Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 6253263" data-attributes="member: 27160">I'm not suggesting that you need to predict what will occur in the future, just that if you have the belief that you must evaluate every alternative then the commercial offerings currently available do not represent the sum total of your options. As [MENTION=2205]Hobo[/MENTION] has said, what is considering DDN now if not considering an unpublished option? At the extreme, you could even write a system of your own that might have any features in it that you chose - any system element that your current knowledge or imagination might come up with.In the end, "evaluating every option" amounts to evaluating only those things of which you have knowledge - of which you are aware. The argument that "less choice is good" amounts to saying "not realising what is possible can help". This piece of advice seems to me to hark back to a much older aphorism than the "new" vogue purports to be, namely "ignorance is bliss".If you have an actual cogent reason why it is a flawed claim, please present it. Saying "it's silly" is barely more than an ad hominem, and I object to that."Looking down" at [MENTION=6691682]adamc[/MENTION] was certainly not my intention; he was quoting an argument which, as I acknowledged in my post, is currently well regarded among the "cognoscenti". This seems a perfectly reasonable thing to do. I was, if anything, dismissing the argument made by the learned proponents of this view. That may be a contentious thing to do, but I'm quite prepared to stand by my analysis and arguments that, in this case, the King's birthday suit is, in fact, nothing more than air...Consider, though, that "having more choices" amounts to being aware that other possibilities exist. In any circumstance, this is what will circumscribe your choices, not what some other guy chooses to present before you. If some guy asks me whether I want coffee or tea, when I am perfectly well aware of the range of other possible beverages out there, my choices aren't really limited to coffee or tea. That is just what he is offering me. If I am to evaluate all my options, the list does not stop at "coffee or tea" unless I want it to; my range of evaluation is everything of which I am aware.If I am not aware that other options exist, then my choice is limited (and simpler) - ignorance is bliss again. But, if I want a simple choice, I could generate one quite simply by arbitrarily choosing only to consider a subset of all those of which I am aware. I will always choose this second choice, if I am able to do so, since I would always prefer not to be ignorant.The very first roleplaying games I ran for my friends - and several of those they ran for me - were not D&D, despite this being circa 1975. They were systems which, inspired by D&D, we wrote for ourselves. Being in the UK, literally an ocean away from D&D's origin, getting hold of the "sacred booklets" was a fraught and lengthy process for a bunch of schoolboys with no bank accounts (and no internet, of course). There was just one shop in the UK that we knew of that stocked D&D - and it was over 100 miles away. So we improvised.Even in those early days, the choice was not limited to "D&D or nuthin'".Now, I'm always keen to see new games. Even if I already have games that I like to play just fine, there is always the possibility that I'll find one that's even better. What's more, as I have got older I have found that there are several distinct things that I can get out of an RPG. I thoroughly enjoy D&D 4E, but that does not mean that I no longer play HârnMaster, or that I don't also enjoy playing FATE or 13th Age, or... All those systems have something to offer; I enjoy them all. I enjoyed playing 3.x edition D&D for several years; I would happily play it again if someone was going to run it for me. The idea that you need just one system - either as a market or as an individual - is just invalid as far as I can see. What's more, there has never been only one system to choose from, and there never will be.</blockquote>

Verification