Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 8742397" data-attributes="member: 22779">And, honestly?&nbsp; That's where the conversation should end.&nbsp; I don't like it is a perfectly fine thing to say.&nbsp; &quot;I don't like it and I want to change it at my table, how can I do that?&quot; is also a perfectly understandable conversation.&nbsp; &quot;I don't like it, therefore it's poorly designed and needs to be changed for everyone who plays the game&quot; is a conversation that will almost never go well.I mean, heck, I'm with you. I don't like the naval combat rules presented in Ghosts of Saltmarsh.&nbsp; I want a crunchier system.&nbsp; So, I went out and got a crunchier one that I really like.&nbsp; However, my players did a hard &quot;Nope&quot; as soon as I tried to use it and wanted to use the system in GoS.So, which is a better design?&nbsp; The question is meaningless.&nbsp; The reason for using one system or another is pure preference.&nbsp; Both systems are perfectly fine for what they are.&nbsp; And it is so important to keep in mind that my table, your table and Bob's table over there are not necessarily having the same experiences.&nbsp; Like, at all.&nbsp; So, when people talk about D&amp;D being combat on training wheels, I really don't understand because I have no problem challenging my players.&nbsp; I really don't.&nbsp; CR works for me - although of course, I recognize that it's a predictive system and absolutely not perfect.&nbsp; But, it's a decent enough benchmark, for me.&nbsp; So on and so forth.&nbsp; Conversations get so much more productive when people accept that their tables are not reflective of anything other than their own table.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 8742397, member: 22779"] And, honestly? That's where the conversation should end. I don't like it is a perfectly fine thing to say. "I don't like it and I want to change it at my table, how can I do that?" is also a perfectly understandable conversation. "I don't like it, therefore it's poorly designed and needs to be changed for everyone who plays the game" is a conversation that will almost never go well. I mean, heck, I'm with you. I don't like the naval combat rules presented in Ghosts of Saltmarsh. I want a crunchier system. So, I went out and got a crunchier one that I really like. However, my players did a hard "Nope" as soon as I tried to use it and wanted to use the system in GoS. So, which is a better design? The question is meaningless. The reason for using one system or another is pure preference. Both systems are perfectly fine for what they are. And it is so important to keep in mind that my table, your table and Bob's table over there are not necessarily having the same experiences. Like, at all. So, when people talk about D&D being combat on training wheels, I really don't understand because I have no problem challenging my players. I really don't. CR works for me - although of course, I recognize that it's a predictive system and absolutely not perfect. But, it's a decent enough benchmark, for me. So on and so forth. Conversations get so much more productive when people accept that their tables are not reflective of anything other than their own table. [/QUOTE]

Verification