Hello, my name is James, and I'm a lolcat addict.

Quote from: SgtSpaceWizardNow does one really need to have impartial observers come down from the UN to "prove" this difference in play style? I think I have a good enough memory to know my own preference with regards to that.

Again, who's talking about preferences? I'm talking about action. I prefer wholesome, excellent tasting dinners - doesn't mean that's what I actually eat...

Quote from: SgtSpaceWizardEDITED TO ADD. Here's a difference in play style that hasn't been codified. Playing with a GM screen vs playing without. I don't think people are likely to confuse this detail in their memory, and it results in a different kind of play.

Except in actual clinical studies, people misremembered the details of a drawing (who had been holding the knife) they had seen just minutes before. There are clinical studies about getting people to misinterpret things right in front of them with a technique called priming.

Seanchai

Quote from: jgantsA play style has a very simple definition - it is the preferences of the players used to determine how they like to play games.

If you're talking about just preferences and not actual action, I don't disagree.

(But that is a pretty broad definition.)

Quote from: jgantsThe mere existence of a preference for a style of play, regardless of whether or not it is actually ever played that way, proves the existence of different play styles (much in the way that different sexual urges for different people, regardless of whether they've actually engaged in the activity, prove the existence of different paraphilias).

I like xengal woogie movies. Did I just prove they exist? But, again, I don't disagree that people have different preferences, only whether or not they actually put those preferences into play to the degree that there's a meaningful difference between games.

Quote from: jgantsThat is a very objectively measurable play style - does the GM kill off characters or not?  It's pretty hard to "misremember" that.

There are a lot of supposed play styles that could be objectively measured. Saying, "Well, my GM always kills of characters" and "Mine never does," is not an objective measurement, however.

I've been to The Atlantic Paranormal Society conferences. Ask and you'll get a sea of hands of people who claim to have seen a ghost. They're earnest. They remember it. A lot of make the same claims. I obviously believe in ghost.

Did I just prove that ghosts exists? Or would you say that the memories and experiences of everyone who claims to have seen a ghost isn't good enough to prove that ghosts exist?

I, personally, think the latter is true.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiExcept in actual clinical studies, people misremembered the details of a drawing (who had been holding the knife) they had seen just minutes before. There are clinical studies about getting people to misinterpret things right in front of them with a technique called priming.

Seanchai

So are you seriously saying that I don't remember if I used a GM screen last week or the week before etc? Is that the crux of your argument? I'm not talking about remembering how often someone talked in character. I'm talking about whether or not there was a piece of cardboard on the table, which kept the GM's rolls secret from the players. I'm talking about actions, not preferences. I know when I ran 1st ed AD&D for a while sans DM screen, some of the players wanted me to put it back up in the hopes I would "fudge" rolls more often for them. As far as empirical evidence, we have 3 dead charcters before I put the screen back and none after. Maybe I'm "lying to feel special", or perhaps you are projecting.

Because it bears repeating:

Quote from: AosYou, sir, are one hell of troll.

Really. We're witnessing a performance for the ages. This thread should be a case study in Troll graduate school.

The argument itself is stupid, really, because it seems clear (to me) that the participants are purposely talking past each other and then claiming to have scored points. James just posts funny pictures and Seanchai is just kinda saying the same thing over and over again. Both are right for the terms they've defined for themselves, anyhow.

My take (and here it is, if anyone cares to read it) is that when you're playing D&D, basically, you're playing an adventure role-playing game. Most people are going to sit down, lay out a goal, and solve challenges. There are a lot of different trappings, but it's mostly going to boil down to that. There's probably going to be a bunch of fights, and a varying amount of non-combat stuff. Depending on the table, there are going to be a certain percentage of sessions without any serious dice-rolling.

Now, Seanchai seems to be saying that the format above is pretty much one large, broad playstyle. Most people, even though they vary to certain degrees, pretty much fall into the above section. Even when they're not playing D&D, most people fall into the above section. Even with variances, stated or otherwise, his belief is that they fall into... the above section.

I kinda agree with that. Even though there are a lot of small variances (mostly  of stuff like DM screens or quantities of the above actions listed two paragraphs up), broadly, changes that have occured in the last few decades really haven't changed D&D that much. People still hang out, role-play, roll dice to determine conflicts, and kill goblins. (er, resolve challanges).

It's totally fine to argue that any change from group to group is a different playstyle, but I think it's fair to ask how critical those differences *are*. Like, does changing a Hobgoblin from a monster stat block (1ed) to a classed NPC or monster stat block (3.xed) to a Brute Type (4ed?) really change the dynamic at the table?

Does not having to rest all day really change the basic playstyle of the table?

That's from game to game, not table to table. I mean, what do you people think? Let's take changes from 1st or AD&D to 3.x as a measuring stick. For people who've played both, did your group playstyle really change?

Quote from: Thanatos02My take (and here it is, if anyone cares to read it) is that when you're playing D&D, basically, you're playing an adventure role-playing game. Most people are going to sit down, lay out a goal, and solve challenges. There are a lot of different trappings, but it's mostly going to boil down to that. There's probably going to be a bunch of fights, and a varying amount of non-combat stuff. Depending on the table, there are going to be a certain percentage of sessions without any serious dice-rolling.

Now, Seanchai seems to be saying that the format above is pretty much one large, broad playstyle. Most people, even though they vary to certain degrees, pretty much fall into the above section. Even when they're not playing D&D, most people fall into the above section. Even with variances, stated or otherwise, his belief is that they fall into... the above section.

I kinda agree with that. Even though there are a lot of small variances (mostly  of stuff like DM screens or quantities of the above actions listed two paragraphs up), broadly, changes that have occured in the last few decades really haven't changed D&D that much. People still hang out, role-play, roll dice to determine conflicts, and kill goblins. (er, resolve challanges).

It's totally fine to argue that any change from group to group is a different playstyle, but I think it's fair to ask how critical those differences *are*. Like, does changing a Hobgoblin from a monster stat block (1ed) to a classed NPC or monster stat block (3.xed) to a Brute Type (4ed?) really change the dynamic at the table?

Does not having to rest all day really change the basic playstyle of the table?

That's from game to game, not table to table. I mean, what do you people think? Let's take changes from 1st or AD&D to 3.x as a measuring stick. For people who've played both, did your group playstyle really change?

Hey, let's be clear - it's McMurray posting the pics, not Skach!

I did not play with the same group.  I have played 1ed, a tiny bit of 2e, and more 3e than 2e (but not as much as 1e).  Yes, it's different.  It might be the rules, it might be the Living Campaign style versus the home game, it might be a thousand different things. But I can honestly say it's different. The 3rd edition I discovered upon returning to gaming was/felt far more high-powered than my old 1st edition.  Mind you, I played the exact same character.  Same basic concept, but ported from AD&D to 3.5 - and int he latter, he was far more powerful at first level than he had been at first level in the former. I might even be able to find that original character sheet...hmmm...

I get the sense that Seanchai is averse to acknowledging the very real difference in play styles because it opens up a can of worms he doesn't want to handle. The goal posts have been shifted all over the place, but it curerntly appears to be:

• Yes, play styles exist.
• No, they are not distinct enough, or widespread enough, to matter.
• Yes, people claim to prefer those very same play styles.
• No, they are wrong/lying to themselves. Their actual play does not match their preference.

I don't want to go back through every post, but IIRC, the first item is really the only one that matters. Because if those play styles do exist - regardless of how distinct they are, how fluid they might be during play, or how accurately reported they as a preference or in actual play - it's fair to then ask if the changes in a given system have the potential to alter how well a play style is supported.

Seanchai appears to be saying that people play BD&D and 3.5 in essentially the same way.  I'm sure we could extrapolate to a high enough degree to say that's true.  If you use the "overcome challenges" verbiage as opposed to "kill goblins," you truly could say that about any time people get together to play any game. When we play Monopoly, aren't we playing the role of a wanna-be real estate tycoon? Aren't we using dice and managing resources to overcome challenges?  Aren't we sitting around with our friends shooting the breeze and snacking while we do it?

If we all played essentially the same way across versions and across systems, there would be only one system and one version.

I trie talking and got "I can't understand basic English words." I tried being a dictionary and got "yeah, but what about the xengal woogies?" So I switched out of "try to discuss" mode and back to "enjoy myself" mode.

My playstyle has changed over the editions. Most notably, the power level we play at has changed. Older editions made it practically impossible to play a 25th level character without starting there. I ran a D&D game that went well past that. Also, the level of fiddling with character details has changed drastically. The advent of feats and prestige classes has given my tinkering side the chance to come out and play.

In both cases there was no change to my preferred play style, but the increased support 3.x gives for high powered games and tinkering made it so that my actions could now match my desires.

Unless, of course, I'm a delusional liar.

Seriously, this has to be the most boring and pointless flame war in the history of the RPGsite.

Quote from: Consonant DudeSeriously, this has to be the most boring and pointless flame war in the history of the RPGsite.

Yup.

Quote from: Consonant Dude[-IMG]http://www.miraclesalad.com/shared/STFU.jpg[/IMG-]

You're not trying to start an image war are you? I'll advise you to step slowly back from the keyboard or face my mad

QuoteSeriously, this has to be the most boring and pointless flame war in the history of the RPGsite.

Because it's not a flame war. It's a bunch of people diplomatically (or not) asking "are you really that stupid?" and one guy saying "of course I am, you delusional liars."

Quote from: SeanchaiIf you're talking about just preferences and not actual action, I don't disagree.

(But that is a pretty broad definition.)

My point was actually that they have the preferences and sometimes get to use them in actual play (depending on how much they have to compromise with others).  

Much like my preference for blueberry pie takes a back seat at Christmas when the rest of the family wants cherry or whatever (hence, we end up with pumpkin and apple).  Regardless of whether or not I have a slice of apple at Christmas, my "pie style" is still blueberry ala mode.

Quote from: SeanchaiI like xengal woogie movies. Did I just prove they exist?

That depends on how into the whole existentialism thing you want to get, now doesn't it?

Quote from: SeanchaiBut, again, I don't disagree that people have different preferences, only whether or not they actually put those preferences into play to the degree that there's a meaningful difference between games.  

Just because there isn't a meaningful difference between some games (or even many games) doesn't mean there isn't a meaningful difference between any games.

Quote from: SeanchaiThere are a lot of supposed play styles that could be objectively measured. Saying, "Well, my GM always kills of characters" and "Mine never does," is not an objective measurement, however.

I trust people to remember how much their GM likes to let characters die, myself, but I'll humor you.  How 'bout this?

Playstyle A hates the possibility for instant death.  People playing playstyle A never use "save vs. death" type rolls.

Playstyle B is fine with instant death possibilities.  People playing playstyle B always use "save vs. death" type rolls when appropriate.

Surely these two activities could be easily measured?  Surely people are capable of remembering whether or not they make save vs death rolls?

Clearly the two styles have a meaningful enough distinction - one style makes character death much harder than the other style.

And going back to the original point, some versions of D&D support playstyle A better (3e and especially 4e) while others supported playstyle B better (1e, 2e).

Quote from: SeanchaiI've been to The Atlantic Paranormal Society conferences. Ask and you'll get a sea of hands of people who claim to have seen a ghost. They're earnest. They remember it. A lot of make the same claims. I obviously believe in ghost.

Did I just prove that ghosts exists? Or would you say that the memories and experiences of everyone who claims to have seen a ghost isn't good enough to prove that ghosts exist?

I, personally, think the latter is true.

That's not just a strawman, that's a wicker man that you can trap logic inside and set aflame.

Clearly one instance (remembering how I game every week) is more frequent than the other (one time some guy thought he saw a ghost).  One involves clear perceptions over a long period of time.  The other relies on fleeting perceptions (unless somebody sat down with the ghost and had a chat for 3 hours).  Plus, to see a ghost you have to first believe in ghosts, and the belief will influence the perception.  Furthermore, in stark contrast to the rather mundane act of weekly gaming, ghost spotting would cause levels of high adrenaline - which further clouds perceptions.

Quote from: James McMurrayYou're not trying to start an image war are you? I'll advise you to step slowly back from the keyboard or face my mad





Because it's not a flame war. It's a bunch of people diplomatically (or not) asking "are you really that stupid?" and one guy saying "of course I am, you delusional liars."

I can see that, but how long have you been on the internet, dude? Sean has been around for ages and I've never seen him admit that he was wrong. Not once. And he can go at it for weeks if need be.

Here's the thing.

1-Everybody that's grounded in rationality knows there are, indeed, plenty of different playstyles

2-We aren't on RPG.net.

What this means is that instead of diplomatically going around in passive/agressive circular argument that last for 26 pages trying to win side-points, you can just state bluntly that there are different playstyles and tell any dick who wants to say otherwise that he can just go fuck himself. And then you move on, or at least if you insist on bumping this thread, you make it fun for others.

I mean, that's what most of us do on D&D threads. God knows I think a few people are overreacting to every news. I say so. Sometimes, a guy like Skach will call me an asshole. I call him a delusional asshole as well and we move on. And there's no hard feelings, usually. At least, not on my end.
 
The Capoeira cat kicks some serious ass!

Quote from: Consonant DudeI mean, that's what most of us do on D&D threads. God knows I think a few people are overreacting to every news. I say so. Sometimes, a guy like Skach will call me an asshole. I call him a delusional asshole as well and we move on. And there's no hard feelings, usually. At least, not on my end.

Did I do that?  I mean, seriously, did I? I usually remember when I call someone an asshole and I don't recall calling you one. Not that I wouldn't, mind you.  I just like to keep track of who I've called asshole so I can later take cold, cruel revenge! on them....

I came rather late to this portion of the discussion because I wanted to make sure I was not mistaken that someone was saying, seriously, that there were really no different play styles.  After Seanchai and Mr. McMurray left serious mode, I still had some questions to make sure I wasn't missing something in his position.

I'm now convinced that either he's very mistaken and, as you say, not prepared to admit he was wrong, or purposefully trolling, as stated (originally, I think) by Aos. As such, I don't need to call him an asshole - I'll let his own posts do that for me.