Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DogBackward" data-source="post: 5938650" data-attributes="member: 50642">Gee, it's almost as if, over the course of seven years, a person's viewpoint on a given subject might be able to change. Especially on subjects that aren't inherently important; the mechanics and dynamics of a hobby game as opposed to, say, deeply held political views.I myself used to dislike a lot of the &quot;old school&quot; stuff. After looking into it, playing various games and editions a lot more, and so on... my views on the matter have changed rather drastically. With a new-school approach to presentation and cohesion, combined with an old-school approach to giving the DM tools as opposed to rules, and giving a DM more leeway to run the game that they want, as opposed to the game that the designers want... I think this is a very good step forward.Ask me seven years ago?I'd probably be railing against &quot;taking a huge step backward&quot; in game design.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DogBackward, post: 5938650, member: 50642"] Gee, it's almost as if, over the course of [i]seven years[/i], a person's viewpoint on a given subject might be able to change. Especially on subjects that aren't inherently important; the mechanics and dynamics of a hobby game as opposed to, say, deeply held political views. I myself used to dislike a lot of the "old school" stuff. After looking into it, playing various games and editions a lot more, and so on... my views on the matter have changed rather drastically. With a new-school approach to presentation and cohesion, combined with an old-school approach to giving the DM tools as opposed to rules, and giving a DM more leeway to run the game that they want, as opposed to the game that the designers want... I think this is a very good step forward. Ask me seven years ago? I'd probably be railing against "taking a huge step backward" in game design. [/QUOTE]

Verification