Quote from: James McMurrayHowever, anecdotal evidence can be useful in proving that things exist. If you have, for example, one person who likes grim and gritty play but can't stand superheroes, while another person wants to play nothing but epic powerhouses, you have conclusively proven the existence of multiple play styles.

Correct.  But what it can't show is whether that's really a common problem worth worrying about or something unusual and rare that only a handful of people ever run into.

There is a (likely apocryphal) story about how he late film critic Pauline Kael expressed disbelief over Richard Nixon's 1972 reelection by saying, "I don't know how Nixon could have been elected; nobody I know voted for him." (Nixon won in a landslide.)  The story is meant to illustrate how social insularity can lead to a warped view of reality.  Gamers tend to associate with particular slices of the hobby while missing others because those are the sorts of social circles they move in.  As a result, one person's experience of the hobby can vary substantially from another.  And, no, going to conventions or participating in online discussions doesn't entirely solve the problem because large segments of the hobby do neither of those things.

Quote from: KoltarThis whole cat pictures as Statler & Waldorf-esque peanut gallery is amusing.

I just want to know how many people that angry cat killed when he finally crawled out of that pool.

Quote from: Consonant DudePhase 3 is probably not needed and the cases are extreme. But you'd be surprised at what a company like that can actually do. The card tapping in Magic is actually a great example.

No it isn't. The "trading card game" patent was able to slip through because it was a patent on a whole new variety of game, not solely on a specific game mechanics. (Particular game mechanics were specified in the patent, but that's by the by). You wouldn't be able to get a similar patent through for an RPG; the RPG format has become too widely-established for someone to patent it now, and a patent based solely on a few game mechanics in an otherwise-ordinary RPG would probably fail.

Quote from: WarthurNo it isn't. The "trading card game" patent was able to slip through because it was a patent on a whole new variety of game, not solely on a specific game mechanics. (Particular game mechanics were specified in the patent, but that's by the by). You wouldn't be able to get a similar patent through for an RPG; the RPG format has become too widely-established for someone to patent it now, and a patent based solely on a few game mechanics in an otherwise-ordinary RPG would probably fail.

You're probably thinking in  terms of very traditional, old school roleplaying game mechanics. You're probably thinking books with fluff, some instructions in the form of basic math equations, a character sheet and standard polys. Think outside the box.

There are many ways to make roleplaying more evocative and more profitable. And to patent it. And to make it difficult for companies that don't have the financial ressources or the means to manufacture products.  

But really, it won't be necessary anyway. The OGL will be irrelevant to WotC before it comes to that.

Quote from: John MorrowI just want to know how many people that angry cat killed when he finally crawled out of that pool.

It depends on the edition. In 1st, he killed a village before put to death by a 10th level Magic User. In AD&D, a party of might 1st level adventurers were hired by Elminster to kill it before anyone was hurt. In 3.0, it killed 4 Commoners, and its high Move Silently and Hide let it get the drop in the Wizard too. (The Wizard rolled poorly, and the cat's good init plus 4 attacks turn the wizard to jelly.)

In 4th Edition, it's rumored that the cat will destroy half a kingdom before a party of second level adventurers find it. The cat will teleport behind the wizard and kill him with laser eyes before the Paladin hits the cat with his dragon-sword and Raises the Wizard with his smite. Then everyone gets exp. because they filled out their cards.

Quote from: James McMurrayDespite the fact that many of them describe their playstyles differently? Intersting... ummm... logic you've got there.

I never said folks didn't believe they played differently than other folks. In fact, that was part of my point.

Witnesses to a single crime will often report wildly different things to police, even changing the race of the criminal to better match their own ideas of what race he or she should be. They all literally see the same thing and are all convinced it happened some way other than how it did.

People telling you how they play, particularly on the Internet, in a certain setting, and among peers and other reports, doesn't remotely mean that's how they actually play.

Quote from: James McMurrayI pointed you to testimonials, to which you replied "nuh-uh!"

I must have missed those...

But if testimonals are evidence, you have three for D&D being played basically the same across the board just in this thread. Are you satisified that I've proved my point now?

Quote from: James McMurrayEvery argument about "my play style is betteer than yours" is proof that at least two seperate playstyles exist.

No, it's only proof that people believe they play differently or very differently than others.

You mentioned high versus low-powered games. Some people in this thread have said that OD&D is low-powered. Others have said high-powered. They're all playing the same game, but apparently have two takes that are polar opposites of each other. Given this, how is asking them whether or not their games are high-powered or low-powered meaningful?

Moreover, two people who played the same game at the same table can come away with different impressions of what the game was like.

So I take you back to..."No, I'm saying that like some of the other discussion about illusions vs. mechanics/chocolate vs. vanilla, the idea of "supporting a play style" and "different play styles" is basically different subjective takes on the same core thing. People all generally play D&D the same way and have always played D&D basically the same way."

Seanchai

Quote from: Thanatos02It depends on the edition. In 1st, he killed a village before put to death by a 10th level Magic User. In AD&D, a party of might 1st level adventurers were hired by Elminster to kill it before anyone was hurt. In 3.0, it killed 4 Commoners, and its high Move Silently and Hide let it get the drop in the Wizard too. (The Wizard rolled poorly, and the cat's good init plus 4 attacks turn the wizard to jelly.)

In 4th Edition, it's rumored that the cat will destroy half a kingdom before a party of second level adventurers find it. The cat will teleport behind the wizard and kill him with laser eyes before the Paladin hits the cat with his dragon-sword and Raises the Wizard with his smite. Then everyone gets exp. because they filled out their cards.

Sheer genius,sir. Bravo!

Quote from: SeanchaiI never said folks didn't believe they played differently than other folks. In fact, that was part of my point.

Now I'm definitely confused. So, if I get this straight, you're saying that people do in fact prefer different styles of play, but that there's no such thing as different preferred play styles?

QuotePeople telling you how they play, particularly on the Internet, in a certain setting, and among peers and other reports, doesn't remotely mean that's how they actually play.

The "everyone but me is a deluded liar" maneuver. How intriguing.

QuoteBut if testimonals are evidence, you have three for D&D being played basically the same across the board just in this thread. Are you satisified that I've proved my point now?

No, but I'm satisfied that you're a deluded liar, just like the rest of the world. Thanks for the entertainment!

QuoteNo, it's only proof that people believe they play differently or very differently than others.

Meaning they have different preferred play styles.

QuoteYou mentioned high versus low-powered games. Some people in this thread have said that OD&D is low-powered. Others have said high-powered. They're all playing the same game, but apparently have two takes that are polar opposites of each other. Given this, how is asking them whether or not their games are high-powered or low-powered meaningful?

So you're claiming that Exalted and BD&D are he same game?

QuoteMoreover, two people who played the same game at the same table can come away with different impressions of what the game was like.

Completely true, and wholly irrelevant.

QuoteSo I take you back to..."No, I'm saying that like some of the other discussion about illusions vs. mechanics/chocolate vs. vanilla, the idea of "supporting a play style" and "different play styles" is basically different subjective takes on the same core thing. People all generally play D&D the same way and have always played D&D basically the same way."

Which reminds me... HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

Quote from: AosI have decided to allow 4e to fuck my sister.

You realise that's an open invitation for Koltar to change his name to 4e?

Quote from: TrevelyanYou realise that's an open invitation for Koltar to change his name to 4e?

How do you say it in Klingon?

Quote from: Thanatos02How do you say it in Klingon?

Dunno, my Klingon is so rusty that I can barely remember how to say "surrender or die!".

In other news, I notice in the playtest report that several of the goblins survived and attacked the dragon before enveloping it in the blast frmo an exploding ship before it fell. It didn't seem to me that the PCs alone were anything like a match for the beast.

If I were to look at that scene with my GM hat on, I'd suggest that the dragon was intended to be a social encounter (this was pretty much given) but that the GM decided it didn't take kindly to being attacked by the tiefling and so fought back. When it became apparent that the PCs were incapable of bringing the fight to a peaceful conclusion, the GM invoked the goblins as a deus ex to remove the dragon from the fight.

With that same hat on I'd class the tiefling player as a complete tit and suggest that his whiney excuse of "my character hates dragons and always attacks them" is the kind of piss poor justification for taking stupidly suicidal actions in game that doesn't endear anyone to my group or me as GM in particular.

On the play styles issue, I have several people within my group who prefer different play styles ranging from detailed tactical combat to heavily involved social "I want to seduce the Duke" stuff. Fortunately for me the latter situation lends itself well to circumstances provoking the former.

Also, I like kittens so can we have more of those please?

Quote from: James McMurraySo, if I get this straight, you're saying that people do in fact prefer different styles of play, but that there's no such thing as different preferred play styles?

No, you're saying people prefer different play styles. I'm saying people all basically play the same way.

Seanchai

The Diceman School of Informal Debate is failing me, so let's try something slightly more Classical:

Can we agree that some people prefer to roleplay social situations, while others want to roll their skill check and move on, and still others like a mix?

Quote from: SeanchaiNo, you're saying people prefer different play styles. I'm saying people all basically play the same way.

Seanchai

And you have proof of this where again...?

Quote from: TrevelyanYou realise that's an open invitation for Koltar to change his name to 4e?

Please.  Hugs and backrubs only.

!i!