Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7436056" data-attributes="member: 6919838">First, your posts shuffle and jive aside, nothing i said implied or claimed or anything close to the idea that the game as is is perfect. Not one bit. Most sentient beings can recognize there is a wide gap between the extremes of &quot;perfect&quot; and &quot;hopeless&quot; and i think its not all that controversial to suggest that a great many games played every day help to support that conclusion.it seems however that often those with agendas tend to thrive when the extremes are the glasses through which they see the &quot;position.&quot;As for the somewhat difficult to connect to part about how you see something about that somehow adding up to dismissing all criticisms - again not said, not claimed, not implied - maybe you should have kept reading to the few sentecnes you cut out of the post you quoted... so you could see some contexxt...&quot;Its alnost like some of them dont get upset over stiff and just play without worrying if adding a few extra bad guys at level this or level that is against somrone elses idea of an ideal game? I bet there are even games run out there where gms dont use the cr calculator sustem at all and just throw together adversaries drawn from the campaign logic and their experience with their group.&quot;You may note there references to games in actual play adjusting&nbsp; - not at all a sign of things a &quot;perfect &quot; thing would require. But sure, keeping that part of the post would not have supported your revisionary take on it so, i get it.But, even tho to you this was somehow a condemnation of the criticism... it wasn't. it was a challenge of sorts to the &quot;concluisions&quot; and the exaggeration of the impact of the problem with words like &quot;hopeless&quot; and the more extreme positions on fixes needed etc... If instead of &quot;hopelessly lopsided&quot; for instance it has been &quot;more lopsided that it needs to be&quot; or &quot;more lopsided than i like&quot; it would have been a little different sort of conclusion and presentation - one more conducive to the focus on the criticisms, as opposed to the conclusions.Planting one's flag in the extreme doesn't in my experience help one's position to be on solid footing... any more than inventing &quot;dismiss all criticism&quot; for other's positions does.But, it is illustrative and informative, so thanks for that!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="5ekyu, post: 7436056, member: 6919838"] First, your posts shuffle and jive aside, nothing i said implied or claimed or anything close to the idea that the game as is is perfect. Not one bit. Most sentient beings can recognize there is a wide gap between the extremes of "perfect" and "hopeless" and i think its not all that controversial to suggest that a great many games played every day help to support that conclusion. it seems however that often those with agendas tend to thrive when the extremes are the glasses through which they see the "position." As for the somewhat difficult to connect to part about how you see something about that somehow adding up to dismissing all criticisms - again not said, not claimed, not implied - maybe you should have kept reading to the few sentecnes you cut out of the post you quoted... so you could see some contexxt... "Its alnost like some of them dont get upset over stiff and just play without worrying if adding a few extra bad guys at level this or level that is against somrone elses idea of an ideal game? I bet there are even games run out there where gms dont use the cr calculator sustem at all and just throw together adversaries drawn from the campaign logic and their experience with their group." You may note there references to games in actual play adjusting - not at all a sign of things a "perfect " thing would require. But sure, keeping that part of the post would not have supported your revisionary take on it so, i get it. But, even tho to you this was somehow a condemnation of the criticism... it wasn't. it was a challenge of sorts to the "concluisions" and the exaggeration of the impact of the problem with words like "hopeless" and the more extreme positions on fixes needed etc... If instead of "hopelessly lopsided" for instance it has been "more lopsided that it needs to be" or "more lopsided than i like" it would have been a little different sort of conclusion and presentation - one more conducive to the focus on the criticisms, as opposed to the conclusions. Planting one's flag in the extreme doesn't in my experience help one's position to be on solid footing... any more than inventing "dismiss all criticism" for other's positions does. But, it is illustrative and informative, so thanks for that! [/QUOTE]

Verification