Originally Posted by
Cluedrew
You know I don't know a lot about Apocalypse World 2e (I know one move it added (I think) from 1e) to actually comment on this, but it reminds me of one of my... tabletop criticism pet peeves.
Over use of the word objective.
The worst cases are when people just stick it in front of a statement that... really it has nothing to do with objectivity. Or if it does, according so some standard that was never clarified. "This is objectively a bad mechanic." OK according to balance, ease of use, accuracy, scaling... your taste?
And even if it is used properly it actually kind of weakens the argument because the final goal of most role-playing games is to have fun. Which is very defiantly a subjective thing, you need the subject to have any hope of getting a result. Yes you can generalize across subjects, but none of these things will be universal (see Quertus being bigger on trans-campaign characters than anyone else it this thread) so none of them are entirely of the object. Objective things are like rules, dates and numbers, none of which can really cover the actual quality of a system or rule.