Exterminate all rational thought
No?Alright, let me make sure what you're saying here. Is this something about forum etiquette?
So, here's the full post you were responding to.1) LE made a statement that he felt hooked into/supported his position as it relates to boxed text. This was a statement about the focal points and values of beginner GMing or what the mainstream culture should push as the focal points and values of beginner GMing.
Maybe. If you have someone to teach you.
But, as the growth of D&D over the last decade has shown, many many many new players and DMs have no one to teach them (other than innuendos in shows like Stranger Things and Critical Role). They need the game to be accessible. This includes their first module or two to be simple, straight forward and something that they can pick up, skim through, and start playing. Besides, such games may be as far as they ever go, and that's fine if it meets the DM and players desires (even if they "don't know better").
Sandboxing, spontaneous creation or whatever you want to call it take more. More time, more skill, more effort, more interest. Not everyone wants to spend that amount of x.
Sure, if we were to develop a new DM from scratch with the goal of having a world class DM, we would start some how like you mention. But since ~95% of DM will never go there, it's more important that the game be accessible.
You snipped out the meat of that- the second paragraph; the one about D&D. The need to make the game (D&D) accessible. It's kind of important given the context of this overall conversation! That's what I was trying to get at. Many of us (if not all) are talking about experiences we are having, or had, with D&D- which is, well, kind of sui generis in some way, despite its popularity.
Trust me- I am CERTAINLY not the person to police thread drift, or threadjacking- I am all for both of those. I am just trying to point out why I think, IMO, you are missing some important context that the rest of us are using for this. We are talking about boxed text on D&D modules, which is kind of orthogonal to greater theories of TTRPGs AFAIK.
I could be wrong, but I don't think I am?
Don't know? Don't care?So exactly where do you come in here?
* LE's initial statement isn't topic drift (at all).
* LE's statement isn't controversial and therefore cannot be topic drift.
* LE's statement could be construed as topic drift (either because it plain is or because it isn't an outright truism) but isn't absolute topic drift. The only way it becomes actual topic drift is if someone voices their disagreement and related conversation ensues.
* Your (not?) topic drift engagement on my topic drift to LE's (not?) topic drift is appropriate because topic drift principle x?
* Topic drift principle x allows for drift after y number of pages?
But context is helpful in understanding things. If I say something is red, that means one thing if it's a red umbrella, and a different thing if I say that a person is a red-a$$.
Sure! Knock yourself out- but try and remember that at that point it's a very different conversation; for example, I would discuss why it's important (IMO) for D&D, and then maybe you can talk about why D&D isn't the best game to learn, but others would say, "Hey, that's what people would end up doing anyway" and someone would post a picture of a snake eating its tail ...
Can I just say that I'd much rather be talking about the genesis of GMing and then discussing how that hooks into the utility (or the problem) of "boxed text"?
BUT I AM NOT THE BOSS OF YOU (yet .... I HAVE PLANS!).