With the direction this thread has gone I think it's lost its usefulness unless we get some fresh perspectives. Otherwise, I've finished giving my take on things.
What is wrong with the current perspectives, I wonder? The main premises and arguments are these:
-WE LIKE AND WANT WELL-MADE AND THOUGHT-OUT RPGS. This is the number 1 most important premise.
-In Josh Sawyer's own words - A non-trivial amount of players hate having to deal with the stronghold and gating content behind it is annoying. THIS is actually the only subjective take on the whole thing. THIS is where the divide comes from.
-Stronghold should be optional because of that, the reason being is that it's somewhat different gameplay and veers towards other genres.
-Making meaningful and coherent *optional* (this is almost an oxymoron) content gated behind a stronghold mechanic is hard and almost impossible. The issue is exacerbated by the fact that *any* gated content is awful for detractors.
Now comes the real meat of the issue
-Detractors of the whole stronghold idea have nothing further to add than the aforementioned points.
-People who are neutral one way or the other do see a problem if the stronghold is made meaningless and exists in a vacuum. Well-made RPGs avoid having disconnected elements, it's woven into the initial premise of the genre.
-Making the stronghold badly and filling it with content wastes time the developers could've spent doing something more meaningful and contextual.
-Thus we point out the objective *artistically technical* ways to make the stronghold fit.
-Artistically technical means narrative structuring and pacing, reactivity of the game world, logical progression of events and interconnected systems. There is nothing subjective in this context.
Note: this isn't laid out like a professional scientific or philosophical premises-arguments-conclusion dynamic.
If you see something that is not right then point it out and we'll go from there.
