Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 6662721" data-attributes="member: 6668292">What up, dude.I feel like this is actually what I wrote about. Some people don't or won't agree with your analysis (your &quot;technical evaluation of system&quot;). They don't or won't agree with your terminology. Why bang your head on that wall when you could have productive conversation with people who line up on your views and actually contribute to the conversation you want to have?Otherwise, you'll be getting stopped before conversation even starts, as people say, &quot;your premise is wrong.&quot; Because that's how they feel about your analysis. If you don't want to have that conversation, I'm just advising stepping around those people.I guess I'm confused about why this is &quot;frustrating as hell&quot; when you could just ignore these people or politely ask them not to participate. A lot of posters here don't like 4e, but they didn't threadcrap in my 4e thread while I was still playing it. I'm sure the same could be done on discussions you'd like to talk about.I think you can have that. I just think that some people are honestly saying that, to them, taking a technical approach is not what they want when they GM. I'm somewhere in the middle (between art and science), I think, but I do love me my crunchy systems.Regardless, is it surprising that, when you bring up GMing techniques with other GMs, that they talk about things that work for them? I assume it's not. So that's the part that I'm confused on. What part of this is frustrating? Because I'm just missing something, I think.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="JamesonCourage, post: 6662721, member: 6668292"] What up, dude. I feel like this is actually what I wrote about. Some people don't or won't agree with your analysis (your "technical evaluation of system"). They don't or won't agree with your terminology. Why bang your head on that wall when you could have productive conversation with people who line up on your views and actually contribute to the conversation you want to have? Otherwise, you'll be getting stopped before conversation even starts, as people say, "your premise is wrong." Because that's how they feel about your analysis. If you don't want to have that conversation, I'm just advising stepping around those people. I guess I'm confused about why this is "frustrating as hell" when you could just ignore these people or politely ask them not to participate. A lot of posters here don't like 4e, but they didn't threadcrap in my 4e thread while I was still playing it. I'm sure the same could be done on discussions you'd like to talk about. I think you can have that. I just think that some people are honestly saying that, to them, taking a technical approach is not what they want when they GM. I'm somewhere in the middle (between art and science), I think, but I do love me my crunchy systems. Regardless, is it surprising that, when you bring up GMing techniques with other GMs, that they talk about things that work for them? I assume it's not. So that's the part that I'm confused on. What part of this is frustrating? Because I'm just missing something, I think. [/QUOTE]

Verification