Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dannager" data-source="post: 5825461" data-attributes="member: 73683">Oh, leave that crap at the door. We're here to discuss the upcoming edition of D&amp;D, and that includes advocating for things we do and don't want to see in it. So sure, your way may be equally as &quot;valid&quot; (whatever the hell that means) as mine, but that doesn't mean that I want your way to be treated as the default in the new edition. I want the DMing guidelines to include a focus on deep encounter design, including pages of tips on terrain, traps, hazards, monsters, etc., and I don't want the book cluttered up with page after page of nearly-worthless random encounter tables for various environments, because I don't expect to get much use out of them. Maybe it's something that should be turned into a digital tool.Besides, don't come in here and label me as a &quot;serious case of One-Wayism&quot; for believing one style of encounter generation to be preferable to another when we're practically surrounded by people who are telling you what the &quot;best&quot; campaigns contain - people who you certainly aren't bothering to call &quot;One-Wayists&quot;. You don't really care about &quot;One-Wayism&quot;. You just care about &quot;One-Wayism&quot; that disagrees with your personal preferences.If you feel that I've ignored, twisted, insulted, contradicted, crapped on, or trolled, you are free to call out those specific cases where you feel that is true. That said, don't do what you just did. You don't like what I have to say. That's great. But what you're doing right here is attempting to shut down an on-topic conversation by labeling it &quot;trolling&quot; - the second time you've tried to play the &quot;troll&quot; card to shut down discussions in this thread because you disagree with them, by the way.Really? In a thread entitled &quot;The Importance of Randomness&quot;, a discussion of the difference between games that rely on random tables for their progression and games that don't is off-topic to you?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dannager, post: 5825461, member: 73683"] Oh, leave [B][I]that[/I][/B] crap at the door. We're here to discuss the upcoming edition of D&D, and that includes advocating for things we do and don't want to see in it. So sure, your way may be equally as "valid" (whatever the hell that means) as mine, but that doesn't mean that I want your way to be treated as the default in the new edition. I want the DMing guidelines to include a focus on deep encounter design, including pages of tips on terrain, traps, hazards, monsters, etc., and I don't want the book cluttered up with page after page of nearly-worthless random encounter tables for various environments, because I don't expect to get much use out of them. Maybe it's something that should be turned into a digital tool. Besides, don't come in here and label me as a "serious case of One-Wayism" for believing one style of encounter generation to be preferable to another when we're practically surrounded by people who are telling you what the "best" campaigns contain - people who [I]you[/I] certainly aren't bothering to call "One-Wayists". You don't really care about "One-Wayism". You just care about "One-Wayism" that disagrees with your personal preferences. If you feel that I've ignored, twisted, insulted, contradicted, crapped on, or trolled, you are free to call out those specific cases where you feel that is true. That said, don't do what you just did. You don't like what I have to say. That's great. But what you're doing right here is attempting to shut down an on-topic conversation by labeling it "trolling" - the [B][I]second[/I][/B] time you've tried to play the "troll" card to shut down discussions in this thread because you disagree with them, by the way. Really? In a thread entitled "The Importance of Randomness", a discussion of the difference between games that rely on random tables for their progression and games that don't is [B][I]off-topic[/I][/B] to you? [/QUOTE]

Verification