Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Malmuria" data-source="post: 8659694" data-attributes="member: 7030755">The aesthetic, thematic, and mechanical focus and integration of a game like Monsterhearts is a strength, not a weakness.&nbsp; Saying that it is focused is not an attempt to “pigeonhole” it; rather, it is simply clear about its intended audience.&nbsp; In other words, it is argue contrary to the opinion that dnd 5e can support any type of gameplay, a position that, given your frequent remonstrations, I would assume you agree with (much more so than me, for example; I’ve said before that I think the social ’pillar’ of 5e is fine and affords a variety of gameplay).What purpose does it serve?&nbsp; If someone says they hated their one experience playing dnd, because it was a bunch of dudes who just wanted to be murder hobos, I might suggest to them not only other games, but other communities.&nbsp; This is apart from analysis of the hobby as a social activity being abstractly interesting on its own.Edit: all social activities serve (and constitute) “identity needs.” Social activities are never neutral with regards to identity, though I appreciate it can seem that way for those in the majority.My post was praising the variety of independent rpgs and their success in appealing to demographics excluded by traditional play, especially dnd, not (just) because of the mechanical focus but because of the “culture of play.” Bizarrely, you read that as trying to “pigeonhole” independent games, which, yeah, seems pretty defensive.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Malmuria, post: 8659694, member: 7030755"] The aesthetic, thematic, and mechanical focus and integration of a game like Monsterhearts is a strength, not a weakness. Saying that it is focused is not an attempt to “pigeonhole” it; rather, it is simply clear about its intended audience. In other words, it is argue contrary to the opinion that dnd 5e can support any type of gameplay, a position that, given your frequent remonstrations, I would assume you agree with (much more so than me, for example; I’ve said before that I think the social ’pillar’ of 5e is fine and affords a variety of gameplay). What purpose does it serve? If someone says they hated their one experience playing dnd, because it was a bunch of dudes who just wanted to be murder hobos, I might suggest to them not only other games, but other communities. This is apart from analysis of the hobby as a social activity being abstractly interesting on its own. Edit: all social activities serve (and constitute) “identity needs.” Social activities are never neutral with regards to identity, though I appreciate it can seem that way for those in the majority. My post was praising the variety of independent rpgs and their success in appealing to demographics excluded by traditional play, especially dnd, not (just) because of the mechanical focus but because of the “culture of play.” Bizarrely, you read that as trying to “pigeonhole” independent games, which, yeah, seems pretty defensive. [/QUOTE]

Verification