Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="El Mahdi" data-source="post: 5834774" data-attributes="member: 59506">No.&nbsp; Because what you said isn't correct.&nbsp; You don't know what would be enjoyable in somebody else's group.&nbsp; And I'd challenge you to objectively define &quot;typical group&quot;.&nbsp; There are just too many variables present for an objective definition.&nbsp; There are as many styles and preferences as there are gamers, and each game table is a conglomeration of those varied styles and preferences.&nbsp; Typical is a way in which we judge what we like or don't like, and is objective only within our own purview.&nbsp; Outside of our own self and values, what we think is typical is likely not, or at the least is no longer an objective valuation - it's subjective because it's personal.&nbsp;What I would prefer is: &quot;I've found that in my games, replacing random encounters results in a better play experience for my group.&quot;&nbsp; or &quot;I've found in games that I've played in, replacing random encounters with well-crafted encounters resulted in a better play experience.&quot;&nbsp; Both of which are 100% accurate, 100% irrefutable, 100% constructive, and 100% a positive contribution to the conversation.&nbsp;It's when one starts speaking authoritatively about what they know happens in other groups (which one isn't able to), or starts speaking authoritatively about what the &quot;right way to play&quot; is, that one tends to find themself with less than positive responses.&nbsp; (And by positive, I'm not talking about necessarily agreeing with you, but responding civilly and fairly to you - One tends to get back what one gives out.&nbsp; I know, that's all Zen and touchy feely crap, but it's still true.)&nbsp;<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="El Mahdi, post: 5834774, member: 59506"] No. Because what you said isn't correct. You don't know what would be enjoyable in somebody else's group. And I'd challenge you to objectively define [I]"typical group"[/I]. There are just too many variables present for an objective definition. There are as many styles and preferences as there are gamers, and each game table is a conglomeration of those varied styles and preferences. [I]Typical[/I] is a way in which we judge what we like or don't like, and is objective only within our own purview. Outside of our own self and values, what we think is typical is likely not, or at the least is no longer an objective valuation - it's subjective because it's [I]personal[/I]. What I would prefer is: [I]"[U]I've[/U] found that in [U]my[/U] games, replacing random encounters results in a better play experience for [U]my[/U] group."[/I] or [I]"[U]I've[/U] found in games that [U]I've played in[/U], replacing random encounters with well-crafted encounters resulted in a better play experience."[/I] Both of which are 100% accurate, 100% irrefutable, 100% constructive, and 100% a positive contribution to the conversation. It's when one starts speaking authoritatively about what they know happens in other groups (which one isn't able to), or starts speaking authoritatively about what the [I]"right way to play"[/I] is, that one tends to find themself with less than positive responses. (And by positive, I'm not talking about necessarily agreeing with you, but responding civilly and fairly to you - One tends to get back what one gives out. I know, that's all Zen and touchy feely crap, but it's still true.) :) [/QUOTE]

Verification