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.

C'mon now. You know you're only invested in the discussion because you're a shitbreathing fuckwad.

You were so utterly convinced that 4e was years away that you belittled others and their concerns. Frequently. Vocally. You acted as if you were better than everyone else. You said 4e wasn't on the horizon, but participated in the rumor threads anyway.

Then 4e was announced and you were forced to eat crow. Bitter black crow. Lots of it.

So, one shitbreathing fuckwad to another, don't throw stones, dude.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiC'mon now. You know you're only invested in the discussion because you're a shitbreathing fuckwad.

You were so utterly convinced that 4e was years away that you belittled others and their concerns. Frequently. Vocally. You acted as if you were better than everyone else. You said 4e wasn't on the horizon, but participated in the rumor threads anyway.

Then 4e was announced and you were forced to eat crow. Bitter black crow. Lots of it.

So, one shitbreathing fuckwad to another, don't throw stones, dude.

Seanchai

Oh, truth spoken here.

Quote from: SgtSpaceWizardI don't know what percentage of difference is nessessary to declare a distinct playstyle.

Then why are you convinced there are play styles?

Here's my point: Without some delineating factor, the idea that there are separate play styles just gets bogged down in silliness. If there's a lot of silliness in there, is it really something that's distinct and different?

For example, I've noticed a detrimental change in play during sessions that follow a long break from gaming. We spend more time chatting about movies we've seen, how our families are, etc., than actually playing.

When I juxtapose this with the idea that a play style is a meaningful difference in play, the above fits. And I find that silly.

In fact, I can think of quite a number of weird things that, when this definition is applied, become play styles.

So I reject the definition, the idea that a play style is a distinct thing.

To be more concrete, it's like saying the definition of a horse is "anything on the planet Earth." What's the point of defining horse if everything is a horse? Moreover, can you really say that there's a distinct thing such as a horse if you're saying everything is a horse?

Quote from: SgtSpaceWizardI'm certainly not trying to create a list of playstyles or a "theory".

I don't think a list is necessary, but I think in order to declare the existence of something - particularly when we're talking about common experiences and trying to demonstrate something to a group of people - you should have a working definition.

For various reasons, I can't imagine you're going to find one.

Quote from: SgtSpaceWizardNevertheless, I think sufficiant difference was demonstrated.

But that brings you exactly nowhere if you can't provide some external, definable difference. It doesn't do you or anyone any good if you go case by case and say, "I think there's enough difference there."

I could say that a horse, for example, is everything on the planet but is different from other things because of traits it has. Only I know what those traits are, however, and they're entirely subjective. I can't quantify what they are for you. So to tell if something is a horse or not, you have to bring it before me to look over and say, "Yep, that's a horse." Of course, next time you bring that same thing in front of me, I might, for whatever say, "Nope, not a horse."

What the hell good is that definition of a horse?

If I could point out some definable, objective trait or difference, we could all tell a horse from everything else.

So I'm saying, beyond a judgement call from the people involved, what separates one play style from another? What is enough of a difference for one thing to be a considered a play style?

Because we've got a whole bunch of things that make the play experience - number of people, gender, age, mind set, mood, rules, genre, minis or no, screen or no, et al.. What definition of play style could you give to someone who had no experience with RPGs so they could sort out play styles from the background junk?

And if you can't do that, why not? I'm saying it's because "play style" isn't meaningful.

Quote from: SgtSpaceWizardMaybe 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.

That's the point of the fallability of perception and memory. People participate in the same activity and yet come away with different conclusions.

Quote from: SgtSpaceWizardIt 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.

Let's set aside the definition of play style wankery for a minute. Let's also talk about GM screens.

Here, in concrete terms, is what I'm saying:

If we filmed 100 different groups playing, some of which use screens and some of which don't, and somehow removed all clues or references to the presence or lack of screens, then showed those films to an outside observer, the observer wouldn't be able to tell us which groups used screens and which didn't. If we asked that person to sort them out into groups that used screens and those that didn't, beyond normal chance, they wouldn't be able to do so.

I'm also saying that an experienced RPG gamer, if shown those films, wouldn't be able to do so either.

Now apply the same scenario with minis. Or age, preference about heavy or light roleplaying, sandbox versus quest-style play, et al.. I'm saying we'd get the same result: no real discernable difference.

That, in short, people play basically the same way.

You're saying the presence of a screen is enough for an observer under this set up to discern a difference. I don't see how that could be, however, so I'm trying to get at some underlying traits which would cause such a thing to be.

Seanchai

"If you show someone a play style with all references to that play style excised, they won't be able to see the play style. Thus, there are no play styles."

Quote from: Christmas Ape"If you show someone a play style with all references to that play style excised, they won't be able to see the play style. Thus, there are no play styles."

You see! You do care! You're actually reading the posts.

I was hoping that the Christmas season, time with friends and family,would bring you some healing, but I can see that wasn't the case. No matter - there's still hope for you.

But the first step in dealing with your problem, Ape, is admitting that you have a problem. Won't you do yourself a kindness and admit that you've been upset by what I've been saying.

Seanchai

Look.  He's still going.  Yeah.

By the way, Christmas Ape, your "hive full of retarded bees" analogy was received with great hilarity when I mentioned it to my wife, and she doesn't usually laugh at anything that originates from the Internet.  You've given the gift of laughter.

Cheers,
!i!

Just as I was getting used to not playing 3rd, along comes a 4th edition. Which on the surface, looks like I won't be playing either.

Thankfuly I still have all my old 1st/2nd stuff to keep me company.......

But seriously. The problem isn't wether or not you can/can't use old edition stuff, it's the fact that any new (brand new, not just new to you) players that you run into (as opposed to those you teach) won't know wtf you're talking about.

The diffrence between 1st and 2nd was relatively minor. I could take a group weaned on 2nd and run them through 1ed stuff with just a few changes.

3rd ed came out looking like a freaking mutant and 4th looks to become a total abomination.

When you 'tweak' between editions, it's not that much of a big deal, it's the total change up that causes problems.

I come back to see that this thread has degenerated into a buncha words, with only one cat pic in the mix? Sad, guys. Really sad. You've failed to keep your eyes on the prize.

But at least we've got an admission of someone's view of their own self worth.

Quote from: SeanchaiSo, one shitbreathing fuckwad to another, don't throw stones, dude.

Quote from: James McMurrayI come back to see that this thread has degenerated into a buncha words, with only one cat pic in the mix?

I see you've taken up posting pictures in other threads as well.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiI see you've taken up posting pictures in other threads as well.

Seanchai

Does that bother you? Perhaps we should explore this deep seated fear and loathing of humor. Were you perhaps molested by a clown at an early age?

Quote from: James McMurrayDoes that bother you? Perhaps we should explore this deep seated fear and loathing of humor. Were you perhaps molested by a clown at an early age?

Clowns have nothing to do with humor.

If clowns don't scare and nauseate you, you're the one who's sick.

Quote from: Old GeezerIf clowns don't scare and nauseate you, you're the one who's sick.

And what about it hm? HMM?!

Quote from: James McMurrayDoes that bother you?

Yes, deeply. Please stop.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiYes, deeply. Please stop.

Seanchai

It's taken me a long time to get round to it, but please, if I may be so forward, can I feed the troll now?

So, we all basically play the same way. The nuances and subtleties of how we play are irrelevant. Any observations of nuances and subtleties are almost certainly fallacious or in essence political or arise from an inner need to make ourselves look superior.

And a nuance or subtlety, as opposed to a _difference_, does not matter. At the end of the day, such slight variances are smoothed out by the whole. A fin on a dolphin as opposed to an arm on a human doesn't matter: they are both mammals.

Is that right, Sean?

- Q