Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Aldarc" data-source="post: 9230377" data-attributes="member: 5142">I grow curiouser and curioser. We know that this is nothing new. This is a trend and cycle that has repeated itself for years now with many of the same faces. So what is the point of coming into these threads time and time again to dispute the functionality of games that one hasn't played or dispute game concepts that one hasn't read first hand? I genuinely do respect those who put in the effort to do these things - i.e., to play and read about other games and roleplaying concepts - and still disagree. However, when people year after year say that they haven't played or read these games but then continue to dispute them just as persistently as if they had firsthand knowledge, experience, and facts while demanding their arguments be taken seriously as someone who has done their due diligence? That is absurd to me. Have people not been given ample opportunities to perform their due diligence by playing these games and/or reading these sources across the span of eight plus years? I can't help but wonder, what is the gain, purpose, or drive for this sort of behavior? Is it to somehow protect D&amp;D from the big, bad Boogie Man of non-traditional and/or indie gaming? Is it to erase or obfuscate the differences between tabletop games, including their various strengths and weaknesses? Is it to perpetuate this mythic idea that D&amp;D-style d20 gaming can do everything just as well if not better than other games out there? Because, yes, I personally find this pattern of behavior perplexing and frustrating because I feel that it is often done for the sake of disparaging and marginalizing other games I enjoy playing that don't follow the mold of D&amp;D as well as the unique play experiences that I get from them.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Aldarc, post: 9230377, member: 5142"] I grow curiouser and curioser. We know that this is nothing new. This is a trend and cycle that has repeated itself for years now with many of the same faces. So what is the point of coming into these threads time and time again to dispute the functionality of games that one hasn't played or dispute game concepts that one hasn't read first hand? I [I]genuinely do[/I] respect those who put in the effort to do these things - i.e., to play and read about other games and roleplaying concepts - and still disagree. However, when people year after year say that they haven't played or read these games but then continue to dispute them just as persistently as if they had firsthand knowledge, experience, and facts while demanding their arguments be taken seriously as someone who has done their due diligence? That is absurd to me. Have people not been given ample opportunities to perform their due diligence by playing these games and/or reading these sources across the span of eight plus years? I can't help but wonder, what is the gain, purpose, or drive for this sort of behavior? Is it to somehow protect D&D from the big, bad Boogie Man of non-traditional and/or indie gaming? Is it to erase or obfuscate the differences between tabletop games, including their various strengths and weaknesses? Is it to perpetuate this mythic idea that D&D-style d20 gaming can do everything just as well if not better than other games out there? Because, yes, I personally find this pattern of behavior perplexing and frustrating because I feel that it is often done for the sake of disparaging and marginalizing other games I enjoy playing that don't follow the mold of D&D as well as the unique play experiences that I get from them. [/QUOTE]

Verification