Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Malmuria" data-source="post: 8447394" data-attributes="member: 7030755">I’m thinking of people on Twitter or Reddit who respond to positive play experiences —-characterized as not needing to roll dice all session because they were just role playing — by saying that the 5e can’t be credited with their successful session, on account of the relatively sparse social and exploration pillars.  That 5e is more extensive and robust in combat compared to social and  exploration tracks with my perception of the system, and from what I can gather is a common observation, but maybe that could be classed as a specific approach and contrasted with the ‘other approaches’ you reference.  However you want to classify it, I’m proposing that 5e’s system/approach is sufficient in this regard for 5e players, and not just because they are unaware, or vaguely aware but uninterested, in other games. That is, I wouldn’t assume they people prefer 5e only because they haven’t tried other games.  FWIW, I hope they do try those other games, and my statements above  were not meant to indicate that those other games are not worthwhile, much less say anything specific about classic traveller in particular.You contrast “consensual agreement of shared fiction” with “mechanical resolution,” which is pretty close to what I was trying to say but with slightly more technical terms. Given that, it seems that the main point of your post is to suggest that I am not qualified to reference a phrase like “system matters,” or, more specifically, the way I’ve seen that sentiment expressed in online discussions. Similarity, you can probably infer from our discussions that I don’t know anything about classic traveller, and was certainly not attempting to make any claims about classic traveller, so suggesting that my comment in 5e does not apply to classic traveller it seems to imply that my frame of reference is parochial while yours is expansive.That is, your response demonstrates the exact dynamic OP described: claiming authority by referencing a putatively deeper understanding of theory, insertion and insistence on particular phrases (with definitions known by you), and driving conversation towards your particular play experiences. As I’ve said many times, I certainly respect the depth of rpg knowledge you and others on this board have, so it’s unfortunate and unnecessary that you still feel the need to claim this authority.</blockquote>

Verification