Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8940669" data-attributes="member: 18">What are you referring to here? I'm interested to see what you'd regard as &quot;commercial&quot; game design as opposed to presumably &quot;non-commercial&quot;.5E is an interesting game - probably the second most-interesting version of D&amp;D, design-wise - but it's also quite a messy game, particularly on the DM-side design aspects, so if you see criticism as &quot;denigration&quot;, I don't think you're really going to be able to engage in a thread about game design. I think that's part of why some people bow out - they don't like to see D&amp;D criticised, which is fine, but also means they'll never able to really be part of a critical discussion of D&amp;D. You see the same with all kinds of games and media - some people have this unfortunate situation where they like the idea of critical discussion, but where the reality of seeing things they like criticised is too much for them. I'm sure everyone has some subjects they feel this way on - if you wanted to critically discuss my wife, say, I'd probably want to punch you in the face - and some people feel that strongly about media or games or the like - and not a few people either - a lot. I'm not saying you do, I don't know your reasons, but there's a lot of it about.Earlier indeed it was suggested by one individual that they felt any criticism of a game was inherently a criticism of its players. I don't deny that person honestly feels that way, but obviously such an attitude is wholly incompatible with genuine critical discussions. It's like going to a BDSM dungeon and standing around telling everyone how mean they're being to each other and how you don't like it lol.To me, denigration would be &quot;D&amp;D sucks, it's boring and dumb and for babies&quot;.Whereas criticism would be &quot;I don't think think 5E has fulfilled its conceptual promise re: three pillar design&quot; or &quot;5E would benefit from X because Y&quot; and so on. I don't see that as denigration, even if I don't necessarily agree.As an example with Spire, for example, a game I personally really like, if you came to me and said &quot;The Firebrand class is woefully under designed and mechanically unsatisfying compared to other Spire classes&quot;, for example, I'd be forced to reluctantly concur, despite the great concept. Or even if you said that the basic approach to advancement that Spire takes, which is primarily based on how much change the PCs achieve, is both vague and potentially creates issues with play (which you could detail), whilst I might not like hearing that, because I like that system, I would still acknowledge that was valid criticism, not mere &quot;denigration&quot;. And that's the tiniest tip of the iceberg. Whereas denigration would be &quot;Spire is about drow and drow are a dumb idea&quot; or the like.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ruin Explorer, post: 8940669, member: 18"] What are you referring to here? I'm interested to see what you'd regard as "commercial" game design as opposed to presumably "non-commercial". 5E is an interesting game - probably the second most-interesting version of D&D, design-wise - but it's also quite a messy game, particularly on the DM-side design aspects, so if you see criticism as "denigration", I don't think you're really going to be able to engage in a thread about game design. I think that's part of why some people bow out - they don't like to see D&D criticised, which is fine, but also means they'll never able to really be part of a critical discussion of D&D. You see the same with all kinds of games and media - some people have this unfortunate situation where they like the idea of critical discussion, but where the reality of seeing things they like criticised is too much for them. I'm sure everyone has some subjects they feel this way on - if you wanted to critically discuss my wife, say, I'd probably want to punch you in the face - and some people feel that strongly about media or games or the like - and not a few people either - a lot. I'm not saying you do, I don't know your reasons, but there's a lot of it about. Earlier indeed it was suggested by one individual that they felt [I]any[/I] criticism of a game was inherently a criticism of its players. I don't deny that person honestly feels that way, but obviously such an attitude is wholly incompatible with genuine critical discussions. It's like going to a BDSM dungeon and standing around telling everyone how mean they're being to each other and how you don't like it lol. To me, denigration would be "D&D sucks, it's boring and dumb and for babies". Whereas criticism would be "I don't think think 5E has fulfilled its conceptual promise re: three pillar design" or "5E would benefit from X because Y" and so on. I don't see that as denigration, even if I don't necessarily agree. As an example with Spire, for example, a game I personally really like, if you came to me and said "The Firebrand class is woefully under designed and mechanically unsatisfying compared to other Spire classes", for example, I'd be forced to reluctantly concur, despite the great concept. Or even if you said that the basic approach to advancement that Spire takes, which is primarily based on how much change the PCs achieve, is both vague and potentially creates issues with play (which you could detail), whilst I might not like hearing that, because I like that system, I would still acknowledge that was valid criticism, not mere "denigration". And that's the tiniest tip of the iceberg. Whereas denigration would be "Spire is about drow and drow are a dumb idea" or the like. [/QUOTE]

Verification