Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Thomas Shey" data-source="post: 8479901" data-attributes="member: 7026617">I absolutely think some types of games are set up to engage with potential group problems of specific sorts than others (and note this can be different games for different issues). If you don't, well, then we're pretty much at an impasse here.You can take my opinion on that in good faith or not, but I have every reason to believe its true.I'm not the typical D&amp;D-centric poster on this board.&nbsp; Honestly, the only reason I'm here is the board culture suits me better than the other options I've found (and the other one that suited me, well, apparently I didn't suit them).&nbsp; So to read into what I'm saying that I'm using 5e as the standard is kind of projecting here.&nbsp; &nbsp; I may have a trad-centric view to some extent, but I've not lived in a cave for the last 20 years, either, and I'm usually capable of seeing needs that games that don't work for me personally serve.&nbsp; Similarly I can see where games don't seem to serve the group dynamics of most apparent groups out the gate, and others where its a coin flip but at the least there's a significant number they don't.You're not required to agree with my assessment, but I'd at least appreciate assuming I come by it honestly and am not just trying to favor what I like or that I'm oblivious to the virtues new designs bring to the table.That's fair.&nbsp; But again, I make an attempt to understand what the general tendencies in gaming preferences and problems are specifically because some of them don't apply to me. The success of D&amp;D 5e is pretty much the poster child for that, since it isn't appreciably better suited to my tastes than D&amp;D 4e was (in some respects 3e was closer than either--which is probably why I'm finding PF2e acceptable--but it was also a massive train wreck).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Thomas Shey, post: 8479901, member: 7026617"] I [I]absolutely[/I] think some types of games are set up to engage with potential group problems of specific sorts than others (and note this can be different games for different issues). If you don't, well, then we're pretty much at an impasse here. You can take my opinion on that in good faith or not, but I have every reason to believe its true. I'm not the typical D&D-centric poster on this board. Honestly, the only reason I'm here is the board culture suits me better than the other options I've found (and the other one that suited me, well, apparently I didn't suit them). So to read into what I'm saying that I'm using 5e as the standard is kind of projecting here. I may have a trad-centric view to some extent, but I've not lived in a cave for the last 20 years, either, and I'm usually capable of seeing needs that games that don't work for me personally serve. Similarly I can see where games don't seem to serve the group dynamics of most apparent groups out the gate, and others where its a coin flip but at the least there's a significant number they don't. You're not required to agree with my assessment, but I'd at least appreciate assuming I come by it honestly and am not just trying to favor what I like or that I'm oblivious to the virtues new designs bring to the table. That's fair. But again, I make an attempt to understand what the general tendencies in gaming preferences and problems are specifically because some of them [I]don't[/I] apply to me. The success of D&D 5e is pretty much the poster child for that, since it isn't appreciably better suited to my tastes than D&D 4e was (in some respects 3e was closer than either--which is probably why I'm finding PF2e acceptable--but it was also a massive train wreck). [/QUOTE]

Verification