Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="SableWyvern" data-source="post: 9676001" data-attributes="member: 1008">Again, nothing wrong with sharing preferences and styles and discussing how we do things. Someone might even use this as an opportunity to make changes to they way they run things. That's all fine.The thing is, it doesn't remain a discussion of preferences with people able to make their own decisions about which parts might be of value to them at their own tables. Instead, it regularly becomes things like (not directly quoting anyone) &quot;You should be using this as an opportunity to develop more tools,&quot; &quot;If you don't take this on board, you're hindering your ability to develop the tools you need&quot;, or moral assertions such as suggesting someone who doesn't feel the things being discussed are going to help them run their own game is probably unable or unwilling to compromise or adjust, in general.There are people in this discussion literally stating that if I want to run game type A and there is someone in the world who wants to play game type B, it is not acceptable for me to explain to that person that currently game type A is all I'm interesting in running, I must seek a compromise solution with this hypothetical random person who has different interest, and anything else is unreasonable and unfair and should not be considered an acceptable outcome.Edit: To be fair, my current feelings about this whole discussion are probably heavily coloured by the position held by a single poster, and it may be I am unfairly projecting that poster's arguments on others who are presenting more nuanced perspectives</blockquote>

[QUOTE="SableWyvern, post: 9676001, member: 1008"] Again, nothing wrong with sharing preferences and styles and discussing how we do things. Someone might even use this as an opportunity to make changes to they way they run things. That's all fine. The thing is, it doesn't remain a discussion of preferences with people able to make their own decisions about which parts might be of value to them at their own tables. Instead, it regularly becomes things like (not directly quoting anyone) "You should be using this as an opportunity to develop more tools," "If you don't take this on board, you're hindering your ability to develop the tools you need", or moral assertions such as suggesting someone who doesn't feel the things being discussed are going to help them run their own game is probably unable or unwilling to compromise or adjust, in general. There are people in this discussion literally stating that if I want to run game type A and there is someone in the world who wants to play game type B, it is not acceptable for me to explain to that person that currently game type A is all I'm interesting in running, I must seek a compromise solution with this hypothetical random person who has different interest, and anything else is unreasonable and unfair and should not be considered an acceptable outcome. Edit: To be fair, my current feelings about this whole discussion are probably heavily coloured by the position held by a single poster, and it may be I am unfairly projecting that poster's arguments on others who are presenting more nuanced perspectives [/QUOTE]

Verification