Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 5619418" data-attributes="member: 27160">Sure, and maybe a D&amp;D that was none of those things would be better.&nbsp; But let's deconstruct this a little, because it's interesting.The first element of each of the initial statements here would be &quot;I don't like X&quot; (where &quot;X&quot; = 'playing with minis and a grid', 'having all (attack) power choices do damage', 'playing a complicated/simple game', 'games that don't include classic story elements' and 'games where the PCs don't start out very weak').&nbsp; Thus far we have a very reasonable and neutral expression of preference.Next up would naturally be &quot;I would prefer to play a game that doesn't include X&quot;.&nbsp; Again, a perfectly natural and non-contraversial statement of preference.At this stage, though, I come to a dislocation.&nbsp; There seems also to be an assumed link; that the game played has to be &quot;D&amp;D&quot; and that, therefore, D&amp;D should change/be revised/be reissued to fit with this.This I don't understand.OK, the people saying this would like a game that doesn't involve the various &quot;X's&quot; - fair enough, there are plenty around, take your pick.&nbsp; But to then take this other game, that several folk are happily playing as it is, and say &quot;that should be changed into the game I want to play&quot; just gives me a &quot;WTF?!?&quot; moment.Absolutely - I couldn't agree more.&nbsp; Just don't point at stuff other people are playing and say &quot;that's wrong, it should be changed to be more like what I want to play!&quot;.Edit: I just realised that the last part, here, could be taken to imply that I'm saying that you, JamesonCourage, are saying this; to be clear, you personally are not, so far as I am aware.&nbsp; I picked out the tag line from you because I agree with it, in the context of the rest of my post.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Balesir, post: 5619418, member: 27160"] Sure, and maybe a D&D that was none of those things would be better. But let's deconstruct this a little, because it's interesting. The first element of each of the initial statements here would be "I don't like X" (where "X" = 'playing with minis and a grid', 'having all (attack) power choices do damage', 'playing a complicated/simple game', 'games that don't include classic story elements' and 'games where the PCs don't start out very weak'). Thus far we have a very reasonable and neutral expression of preference. Next up would naturally be "I would prefer to play a game that doesn't include X". Again, a perfectly natural and non-contraversial statement of preference. At this stage, though, I come to a dislocation. There seems also to be an assumed link; that the game played has to be "D&D" and that, therefore, D&D should change/be revised/be reissued to fit with this. This I don't understand. OK, the people saying this would like a game that doesn't involve the various "X's" - fair enough, there are plenty around, take your pick. But to then take this other game, that several folk are happily playing as it is, and say "that should be changed into the game [I]I[/I] want to play" just gives me a [I]"WTF?!?"[/I] moment. Absolutely - I couldn't agree more. Just don't point at stuff other people are playing and say "that's wrong, it should be changed to be more like what I want to play!". Edit: I just realised that the last part, here, could be taken to imply that I'm saying that you, JamesonCourage, are saying this; to be clear, you personally are not, so far as I am aware. I picked out the tag line from you because I agree with it, in the context of the rest of my post. [/QUOTE]

Verification