Unpossible to Unsee the Self-References

It's just a style thing, presumably, but self-referentiality detracts from the readability of Grognardia.

A recent example, with all James's references to himself underlined and bolded:

"Over the last little while, I've been writing up these rival adventuring parties, along with some new ones, and I've found myself wondering just how much information a referee needs to use an NPC adventuring party, which is admittedly part of a larger problem of just how much detail is needed for any element of an adventure module/setting. I myself require very little detail. My personal notes are usually quite spare -- mostly words or phrases intended to jog my memory. In fact, I make up a lot of details on the spot, since this saves time and gives me more flexibility in play. I can't begin to remember the number of times I've changed my mind about things because of the roll of the dice, player decision, or even just whimsy.

However, I realize that not every referee plays like me. So, I'm trying to strike a good balance between too much and too little detail in presenting NPC adventurers. Here's an example of one such party, written in a very minimalist style:"

Sure, he's probably sensitive to flak from people who bash him, so maybe he's just trying to be extra clear that his opinions aren't intended to be universal.

To repeat: It's probably just a style thing. And it's distracting.

The following would have been better:

"How much information does a referee need in order to use an NPC adventuring party? How much detail is needed for any element of an adventure module/setting? I require only very little detail, but not every referee shares that preference. So, I'm trying to strike a good balance between too much and too little detail in presenting NPC adventurers. Here's an example of one such party, written in a very minimalist style:"

It's usually pretty clear when someone is stating an opinion, without them having to say, "It's my opinion that..." Heck, by default, readers should assume what they read on blogs is purely opinion, especially if it's a value judgement. If a reader can't figure that out, and feels the urge to respond ("hey pal, you don't speak for me!"), then it's a reader problem, not a writer problem.

Readers: Don't assume someone is trying to speak for you ... unless they say they're speaking for you.