Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bendris Noulg" data-source="post: 1436715" data-attributes="member: 6398">Quite the opposite...&nbsp; Picture this if you will: I'm in my local gaming store and I pick up a book.&nbsp; I open it up, look at a page, and say, &quot;cheesey&quot;.&nbsp; I flip the page, &quot;cheesey&quot;, flip again.&nbsp; &quot;Cheese,&quot; flip, &quot;cheese&quot;, flip, &quot;cheese&quot;, flip...&nbsp;And this is the Player's Handbook.&nbsp;I'm not assuming.&nbsp; I'm assessing the flavor of the default setting (and the rules that support it) based on their presentation within the rule books.&nbsp;Boy, are you wrong.&nbsp;Tell you what...&nbsp; Go back to page 1 of this thread and start reading from the beginning.&nbsp; Note how many derogatory statements are made about low magic games before the people that play low magic start &quot;firing back&quot;.&nbsp; The reason being that most low magic gamers have no inherent desire to rip on high magic games; We'd rather talk about what we like about low magic rather than what we don't like about high magic.&nbsp; Yet, after X pages of defending our personal tastes, it's eventually going to turn towards what we don't like about high magic since stating what we do like about low magic doesn't seem to satisfy the &quot;other side&quot; of the debate.&nbsp;Interestingly, rather than solving the problem, this seems to only add more logs to the fire.&nbsp;In short, forget everything that's been said in this thread about what people don't like about high magic, leaving only the reasons given for liking low magic.&nbsp; If these reasons aren't enough, than why not just state that you think we're wrong and that neither diplomacy nor anecdotes are going to sway your opinion (which would be far more effective than spending X number of pages telling folks they're tastes are wrong or misguided).&nbsp;I don't like high magic because it just comes across as cheesy.&nbsp; Too much magic.&nbsp; Too much superheroics.&nbsp; Character design focused on creating characters that don't interest me in regards to playing as or GMing for.&nbsp; A CR system that labels characters I would like to play as &quot;sub par&quot; or &quot;ineffectual&quot; when such things are actually a product of the individual group and not the generic rules.&nbsp;Again, re-read this thread from the beginning.&nbsp; It's full of them, and mostly about low magic.&nbsp;I don't need to &quot;re-think&quot; my criticisms; I fully stand by them.&nbsp; However, I'm not prone to post my criticisms until I feel that my tastes and prefereces have been attacked repeatedly and blatently long enough.&nbsp;As for the modules, no, I don't think WotC's adventures are bad examples.&nbsp; After all, if all these discussions assume that the D&amp;D rules are the &quot;standard&quot; by which comparisons of gaming environments are made, than why wouldn't their D&amp;D adventures be considered the &quot;standard&quot; by which comparisons of plots and adventures are made as well?&nbsp; WotC is either the shiznit or they aren't.&nbsp;I'm saying that one man's nerf is another man's challenge.&nbsp; At the very least, nerfs and fiat are common in literature, they are common in movies, they are common in the adventures WotC has produced, and they even have a fairly high-average frequency in the &quot;How To&quot; thread you started.&nbsp;In short, if you want the curteousy of being viewed as an exception to the stereotype, or even to have that stereotype-image removed from the community completely, than perhaps you should also consider a bit of fair play regarding those stereotypes you like to apply on others yourself.&nbsp;Open-mindedness and acceptance are two-way streets, last time I checked.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bendris Noulg, post: 1436715, member: 6398"] Quite the opposite... Picture this if you will: I'm in my local gaming store and I pick up a book. I open it up, look at a page, and say, "cheesey". I flip the page, "cheesey", flip again. "Cheese," flip, "cheese", flip, "cheese", flip... And this is the Player's Handbook. I'm not assuming. I'm assessing the flavor of the default setting (and the rules that support it) based on their presentation within the rule books. Boy, are you wrong. Tell you what... Go back to page 1 of this thread and start reading from the beginning. Note how many derogatory statements are made about low magic games before the people that play low magic start "firing back". The reason being that most low magic gamers have no inherent desire to rip on high magic games; We'd rather talk about what we [i]like[/i] about low magic rather than what we [i]don't like[/i] about high magic. Yet, after X pages of defending our personal tastes, it's eventually going to turn towards what we don't like about high magic since stating what we do like about low magic doesn't seem to satisfy the "other side" of the debate. Interestingly, rather than solving the problem, this seems to only add more logs to the fire. In short, forget everything that's been said in this thread about what people don't like about high magic, leaving only the reasons given for liking low magic. If these reasons aren't enough, than why not just state that you think we're wrong and that neither diplomacy nor anecdotes are going to sway your opinion (which would be far more effective than spending X number of pages telling folks they're tastes are wrong or misguided). I don't like high magic because it just comes across as cheesy. Too much magic. Too much superheroics. Character design focused on creating characters that don't interest me in regards to playing as or GMing for. A CR system that labels characters I would like to play as "sub par" or "ineffectual" when such things are actually a product of the individual group and not the generic rules. Again, re-read this thread from the beginning. It's full of them, and mostly about low magic. I don't need to "re-think" my criticisms; I fully stand by them. However, I'm not prone to post my criticisms until I feel that my tastes and prefereces have been attacked repeatedly and blatently long enough. As for the modules, no, I don't think WotC's adventures are bad examples. After all, if all these discussions assume that the D&D rules are the "standard" by which comparisons of gaming environments are made, than why wouldn't their D&D adventures be considered the "standard" by which comparisons of plots and adventures are made as well? WotC is either the shiznit or they aren't. I'm saying that one man's nerf is another man's challenge. At the very least, nerfs and fiat are common in literature, they are common in movies, they are common in the adventures WotC has produced, and they even have a fairly high-average frequency in the "How To" thread you started. In short, if you want the curteousy of being viewed as an exception to the stereotype, or even to have that stereotype-image removed from the community completely, than perhaps you should also consider a bit of fair play regarding those stereotypes you like to apply on others yourself. Open-mindedness and acceptance are two-way streets, last time I checked. [/QUOTE]

Verification