Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5980613" data-attributes="member: 54877">Many of my playstyle components vary from campaign to campaign. A few of them even vary session to session, as my rotating cast of players has different preferences. So active support from game elements is nice when I can get it, and there is a certain minimum needed there, lest I be better off choosing another game. But mainly I want options--which means as much as possible no playstyle assumptions embedded into the framework around which the game is built.  Then after that, as I said elsewhere, I want the game to do what it says it does. No more, no less. If it says it supports A and B playstyles, which I know full well are mutually incompatible under certain circumstances, then I darn well expect there to be clear options for A and B, called out as such, and working to produce those styles at least a little. This is in contrast to, say, a mushed together mechanic with some vague language that you could take to be either A or B, with the strong implication that the DM will take this mushy stuff and stick it into holes to cover up problems. I can do better than that by myself, provided that I don't have to shovel all the manure out of the way first to find the darn structure--if any even exists.  Supporting a playstyle means having the courage to actually support it. Supporting multiple playstyles means also having the courage to tell people that this part of the game over here isn't for them. They should use that part over there, instead. You can't display such courage if you aren't clear in your own mind about the nature of the stuff over here and over there. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> If followed, this means that some pieces of some playstyles--and in some cases whole playstyles--won't be supported, and there won't be any doubt. For me, that means that I'll respect the game more, and buy it to run when the pieces are there work for me. If it claims to do something it doesn't, OTOH, I find that I buy a little of it (if otherwise good), shed the manure, and then go off on my own with it. So even in the latter stages, "support" means "does what it says it does."  BTW, whatever else people may like or dislike about him, I think Monte Cook did a very good job of this with his Malhovic products. I didn't want half of them, but it was always crystal clear which ones I did and didn't want, even before release.</blockquote>

Verification