Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Fenris-77" data-source="post: 8179436" data-attributes="member: 6993955">I'm not really excluding or targeting anyone, the thread overall seems ... IDK, not good from that perspective? This topic is contentious at the best of times. I think a lot of people are making a lot of ill-founded assumptions about who said what about what and whom. I just don't have the bandwidth for that. The thread is already too much about people being salty or feeling offended than anything to do with the actual topic. So if someone thinks I'm talking about them when I say that I'd bet they're correct, and it's not useful or productive. On the other hand there has been some excellent discussion so there's that.I don't see much that's controversial in the OP frankly, not when it's phrased like it is. It's pretty much in line with most common writing on the nature of RPGs.&nbsp; Sure, you can isolate one item off of one of those lists and find reasons to disagree, but that's often not actually a useful addition to the conversation. Like, for example, [USER=177]@Umbran[/USER] 's problem with progressive improvement because he thinks it then doesn't apply to one shots. That's only correct or useful as criticism in a really narrow way IMO (no offense Umbran, you are just the example that popped to mind). It implies that the OP was attempting a level of definitional specificity that isn't warranted, at least based on my reading. Most one-shots would include something like one of the things on that list anyway, and most RPGs certainly do.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Fenris-77, post: 8179436, member: 6993955"] I'm not really excluding or targeting anyone, the thread overall seems ... IDK, not good from that perspective? This topic is contentious at the best of times. I think a lot of people are making a lot of ill-founded assumptions about who said what about what and whom. I just don't have the bandwidth for that. The thread is already too much about people being salty or feeling offended than anything to do with the actual topic. So if someone thinks I'm talking about them when I say that I'd bet they're correct, and it's not useful or productive. On the other hand there has been some excellent discussion so there's that. I don't see much that's controversial in the OP frankly, not when it's phrased like it is. It's pretty much in line with most common writing on the nature of RPGs. Sure, you can isolate one item off of one of those lists and find reasons to disagree, but that's often not actually a useful addition to the conversation. Like, for example, [USER=177]@Umbran[/USER] 's problem with progressive improvement because he thinks it then doesn't apply to one shots. That's only correct or useful as criticism in a [I]really[/I] narrow way IMO (no offense Umbran, you are just the example that popped to mind). It implies that the OP was attempting a level of definitional specificity that isn't warranted, at least based on my reading. Most one-shots would include something like one of the things on that list anyway, and most RPGs certainly do. [/QUOTE]

Verification