Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8939137" data-attributes="member: 42582">I think that depends on context. I've been in situations where it is.But has anyone in this thread said anything is bad?The only instance I immediately think of is [USER=29398]@Lanefan[/USER] making up some version of a brief hypothetical I presented and then telling me that his projection of my approach onto his example is bad and illegitimate. Are you and [USER=6795602]@FrogReaver[/USER] and others outraged by Lanefan telling me that my approach is illegitimate?I'm a bit frustrated by it, because of the projection that I mentioned and because Lanefan won't talk about how his variant, which is different from mine, might be adjudicated (and this is because of his ignorance of the system in question - eg he can't talk about what sort of action declaration might be Acting Under Fire). I can tell you it doesn't at all challenge my sense of self, or my interest in the system I'm talking about!This is why, to somewhat reiterate things [USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER] and [USER=5142]@Aldarc[/USER] have said, I don't feel that this thread is about respectful engagement at all. Posters can, and are, saying that AW involves illegitimate framing and resolution techniques, that no myth RPGing involves "Schroedinger's X", etc and this is all said to be perfectly fine because they can't help how they feel.But when I describe, without judging, certain resolution as map-and-key, it's considered an outrage!The overall tenor of the thread appears to me to be that some posters regard it as rude for other posters to talk about technical elements of D&D (and D&D-adjacent) RPGing.</blockquote>

Verification