Quote from: SeanchaiDo I think it's possible? Sure. I think it's possible that out there, for example, people play using live hampsters as minis. I just don't think it's worth worrying about or classifying these outliers.

So people actually playing differently - in some objective way not muddled by revealed versus stated preference is possible, but only about as much as people using live hamsters.  Is that correct?

Quote from: SeanchaiDo I think they would? Not really. Because once you remove the titles, names, etc., I think we all pretty much play the same way.

How much do you feel needs to be removed before it all looks the same?

Quote from: SeanchaiI do think, however, that highlights one of the flaws of there-are-different-play-styles position: There's no real definition to what a play style is. For example, I play using a wooden pencil. All the other people at my table play using mechanical pencils. Is that a difference in play styles?

We have examples of play styles that deal with the game (power level), that deal with players (genres), and that deal with behavior (sandbox). We have small and large examples, examples about actions and about preferences.

It covers a lot of ground. In fact, play styles seems to mean whatever is convenient for the author at the time. Sure, a play style is the style in which people play, but then we're dealing with self-referential definitions and all that.

It seems odd to me to argue that something must exist that can't or hasn't been defined.

Seanchai

I don't think people are arguing that it must exist - but that it does.  There's a difference.  And I don't think just because people don't have specific definitions (although GNS, GDS, TBM, etc. all seem to have at least some set of definitions) doesn't mean a thing can't exist.

You yourself gave three possible axis for differentiation - power level, genres, and sandbox - that could be used to define different styles. So, they exist then?

Quote from: SeanchaiI do think, however, that highlights one of the flaws of there-are-different-play-styles position: There's no real definition to what a play style is. For example, I play using a wooden pencil. All the other people at my table play using mechanical pencils. Is that a difference in play styles?

Does it affect your play?

QuoteIt seems odd to me to argue that something must exist that can't or hasn't been defined.

Check your favorite dictionary. "Play" and "style" have been defined for a really long time.

Quote from: James J SkachSo people actually playing differently - in some objective way not muddled by revealed versus stated preference is possible, but only about as much as people using live hamsters. Is that correct?

I'm pretty certain that people using live hampsters as minis is extreme. That is, it's far enough from the norm to readily say it's not part of the norm.

Again, I think people pretty much play the same way. Not absolutely everyone, but enough that there's really just one general approach to playing that's worth quantifying/discussing.

Quote from: James J SkachHow much do you feel needs to be removed before it all looks the same?

Shrug. How much of a difference does there need to be between one thing and the next for them to be different play styles?  

Quote from: James J SkachI don't think people are arguing that it must exist - but that it does.  There's a difference.

The difference would be that you can prove one. If it does exist, you can point it out. Prove that it's there and that it's distinct. Thus far, the proof that play styles exist - in complete absence of a definition of what a play style might be - is that they're self-evident.

Quote from: James J SkachAnd I don't think just because people don't have specific definitions (although GNS, GDS, TBM, etc. all seem to have at least some set of definitions) doesn't mean a thing can't exist.

No, but having a discussion about xengal woogies without having an idea of what a xengal woogie might be is...an interesting approach. True, we can't say that a xengal woogie doesn't exist.

Quote from: James J SkachYou yourself gave three possible axis for differentiation - power level, genres, and sandbox - that could be used to define different styles. So, they exist then?

Not quite. I gave three examples of things others cited as examples of different play styles. (Out of them, I'd only consider power level and sandbox within the realm of what a play style might be - and, again, I think people pretty play at the same power level and at the same "sandbox level.")

Seanchai

Quote from: James McMurray"Play" and "style" have been defined for a really long time.

"Tingly dove bright" isn't necessarily a functional term because "tingly," "dove," and "bright" are all previously defined, functional terms.

Moreover, there's nothing in the denotative definitions of "play" or "style" or indicate that some affect is required, as your response to the question about the pencils implies.

Seanchai

Every time you argue with Seanchai god kills a kitten.

Quote from: Seanchai"Tingly dove bright" isn't necessarily a functional term because "tingly," "dove," and "bright" are all previously defined, functional terms.

Moreover, there's nothing in the denotative definitions of "play" or "style" or indicate that some affect is required, as your response to the question about the pencils implies.

Seanchai

You're honestly telling me that after 17 pages of context and examples you can't figure out how to read the phrase "play style"? And that's just this thread; these things have been discussed in countless others. And you still don't understand?

Quote from: Seanchai"Tingly dove bright"

Wasn't that the third Cocteau Twins album ?

Quote from: SeanCocteau Twins

*swoon*

Quote from: Pierce Inverarity*swoon*

I've met 'em at a backstage party after one of their gigs. I'm not really a fan, but can't deny that Liz Frasier is stunning.

Quote from: SeanchaiIn fact, play styles seems to mean whatever is convenient for the author at the time. Sure, a play style is the style in which people play, but then we're dealing with self-referential definitions and all that.

The same can be said about preferences in food. I guess that means there's no difference between steak and brocolli, and anyone who says he prefers one to the other is delusion or has an agenda.

:raise:

*popped in here to check out new posts while listening to Violaine*

*backs out slowly*

Whattsamatta, Ape? You don't like

Quote from: SeanchaiI'm pretty certain that people using live hampsters as minis is extreme. That is, it's far enough from the norm to readily say it's not part of the norm.

Again, I think people pretty much play the same way. Not absolutely everyone, but enough that there's really just one general approach to playing that's worth quantifying/discussing.

So that would be a "yes"?

Quote from: SeanchaiShrug. How much of a difference does there need to be between one thing and the next for them to be different play styles?

Well, for one small example, people who think random death is perfectly acceptable versus people who believe the characters have "script immunity" if you will.  Is that enough of a difference? I'm asking for you to provide some guidelines as to why something someone else thinks is playing different is not. Take/use any example you'd like and explain why, though someone else claims difference in play style, you believe they are not playing that differently.

Quote from: SeanchaiThe difference would be that you can prove one. If it does exist, you can point it out. Prove that it's there and that it's distinct. Thus far, the proof that play styles exist - in complete absence of a definition of what a play style might be - is that they're self-evident.

No, you just seem to write off peoples' play experiences.  There are people in this thread trying very hard to point out to you the differences. So far, your response is that they are mistaken.  If that's the case, nobody will ever convince you.  I'm left wondering if you know that and simply continue the conversation to annoy people.

Quote from: SeanchaiNo, but having a discussion about xengal woogies without having an idea of what a xengal woogie might be is...an interesting approach. True, we can't say that a xengal woogie doesn't exist.

So what you're really looking for is a definition of a play style? Is that your hesitation? So if someone says "I like to play by the book, heavy rules and get it right or don't play," and someone else says, "I like to play loose with guidelines more than rules," is that enough of a definition? Again, what i've seen in this thread are people providing descriptions of xengal woogies, and their close cousin the xengal farouk, and explaining how they are different.  You're response seems to be that they are really the same - they are both xengal's after all. Where does your classification come from - Kingdom? Phylum? Class?

Quote from: SeanchaiNot quite. I gave three examples of things others cited as examples of different play styles.

Fair enough.

Quote from: SeanchaiOut of them, I'd only consider power level and sandbox within the realm of what a play style might be - and, again, I think people pretty play at the same power level and at the same "sandbox level."

So even when people agree with you on attributes of a play style - say power level and "sandboxness" - you are saying there's no real difference in how they actually play.

I'm curious, then, as to why you even recognize those attributes/measurements.  I mean, in order for something to be recognized as such, there has to be some kind of distinction, yes? You seem to see one - that is there's this thing called power level - but then refuse to believe there are different measurements for that power level. Or am I reading you incorrectly?

Otherwise it's like saying play style includes color, but every play style is black. And then extrapolating that to every characteristic possible until there is no such thing as play style.

QuoteOut of them, I'd only consider power level and sandbox within the realm of what a play style might be - and, again, I think people pretty play at the same power level and at the same "sandbox level."

So what you're saying is that Keep on the Borderlands and the Epic Level Handbook are the exact same power level, or at least close enough that you can't distinguish a difference between the two?

QuoteElite Monsters

Elite monsters represent a greater challenge: They count as two monsters of their level for encounter building and rewards. Elite monsters have the word "elite" preceding their level and role.
 
Here's how a fight against a pair of such beasts might go:

The bulettes are underground using their burrowing movement. Even though the PCs can hear the creatures (a bulette isn't exactly stealthy), they can't attack until the bulettes rise to the surface.
When the bulettes go, they go mean. The first burrows shallowly through the earth under the fighter and rogue – the fighter keep his feet, but the rogue falls down and makes a good target. The bulette leaves the ground to take advantage of this and bites the poor fellow, doing some serious damage.
Bulette number two uses the same opening gambit but knocks over both the cleric and the wizard, who were next to each other. It opts to burst from the ground in a spray of packed dirt and stone. The prone heroes are easier to hit and take more damage from the wave of rocks. The fighter is also in range of the burst, but he brushes the soil aside with his shield.
The party gets to act. The rogue rises. He's not in a position to flank, but he can still try to do some damage. He doesn't like the look of the bulette's heavy armor, so he tries to slip his short sword between two stony plates before the bulette can react and he draws blood.
The wizard's in a bad spot. He probably can't lay down an attack without provoking an opportunity attack or burning his allies, so he delays. Good thing, because the cleric places fear in the bulette's tiny mind, which doesn't offer much resistance. The bulette burrows away, taking an opportunity attack from the cleric before he gets underground (avoiding like attacks from the fighter and the rogue.
This gives the wizard the chance to stand and cover the bulette's space with crackling lightning -- the monster's bulk means it doesn't have much chance to evade the blast and it doesn't. The fighter follows with a good, old-fashioned heavy sword swing and gets lucky: a critical hit. The bulette isn't looking good (it's bloodied), but now it gets to act.
Bulette number one dives into the earth so rapidly that the heroes around it don't get opportunity attacks. Safely in the ground, it heals some damage and then burrows under the heroes, who are now clustered close enough that the bulette can affect them all. Bulette number two follows by burrowing back into the action and bursting from the ground to rain more rocks down on the party, reminding them all that it's time for some healing.
The battle goes on. Even though there are four heroes, it only takes two bulettes to give them a run for their money. Fourth Edition has such elite monsters because you don't always want a straight one-on-one fight -- sometimes a monster should just be bigger, tougher, and scarier than the norm.

WOTC

Does this float yr boat ? Is this like fighting bulettes in earlier editions ?

QuoteRegarding Clerics and Amour: Clerics and Warlords, as well as the occasional elf or halfling fighter, prefer the sturdy feel of a chained male.

ENWORLD
new edition - same old jokes :rolleyes:

Scroll doon on enworld - Drizz still emo posterboy I see, but checkout the beardy giant redhead - I wanna play him !