't agree. People will make irrational or erroneous or malicious statements. I don't think it's one-sided, nor do I think it's particularly good for a discussion to throw out one-sided complaints when it can be applied to both sides. This is just going to either form or cement two different sides in a thread, and then we likely have an argument, not a discussion.To me, that's unnecessary. Just like the irrational blanket statements of &quot;objective&quot; fact that both sides spout forth. Just my two cents.As always, play what you like <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&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="JamesonCourage, post: 5619143, member: 6668292"] Let me take this last sentence, and apply your own opening sentence to it: When the latest edition of the biggest game in the market has embraced a style (metagame mechanics) that rubs much of the previous the wrong way, then I don't honestly see a problem with discussing it. That topic is just people who "want to talk about roleplaying ([and are] posting on an RPG site, after all), including talking about actual play experiences, rules experiences etc." Giving emotional responses because some people make irrational statements does not contribute to a productive discussion. It just doesn't. And, you may not notice others bash 3e as often, but it most certainly does happen. Look at catastrophic in other threads, or quotes remaining from Nineball (I can't comment more on this, as it's against the forum rules, as far as I know). They're very inflammatory, and they tell people "objectively" what "innovation" must be, and that nobody could "RP wizards without breaking the game." These are not uncommon statements. Nor are swipes against 4e with posters like Jimlock or the like. I know that it bugs you on a personal level, but, again, I don't see any more of a problem with "meta mechanics detract from RPing" than "powergaming detracts from RPing." I think both can be true at tables, and both are false as blanket objective statements. People will talk about stuff with which you don't agree. People will make irrational or erroneous or malicious statements. I don't think it's one-sided, nor do I think it's particularly good for a discussion to throw out one-sided complaints when it can be applied to both sides. This is just going to either form or cement two different sides in a thread, and then we likely have an argument, not a discussion. To me, that's unnecessary. Just like the irrational blanket statements of "objective" fact that both sides spout forth. Just my two cents. As always, play what you like :) [/QUOTE]

Verification