Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 5981758" data-attributes="member: 22779">You may have meant it to be neutral, but, I don't interpret it that way.&nbsp; If the game supports your playstyle, then it supports your playstyle.&nbsp; End of story.&nbsp; That it might support other playstyles might or might not be true, that's not in the choices.&nbsp; The option is, &quot;The game runs smoothly when I play it in my preferred style&quot;.&nbsp; Fine, that means that that game has been designed with that playstyle in mind.The option: &quot;Playing the game by the rules-as-written naturally leads to playing it in the style I prefer.&quot; is a natural outgrowth of that.&nbsp; If I have to rewrite the game in order for it to fit my playstyle, then the game will not run smoothly when I play it in my preferred style.&nbsp; If it did, then I wouldn't have to change RAW to achieve what I want.To me, they're natural bookends to the same thing.&nbsp; If the game runs smoothly out of the box, then it's written with my playstyle in mind.&nbsp; If it's written with my playstyle in mind, then running the game by RAW will naturally lead to the supported playstyle(s).&nbsp; And since the first option establishes that I prefer systems that run to my tastes out of the box, this option simply reinforces that.See, I think where the problem lies is that people who had been catered to for three editions of D&amp;D, pretty specifically, never realized how much their playstyles were causing frustration for others.&nbsp; It wasn't until we got a system that really catered to another playstyle that we say all the criticisms like, &quot;4e only caters to a narrow group of players&quot;.&nbsp; It's not that at all.&nbsp; It caters to a DIFFERENT group of players, one that, up to now, had been pretty much ignored.I'll give a more concrete example.&nbsp; If I were to play or run a First Edition AD&amp;D game by RAW, I would not enjoy it.&nbsp; There are too many things in that game that I do not like.&nbsp; Playing that system, by RAW, caters to a very different set of tastes than mine.&nbsp; Now, if I did try to use that system, I'd have to rewrite vast swaths of it to suit me, so, it wouldn't work smoothly for me either.Which only means that I don't like AD&amp;D.&nbsp; Not a big shock there.&nbsp; Where the problem is, I think, is that people keep trying to tell me that older editions were more broadly appealing and that newer editions are more narrow.&nbsp; It's not that at all.&nbsp; They have different appeals, not more or less narrow ones.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 5981758, member: 22779"] You may have meant it to be neutral, but, I don't interpret it that way. If the game supports your playstyle, then it supports your playstyle. End of story. That it might support other playstyles might or might not be true, that's not in the choices. The option is, "The game runs smoothly when I play it in my preferred style". Fine, that means that that game has been designed with that playstyle in mind. The option: "Playing the game by the rules-as-written naturally leads to playing it in the style I prefer." is a natural outgrowth of that. If I have to rewrite the game in order for it to fit my playstyle, then the game will not run smoothly when I play it in my preferred style. If it did, then I wouldn't have to change RAW to achieve what I want. To me, they're natural bookends to the same thing. If the game runs smoothly out of the box, then it's written with my playstyle in mind. If it's written with my playstyle in mind, then running the game by RAW will naturally lead to the supported playstyle(s). And since the first option establishes that I prefer systems that run to my tastes out of the box, this option simply reinforces that. See, I think where the problem lies is that people who had been catered to for three editions of D&D, pretty specifically, never realized how much their playstyles were causing frustration for others. It wasn't until we got a system that really catered to another playstyle that we say all the criticisms like, "4e only caters to a narrow group of players". It's not that at all. It caters to a DIFFERENT group of players, one that, up to now, had been pretty much ignored. I'll give a more concrete example. If I were to play or run a First Edition AD&D game by RAW, I would not enjoy it. There are too many things in that game that I do not like. Playing that system, by RAW, caters to a very different set of tastes than mine. Now, if I did try to use that system, I'd have to rewrite vast swaths of it to suit me, so, it wouldn't work smoothly for me either. Which only means that I don't like AD&D. Not a big shock there. Where the problem is, I think, is that people keep trying to tell me that older editions were more broadly appealing and that newer editions are more narrow. It's not that at all. They have different appeals, not more or less narrow ones. [/QUOTE]

Verification