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

If you knew my sister, you'd see the genius of my plan.

Quote from: AosIf you knew my sister, you'd see the genius of my plan.

You want Koltar as a brother-in-law so you can play GURPS over Thanksgiving and Christmas instead of having to talk to the rest of the family?

Quote from: jgantsYou want Koltar as a brother-in-law so you can play GURPS over Thanksgiving and Christmas instead of having to talk to the rest of the family?

We'll considering how estranged I am from the rest of the family, having Koltar as a brother in law would pretty much assure that I would only have to deal with him when my mother dies- such a joyus event could never be ruined for me by a mere klingon impersonator. Furthermore my sister is evil- unbelievably evil, in fact; it took me decades to finally accept it. She would destroy him utterly.

we would, of course, require that final, crushing moment to be posted on youtube

QuoteOn 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.

In my experience, sometimes the players in a group will have different hings they enjoy doing, but generally, everyone still plays together, the game still goes roughly the same regardless, and the GM just gives each individual the chance to do their favorite thing, and the game largely still plays out the same regardless.

This notion of some vast difference in playstyle that somehow seperates groups from one another the way is often implied or openly stated in online discourse is a load of fetid dingo's kidneys, with little to no connection to any but a handful of elitist jerks who probably don't actually game that often.

Quote from: J ArcaneThis notion of some vast difference in playstyle that somehow seperates groups from one another the way is often implied or openly stated in online discourse is a load of fetid dingo's kidneys, with little to no connection to any but a handful of elitist jerks who probably don't actually game that often.

In my case it's based on a quarter-century empirical experience, and I've seen groups play D&D in vastly different ways.

Not to mention what happens when you step outside the D&D bubble and start looking at WoD-groups, Indie-gamers, etc.

Quote from: J ArcaneThis notion of some vast difference in playstyle that somehow seperates groups from one another the way is often implied or openly stated in online discourse is a load of fetid dingo's kidneys, with little to no connection to any but a handful of elitist jerks who probably don't actually game that often.

Or maybe they are people who have actually gamed with a wide enough variety of people to have seen the differences.

As it is being discussed in this thread: Playstyles != Forge Agendas
Don't conflate the two.

Some players like their character to be like a videogame character.  Maybe they have a name or background, but they don't want to socialize - they want pure tactical combat dungeoncrawls.  Anything in the RPG that isn't a fight scene or giving them a big bonus for the next fight scene is wasted time in their opinion.

Other players might like to focus on the socialization aspect of gaming, and consider combats to be boring filler.

These two groups of players have vastly different styles of play.  I should know - I've played with groups of each.  There is nothing remotely similar between the way I played RPGs in these cases except that both times I had a character sheet and rolled dice.

Now, these are just two examples.  I don't believe that you can lump everyone into a few discrete categories or anything.  The vast majority of my gaming experience has been fairly moderate (as you suggest gaming to be for everyone) - but that doesn't mean these different styles don't exist.

Tons of different styles exist.  Some groups would never, ever let a PC be evil, or take an action against another PC.  Others encourage it.

Some groups would never, ever consider permanent death for a PC.  Other groups love to go through different characters.

Some players love to play strictly by the book.  Others love to use fiat when the rules don't make common sense.

Some players would never play a high crunch game because they like things more freeform.  Others love having everything codified.

Some players love games with super-high powered PCs.  Others hate it and want PCs they can identify with.

Some players love over the top combat where PCs take hundreds of hits.  Others prefer quick and gritty combat.

Some groups love for adventures to be off-the-cuff from the GM.  Others absolutely hate it and consider it cheating when the GM doesn't have things plotted out in advance.

Those are all different styles of playing RPGs!!!

...okay just got home from work, read the last 3 pages of this thread we're in....and basically found myself  thinking WTF is all this about?

 Something humorous was said somewhere.

 Aos - your sister is safe, I'm not changing my name to a number/letter combination ...besides plenty of potential partners for me locally in that department anyway.

As for 4/e ?? I hope its liked well enough that game stores like the one I work at stay in business.


- Ed C.

On the issue of the dragon, I'll point out that dragons have always been scalable in D&D.

From the 1E Monster Manual, I see that a young adult copper dragon could have only 28 hit points - 7 hit dice, 4 HP per die. It's spellcasting abilities are vaguely between those of a 3rd and 4th level magic user. It is damn hard to hit, and will probably hit most 2nd level characters in close combat, and it's breath attack is obviously nightmarish, but if the party can keep their distance from it they may be able to take it down (especially if they can distract it with a goblin tribe).

Killing it would bag the party about 1655 XP, which is a lot but not earth-shatteringly so. It'd be a very tough encounter for a 2nd level party, but one which a smart party could survive.

Quote from: KoltarAos - your sister is safe, I'm not changing my name to a number/letter combination ...besides plenty of potential partners for me locally in that department anyway.

I'm throughouly convinced that Koltar has had sex with more GURPS books than anyone else would even dream of.

Quote from: WarthurI suspect that once 4E is released half of the controversies we've been discussing so far will seem like utter irrelevancies, with no basis in reality, while half the stuff which will be controversial after 4E comes out will be things we currently have no idea about.

That's my exact opinion.

Quote from: J ArcaneIn my experience, sometimes the players in a group will have different hings they enjoy doing, but generally, everyone still plays together, the game still goes roughly the same regardless, and the GM just gives each individual the chance to do their favorite thing, and the game largely still plays out the same regardless.

I agree that this is the way things generally work out when you have mixed personal play styles but a collective will to see everyone enjoy themselves, but it's still entirely possible for everyone in the group to share a similar playstyle and persue that almost exclusively and to the detriment of any other style.

I actually had a guy in my Ptolus group who liked the tactical combat side of D&D far more than any social aspect. He doesn't care overly much for the reason for a fight so much as requireing that the scenary be inspiring and provide many opportunities for creating manouvering and feat use. His character is well developed (to the point where he choses clearly suboptimal feats in favour of thematic ones, and possibly also to make combat more of a personal challenge) but he personally has no desire to drive the story between fights.

Similarly, one of the remaining players ran a V:tR game which was almost entirely social. Her Ptolus charcter spends time buying elaborate dresses in the South Market district (for equipment bonuses in high society) and plotting to marry her way into a title. Her character, a ranger, is by coincidence one of the stronger fighters in the group, but even there she was (mostly) more interested in ploughing points into crafting to make her own bow than in using said weapon to deal death to chosen enemies.

Are these two playstyles entirely incompatible? No, since players are generally willing to compromise. Would a different balance of players within the group with a strong focus on one style over the other alter the balance of the game as our group plays it? Absolutely, and the recent departure of the first of my two example players (due to family commitments) has already resulted in a shift in focus in the most recent two sessions.

I can't speak of the extent to which groups find themselves drawn to different styles of play or the number of different styles to which they may be drawn, but it seem ludicrous to suggest that every group plays D&D the same way.

Quote from: jgantsSome groups would never, ever consider permanent death for a PC.  Other groups love to go through different characters.

This is a huge one. Someone who writes two pages of backstory for his PC, spends three hours assigning stats, skills, and feats, and sits down to begin his hero's epic journey is going to be mighty pissed when he gets bit by a giant spider in the second room of my dungeon, fails his save versus poison and dies. Then when the rest of my players laugh at him and tell him to play one of the hirelings, or just roll up another guy in 5 minutes, he may regard our play style as somewhat contrary to his preferences.

But if Senchai says that kind of thing couldn't happen, we have to believe him.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityIn my case it's based on a quarter-century empirical experience, and I've seen groups play D&D in vastly different ways.

Same here.

I'm genuinely baffled by these people who claim that everyone plays essentially the same way.

This claim has been falsified too many times in my experience, and the experiences of people I know, to be taken seriously.  It's both sad and amusing that the response to experiences like mine (and Pierce's, and many others) is simply that we're deluded about our own experiences (suffering from 'false consciousness' or some nonsense).