Quote from: SgtSpaceWizardHere are a couple of case studies of groups I have observed in my day for you to consider then.

They're case studies? Who conducted them? What was the study about?

Quote from: SgtSpaceWizardWith all other factors being equal, some people would rather play in one group over the other.

You haven't demonstrated that all factors are equal. You've listed some differences between the groups, but not all of them. Moreover, you haven't demonstrated that people choice between the two groups was in anyway related to the factors you list.

I can do the same thing. At the local theatre, there's a 12:20 pm. showing of I Am Legend and a 12:30 p.m. of The Golden Compass. Everyone who chose to see The Golden Compass did so because the difference in time was meaningful to them.

Did I prove anything?

Of course, people might have chosen based on subject matter, ratings, the preferences of their companions, the age of their companions, etc..

Quote from: SgtSpaceWizardThe differences are meaningful to the people who buy miniatures and combat maps.

If that's the case, what's silly about my question about an official WotC painted minis play style? People buy and use unpainted minis. People buy and use minis from companies other than WotC. People buy and use official WotC painted minis. If the mere presence at the table means something is meaningful, it sounds like we're going to have a lotta little play styles...

Quote from: SgtSpaceWizardThe effect on play goes beyond having a tactile presence and affects the application of game mechanics and the choices the players make in game. I think this can reasonably be called a playstyle.

You haven't shown an effect. You've said there are two groups and that they use different things.

Quote from: SgtSpaceWizardHowever, people have real preferences in gaming as surely as they have preferred foods.

I don't remotely disagree that people have preferences in gaming. That said, I believe people play basically the same way.  

Quote from: SgtSpaceWizardThat someone's stated preference might not agree with their revealed preference (and I believe people know their own mind far more often than not) is hardly relevant.

Sure it's relevant. It demonstrates that no matter what people tell you about their play online, it may well not actually be remotely as described.

Quote from: SgtSpaceWizardI leave the choice of a thoughtful refutation or a flip dismissal up to you, whichever is your preference.

If I recall, I'm not the one posting pictures of cats in the thread, nor did I say you must be autistic or an asshole for holding the views that you do. I'm not the one who needs to be reminded about being flip.

Seanchai

Quote from: HaffrungNothing you or anyone else says in this thread is going to make any difference to him.

Sorry, again, some dude saying something on the Internet doesn't meet my standard of proof. If it meets yours, well, I know some swell guys in Nigeria who just need a little financial help...

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchainor did I say you must be autistic or an asshole for holding the views that you do.

That assessment had nothing to do with your views and everything to do with your presentation of them.

Quote from: SeanchaiYou've listed some differences between the groups, but not all of them. Moreover, you haven't demonstrated that people choice between the two groups was in anyway related to the factors you list.

Why the people chose one group over another is not the point. Nor is it relevant to conjure a grocery list of what percentage of people playing wore hats. The point is these two groups play differently enough to say they have different playstyles. A point which you have danced around and avoided entirely, yet you still declare playstyles to be a myth. That's a shame if you had hoped to convince anyone of the relevance of your position.

Quote from: SeanchaiSorry, again, some dude saying something on the Internet doesn't meet my standard of proof.

Then one wonders what you can possibly get out of participation on an internet forum, apart from the joy of arguing with the rest of the gaming community. Hmmm, never mind, I think I figured it out.

Quote from: HaffrungNothing you or anyone else says in this thread is going to make any difference to him.

I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and try to be reasonable. Next time I will just post funny cat pics...

Oh well, I'm off to prep for some gaming tonight! Pulp style M&M, good stuff.

Honestly this thread is like a Jane Austen novel except with less pussy. I'm surprised that Elliot Willen and droog have not descended on this thread like a couple of Spartan's on a gay pride parade.

I kinda of agree with Seanchai....although the exact nature of what I'm agreeing with eludes me - Seanchai correct me if I'm misrepresenting your position.

(I'm not a theory person so I may be way off here) I think the problem here is that when it comes down to it all, there's really not much variety when it comes to actual play ....or rather what happens around the gaming table when observed broadly falls into two categories – the thespy stuff and the action stuff....both are pretty fluid concepts and gamers/games flow between the two.

Now of course style of play (minis, immersion, narrative control, etc) which serves as a basis for commonality is extremely important for differentiation purposes and communication but what actually is obsevered around the gaming table regardless of style IME/IMO falls into the above broadly defined categories.

The problem (it's not really a problem, but at this time I don't have a better term) I think started when theory/systems attempted to impose a mechanical structure on styles of play which resulted in the misconception that styles of play are rigidly defined and defines what happens around the gaming table when in fact, regardless of style what happens around the gaming table....what has always happened around gaming tables is either a preference for the action or thespy stuff or a combination of both (which is normally the case)

So, there's really not much variation to what is observed, but it's unproductive not to acknowledge the existence of the various styles of play as identification markers

Regards,
David R

QuoteI'm surprised that Elliot Willen and droog have not descended on this thread like a couple of Spartan's on a gay pride parade.

I just marvel at the heat being generated. Truly, D&D is a fetish rather than a game.

Quote from: droogTruly, D&D is a fetish rather than a game.

Isn't this a line from the 4E ad campaign?

Regards,
David R

Quote from: droogI just marvel at the heat being generated. Truly, D&D is a fetish rather than a game.

Wordy McWord. Frankly, I am amazed at all this. I expected an hysteric reaction from the usual gang, Pundit head first, but this surpasses me. And I couldn't agree more with JongWK: why don't you all wait for the fucking game to come out and play it before crying like school girls? For fuck's sake. There are a lot of people around playing older versions of D&D just because they didn't like the 3E, and the world's still turning around.

Whenever a new edition of D&D comes out the hysteria start, and doomsayers bloom like fucking fungus in a rotten corpse, predicting the doomfall of the RPG hobby and the end of the American Dream and whatnot. And each and every time they are wrong.

I am going to make a über accurate prediction: the game will come out. Some people will like it and play it. Some people will hate it. Some people that hated it will change their mind after trying it. Some other people that were psyched about it will feel disappointed in the end. Many people will complain on the art, and how Erol Otus had the biggest dick around. And the sun will keep rising and setting, and people will keep playing RPGs. And then the fucktards will have to keep looking for things to whine about like little bitches.

Luckily for them, Internet will keep them fed.

Quote from: ImperatorWordy McWord. Frankly, I am amazed at all this. I expected an hysteric reaction from the usual gang, Pundit head first, but this surpasses me. And I couldn't agree more with JongWK: why don't you all wait for the fucking game to come out and play it before crying like school girls?

As someone who's pro-4e, I find a lot of value in these discussions.  First, its just plain interesting to find out how people play and perceive the game.  Second, for D&D's sake, I take a page from Oscar Wilde and tritely point out that its better to be talked about poorly than not talked about at all.  Third, I feel that the designers that be still keep an eye on the online diaspora and may make design adjustments accordingly.  I see Mearls on the who's online list from time to time reading these kind of 4e threads.  Whether its idle curiosity or note taking, I imagine that there's some influence going on.

I don't like reading the accusations of whining that either side throws at one another.  But passions just run high and the internet just seems to be a nice lightning rod for them.

Quote from: SgtSpaceWizardThat assessment had nothing to do with your views and everything to do with your presentation of them.

Regardless, I'm not the party being flip or sarcastic...

Quote from: SgtSpaceWizardThe point is these two groups play differently enough to say they have different playstyles. A point which you have danced around and avoided entirely, yet you still declare playstyles to be a myth.

Pot. Kettle. Black. Seriously, dude. Talk about dancing around questions.

You say - even just above - that we know there are play styles because groups, the equipment, activities, etc., are not 100% alike. I've then asked about the percentage needed to be different for it to a play style.

So what is that percentage? If two groups are exactly alike - cloned members and all - save that one uses official WotC minis and one just uses random dice and coins, is that a play style?

If not, why not?

And if you're answer is that the example above isn't meaningful, don't you then have to demonstrate every difference you say create a separate play style is meaningful?

Obviously, the people, circumstances, games, the equipment, et al., varies from game to game. But so what. They all play basically the same way.

You say that having a GM screen or not changes the style of play. Based on my experience, it doesn't. I've been in groups that use both, used both myself, heard countless stories about actual play, etc., I disagree - with or without the screen, people play basically the same way.

Quote from: SgtSpaceWizardThen one wonders what you can possibly get out of participation on an internet forum, apart from the joy of arguing with the rest of the gaming community. Hmmm, never mind, I think I figured it out.

About deciding whether to respond thoughtfully or flippantly...

But, seriously, I get out of it what you get out of it. I mean, you're doing exactly what I am.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiI've then asked about the percentage needed to be different for it to a play style.

I technique is relevant to discussion of play styles if the use of that technique improves the game for some players but damages or ruins the game for other players.  One group is playing with a different play style than another group if one group is using techniques that the members of that group enjoy but those same techniques damage or ruin the game for members of another group.

For example, if the GM in one group runs railroaded adventures and their players enjoy playing that way, members of a group with a different play style might find the railroading unenjoyable or unbearable.

Please note that there are people who are very flexible in what they enjoy so they may encounter very few techniques that will damage or ruin a game for them at which point that player or group of players like that don't have a strong or obvious style.  This type of player shows up in the WotC marketing survey as about 11% of players, so they exist but may not be all that common.  There are techniques that are generally friendly or neutral to all play styles or only slightly unenjoyable for people with a different play style, thus those techniques can often be used with a mixed group or in different groups with different play styles.  Many GMs with mixed play style groups not only select moderate techniques that work well with multiple styles but also toggle between techniques that might favor one style or be detrimental to another, thus giving everyone what they want in exchange for tolerating some techniques that they might not like.  Finally, some people are more sensitive to techniques from other styles than others or might be more tolerant of techniques that they don't really like.

So in practice, play style is really a problem when a group or GM frequently uses techniques that are detrimental to the enjoyment of one or more players in a group with a different style of play than the GM or others in the group.  It's also a problem when players are picky about the techniques that they enjoy during the game.  And it's primarily a problem of extreme techniques designed to enhance just one style of play, not more general techniques.  And the way one avoids play style problems (and many groups simply do this naturally) is through moderation, compromise, and playing with others who have similar tastes.

Quote from: ImperatorWordy McWord. Frankly, I am amazed at all this. I expected an hysteric reaction from the usual gang, Pundit head first, but this surpasses me. And I couldn't agree more with JongWK: why don't you all wait for the fucking game to come out and play it before crying like school girls? For fuck's sake. There are a lot of people around playing older versions of D&D just because they didn't like the 3E, and the world's still turning around.

Whenever a new edition of D&D comes out the hysteria start, and doomsayers bloom like fucking fungus in a rotten corpse, predicting the doomfall of the RPG hobby and the end of the American Dream and whatnot. And each and every time they are wrong.

I am going to make a über accurate prediction: the game will come out. Some people will like it and play it. Some people will hate it. Some people that hated it will change their mind after trying it. Some other people that were psyched about it will feel disappointed in the end. Many people will complain on the art, and how Erol Otus had the biggest dick around. And the sun will keep rising and setting, and people will keep playing RPGs. And then the fucktards will have to keep looking for things to whine about like little bitches.

Luckily for them, Internet will keep them fed.

Yup, all very true. And then there's always some shitbreathing fuckwad who comes in and talks about how meaningless the discussion is, and about how much better he is than everyone else who's posting because he really doesn't care (even though he's actually been reading all of the threads, and even just bothered to respond to it), to try to pretend that he's pathetically above it all.

Those are the saddest wastes of space of all.

RPGPundit

Quote from: SeanchaiYou say - even just above - that we know there are play styles because groups, the equipment, activities, etc., are not 100% alike. I've then asked about the percentage needed to be different for it to a play style.

So what is that percentage? If two groups are exactly alike - cloned members and all - save that one uses official WotC minis and one just uses random dice and coins, is that a play style?

If not, why not?

I don't know what percentage of difference is nessessary to declare a distinct playstyle. I think some differences are bigger than others though. I'm not sure the example you mention has a big enough effect on play, though undoubtedly it has the potential to effect play (dice being used as minis accidentaly being picked up and rolled and not being put back in the right spot for example.).

Quote from: SeanchaiAnd if you're answer is that the example above isn't meaningful, don't you then have to demonstrate every difference you say create a separate play style is meaningful?

If it were my goal to catalogue all the possible playstyles then probably so. All I was trying to do was point out some obvious differences you can see on the gaming table and showing how this seemed to affect the play of two different groups. I'm certainly not trying to create a list of playstyles or a "theory". But I think when you say things like...

Quote from: SeanchaiObviously, the people, circumstances, games, the equipment, et al., varies from game to game. But so what. They all play basically the same way.

...that you are painting with too broad a brush. I know my experiences with table top play with groups of old-school wargamers were different from playing the same game with boffer LARPers for example.There was a difference in the approach to play in ways besides the thespy vs action divide that was mentioned. I listed only the most obvious differences that were directly related to GM screens and miniatures. It was not meant to be comprehensive. Nevertheless, I think sufficiant difference was demonstrated.

Quote from: SeanchaiYou say that having a GM screen or not changes the style of play. Based on my experience, it doesn't. I've been in groups that use both, used both myself, heard countless stories about actual play, etc., I disagree - with or without the screen, people play basically the same way.

Well this is the first time you have addressed this point directly rather than bringing up the fallability of the human mind or something. Maybe you are the kind of DM who doesn't fudge behind the screen in which case the effect of the screen is probably negligible. My own experience is different, however.  

It all depends on where you draw the line I suppose. I think fudged die rolls vs unfudged is a distinct enough difference that they are different playstyles. High mortality games vs PC script immunity games are different playstyles. Everyday joes vs superheroic, etc. I think these are all different playstyles. To say they are all basically the same approach is overly simplistic if you ask me.

Quote from: droogTruly, D&D is a fetish rather than a game.

Remember, your safe word is "Nilbog"...

Quote from: RPGPunditYup, all very true. And then there's always some shitbreathing fuckwad who comes in and talks about how meaningless the discussion is, and about how much better he is than everyone else who's posting because he really doesn't care (even though he's actually been reading all of the threads, and even just bothered to respond to it), to try to pretend that he's pathetically above it all.

Those are the saddest wastes of space of all.

RPGPundit

Which is still leagues above and better than becoming a whiney little bitch on a topic on which you have the most spare rumours, and which also happens to have a relevance to your gaming of exactly zero.

You and me happen to agree on our favourite D&D iteration, if I am not mistaken (is the RC, isn't it?). So, NO new iteration of D&D is going to satisfy you, as long it is not going to be a rehash of the RC that we love so dearly. And that's fucking cool, because right now, the types of D&D games that you can play is going to increase. You can go OD&D, RC, AD&D 1 or 2, 3E, 3.5 or even 4th. And it's great.

Dude, you make a lot of sense when you talk about gaming and have some actual info on the topic at hand, not some half baked rumors and experts which only serve to trigger your online paranoia. You have interesting things to say about gaming when you are not spewing "oh-woe-is-me-gaming-is-doomed" bullshit, because that bullshit is as old as the fucking hobby. I've been playing D&D since fucking 1985, and have been hearing that crap since then. And you know what? IT WAS UTTER BULLSHIT.

So, is totally cool to discuss an excerpt of the game posted by WotC and tell us if you like it or not and why. Going Nostradamus each fucking time a new info is posted is frankly tiresome, probably inaccurate and really below your capability. Don't like an aggro mechanic? Cool! I don't like the idea, too! Tell us why! But stop the whiney shit.