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

[Warpiglet-7]

Depends how specific they were to that game alone. If its something that can apply to RPG playing/running in general, they can still have issues with it on the broader grounds even if they don't like or play that specific game.

Now if it is something only relevant to that game, you're right.

Good game mastering tips are cool.

Arguing about specific mechanics of a game you don’t even want to play? I dunno.

Example: I would not play a story game. I am cool with other people liking it and discussing: I might even be voyeuristic and read along.

But I am probably not going to argue with them about their preferences for specific features of the game.

I get done mentally grappling with someone and then it pops out they have no dog in the fight, little experience with it and no future plans for it…

Uh…I guess you get a vote?

 

[Thomas Shey]

Good game mastering tips are cool.

Arguing about specific mechanics of a game you don’t even want to play? I dunno.

I'm on the fence on that one. After all, if that's the reason you don't want to play it, it seems a legitimate point to make. Though if its a core mechanic to the system, its a bit broken record if you insist on entering discussions of that game system just to say so.

Example: I would not play a story game. I am cool with other people liking it and discussing: I might even be voyeuristic and read along.

But I am probably not going to argue with them about their preferences for specific features of the game.

I get done mentally grappling with someone and then it pops out they have no dog in the fight, little experience with it and no future plans for it…

Uh…I guess you get a vote?

Like I say, there's some nuance that can be there I think. I mostly stay out of D&D specific threads because, well, I'm not all that fond of games even in that sphere, and specifically don't see much about the current incarnation to like (its got all the features of that style of game I'm not fond of, and none of the ones I do in the few variations I somewhat do).

But I'll occasionally get into threads that are avowedly about D&D because they're really talking about, from lack of a better term, "operational" issues that apply not only to it or that are about general mechanical approaches that apply to a lot of traditional games (there's not much about 5e that tells me its handling of stealth doesn't suffer from some problems that are common in a lot of games, for example, so if I happen to see someone talk about doing certain things to fix that which I think have problems, my disinterest in the overall game doesn't really have much to do with a critique I might make).

(Now if you find me talking about 5e class design, I've basically lost my mind, since I'm not really a fan of classes as a method of character definition at all, and don't understand the 5e take on them well enough to even make an intelligible statement in the abstract, let alone should be getting that much into the weeds of that specific kind of a design element in a game I don't know well and don't like what I do know about.)

 

[Scribe]

5e has been out for near 10 years.

Some of you are carrying baggage.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

I'm on the fence on that one. After all, if that's the reason you don't want to play it, it seems a legitimate point to make. Though if its a core mechanic to the system, its a bit broken record if you insist on entering discussions of that game system just to say so.



Like I say, there's some nuance that can be there I think. I mostly stay out of D&D specific threads because, well, I'm not all that fond of games even in that sphere, and specifically don't see much about the current incarnation to like (its got all the features of that style of game I'm not fond of, and none of the ones I do in the few variations I somewhat do).

But I'll occasionally get into threads that are avowedly about D&D because they're really talking about, from lack of a better term, "operational" issues that apply not only to it or that are about general mechanical approaches that apply to a lot of traditional games (there's not much about 5e that tells me its handling of stealth doesn't suffer from some problems that are common in a lot of games, for example, so if I happen to see someone talk about doing certain things to fix that which I think have problems, my disinterest in the overall game doesn't really have much to do with a critique I might make).

(Now if you find me talking about 5e class design, I've basically lost my mind, since I'm not really a fan of classes as a method of character definition at all, and don't understand the 5e take on them well enough to even make an intelligible statement in the abstract, let alone should be getting that much into the weeds of that specific kind of a design element in a game I don't know well and don't like what I do know about.)

Honestly I get some old schoolers wishing for the old days.

There are however some folks who seem to despise almost every convention of the game and as a fan it’s hard to comprehend.

Try another game and discuss that? Just a weird way to engage but we are all free to chat.

I did finally block one individual for constantly extolling the virtue of a different game while some folks were trying to talk about a game they like. It’s all good…whatever. Just an observation and not something I would do much of.

Which reminds me. I don’t play pathfinder. Maybe I should slide into one of their threads and bust on all the fiddly bonuses.

(Just kidding. Let them have their discussions and fun. See? Not too difficult to move along. I am sure I can argue about martials and wizards with someone!)

 

[Velderan]

Honestly I get some old schoolers wishing for the old days.

There are however some folks who seem to despise almost every convention of the game and as a fan it’s hard to comprehend.

Try another game and discuss that? Just a weird way to engage but we are all free to chat.

I did finally block one individual for constantly extolling the virtue of a different game while some folks were trying to talk about a game they like. It’s all good…whatever. Just an observation and not something I would do much of.

Which reminds me. I don’t play pathfinder. Maybe I should slide into one of their threads and bust on all the fiddly bonuses.

(Just kidding. Let them have their discussions and fun. See? Not too difficult to move along. I am sure I can argue about martials and wizards with someone!)

To be fair you can argue about martials and wizards with the Pathfinder folks too! You'll just feel like you're in bizarro world, because the argument in PF2e is the martials are too strong and casters are just sidekicks.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

To be fair you can argue about martials and wizards with the Pathfinder folks too! You'll just feel like you're in bizarro world, because the argument in PF2e is the martials are too strong and casters are just sidekicks.

I have not played anything close to that since 3e! I don’t get a vote! Like 20 years ago!

 

[Scribe]

Yeah, I took a certain phrase, a certain user, a certain forum, and hit 'Search'.

Results? 25 pages worth.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Some players of older editions of D&D have this strange idea that the way they played the game 20, 30, or 40 years ago was the "right" way to play it (inherently implying and sometimes outright saying that different ways to play were wrong). A lot of the time they'll hide behind "it's how the games were written to be played" or "it's how Gygax's table played" and use that to complain about how newer editions of the game changes things or dismiss newer/unfamiliar playstyles. I've seen people invent imaginary justifications for why a newer style of play is wrong/inferior and often insist that newer books specify unnecessary restrictions to preserve "fidelity" for whatever race, class, or setting they feel a sense of stewardship over because they're horrified of the idea that someone might play differently than them and they feel the need to define how D&D should be played by newer generations of players.

Anyway, my point is that those people are gatekeeping jerks and I've restrained myself from calling them that in threads where they're acting that way. Screw those people. I hope that in 30 years I'll be way more open minded about how future D&D is played than they are now and that future generations of players don't have to deal with so many gatekeeping naughty words.

 

[Scribe]

Anyway, my point is that those people are gatekeeping jerks and I've restrained myself from calling them that in threads where they're acting that way. Screw those people. I hope that in 30 years I'll be way more open minded about how future D&D is played than they are now and that future generations of players don't have to deal with so many gatekeeping naughty words.

The really wild part of this is that 10 years in a given hobby is quite the haul, but we are not even talking about 10 years (5e lifetime) we are talking 15, 20, 30+!

I've carried the torch for things in the past, on other forums for other hobbies, and in my way I'm quite stuck thinking certain past editions or versions of these various stories, or games, were better. I can go on and on and on about why.

That said, I dont play that game anymore. Havent since a little before Covid (actually MTG is the same but this isnt about MTG) and so...I dont fight it anymore. People who enjoy it, enjoy it, and so be it.

Now, D&D is a bit different, because it can be very DIY and you can make it your own and nobody but you and your table need to matter.

But in a 'global' space? Like this forum? The edition is the edition, and there are kids who have just graduated, who wouldnt know an edition other than 5e, like at all.

And in another 10 years, if WotC is lucky, those kids will have kids, and it will STILL be 5e.

Now just get the pineapple out of here, and we are good.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Which reminds me. I don’t play pathfinder. Maybe I should slide into one of their threads and bust on all the fiddly bonuses.

It'd probably get a "So?" To one extent or another, fans of both editions like fiddly bonuses, there's not a lot of argument to make there that would do more than leave them blinking at you. Its actually far easier for fans of one edition to pick fights with the other.

(Just kidding. Let them have their discussions and fun. See? Not too difficult to move along. I am sure I can argue about martials and wizards with someone!)

That's an example where there's enough common ground between 5e and, say, PF1e that there can be some degree of viable argument.

My point really was there's a difference between "I hate everything about classes and don't follow D&D 5e but I'll argue with you about class redesign" and "Your discussion of the Exploration Pillar has the same problem it does in non-D&D games covering the same ground". The former is just kind of weird and perverse, where the second just tries to broaden the discussion.