Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Xamnam" data-source="post: 8937709" data-attributes="member: 7037765">I think the salient point to take away from that is terms like unbalanced, too gonzo, video game like, or even Chartmaster serve as better criticism than merely calling something bad. If something is just bad, why would anyone choose, let alone enjoy it? Now, if a piece of criticism feels like something fails to achieve a design goal, or doesn't serve a genre well, or even is just personally not that enjoyable to play, those are statements that can be with engaged with. But bad? Unless it's bad at something in particular, as you parenthetically call out for the examples above, it's kind of useless in the context of thoughtful criticism. And yet, I do see that sort of assertion crop up without any context or specification on here on occasion. Maybe the poster thinks those aspects have been established enough in prior that they go without saying, but that then invites someone who doesn't have that understanding to want to attack that point as it stands alone. If someone said that Runelord of Thiefhaven is a system for babies, I think it's reasonable that fans of that system would take that as a personal criticism. Saying a system is bad, wholesale, as a throwaway/standalone comment is only a small step removed from that. It's a comment I expect to see in a blog or rant, not analysis.</blockquote>