• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

The "I Didn't Comment in Another Thread" Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Is Hasbro/WotC somehow the only corporation some folks interact with?
I don't interact with any company I buy from, usually. Aside from buying from them. They put out a product, I buy it or I don't. I follow the "community" usually on forums or blogs, or YT occasionally, and that's about it (and that is coming off of about a 30 year run of being in the "Games Workshop Hobby (tm)", you know, the only hobby that exists. When I realized I wasn't their target audience, I left, and don't buy their product anymore. When I realized after multiple years of DnD that I wasn't their target audience either, I moved on.

Most publicly traded companies are out to satisfy shareholders, and that's about it. Satisfying customers, if that happens at the same time: happy days! I just try not to let myself get too emotionally involved in my hobbies - even those I've been playing for 30 years on one hand, and 40 or so on the other. I just move on and enjoy them in other ways - going back to OSE, trying out new systems, using my old miniatures in "miniature agnostic" or more thematic games, etc.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I suspect that's sort-of right.

That they're still getting something out of the game, and at least internally, its a 50+1% thing where its more worth staying in, for whatever reason, than getting out.

But that doesn't mean they really, really don't like the thing(s) they're complaining about, its just there's a counterweight they're not discussing.

(I just pulled the plug on GMing for a certain group I'd done that for for a long time (and in fact GMing at all at least for a few months), and I probably should have done it a fair while ago, but I was still getting things out of it I didn't want to lose; I just finally concluded that 50+1 wasn't there anymore).
For me, it's often the case that I like a game overall, but there's something about it that nags me. One example is how Pathfinder 2 is geared toward requiring specialization in skills at higher levels in order to have a decent chance of success at level-appropriate tasks, and even specialized characters rarely get above 75% chance of success (in other words, you'll never be Parker or Hardison). If I didn't like the rest of the game, I wouldn't care. It'd just be one more game that doesn't let its PCs be awesome. But PF2 has a lot of good stuff in it, but it could be better.
 



The aversion people have to silliness and levity is weird. Not everything needs to be serious grimdark business. Lighten up. You’re sitting around a table with other adults pretending to be elves and wizards. The hobby is inherently silly. Get over it.
I figure so long as everyone at a given table is taking the game approximately as seriously as everyone else--whether in the narrative sense or the game sense--then things at that table are more or less copacetic.
 


The aversion people have to silliness and levity is weird. Not everything needs to be serious grimdark business. Lighten up. You’re sitting around a table with other adults pretending to be elves and wizards. The hobby is inherently silly. Get over it.
If I ran a game and it didn't devolve to virtually rolling on the floor laughing, at some point, then it wasn't a very successful session.
 




Status
Not open for further replies.

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top