Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 5999257" data-attributes="member: 6668292">I don't want to say you're missing the point again. Sorry for that statement the first time.I think you're taking it things that certain posters say, and assuming that anytime anyone says something along the same lines, they mean the same thing. It's that spreadshot-like effect I'm speaking out against.Sure, people question your statements, even aggressively, when you say that the game didn't deliver for you. You've qualified appropriately. Later, someone else might say why what you said doesn't match their experience, and you'll say why your experience happened for you. Still all good. Later, someone else will say that something wrecked immersion for them, and you'll say that it doesn't for you. All good.What happens in this conversation, unfortunately, is that people say "it ruined immersion for me" and then people question it, as Hussar pointed it. "That ruined immersion for you but hit points don't?" These same people get questioned in exactly the same way that you do. These people, who express what is happening for them, get questioned and dismissed and sometimes even attacked in the same way you are when you express what happened for you.And it shouldn't be that way. And then, extending those same arguments to people who haven't made the same statements just makes things worse. In my view, at least. Does that clear up what I mean, yet? As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I couldn't XP you again yet, so it was the least I could do. No worries, man.I'm going to reply lightly to this, because I feel I'm not going to get anywhere productive with you in this thread. For the purposes of this thread and the discussion, I'll still respond, so people know my thoughts on it.I think that JA meant "inherently associated" in his article, not "can be associated" or the like. But, again, I'm not going to go further into it unless questioned by someone else.Almost certainly the second batch for the majority of conflict-oriented discussions. Now, let's get away from GNS, The Big Model, GDS, dissociated mechanics, unbalanced, balanced, linear fighter/quadratic wizard, not D&D, and all the other sets of terminology that mostly just cause divides in these discussions.Disagreed. But I'll agree to disagree. If you have a response to me, I'll let you have the last word. As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification