Quote from: CRKrueger;701662True, but I guess I'm not seeing how this concept applies to D&D more than any other RPG. With the exception of maybe Traveller, most games are going to have a higher rules density around combat then say for example social skills.

I'm not singling out D&D. There are games that put an emphasis on non-violent resolution or non militant situations, but these are comparatively rare (DrWho is the only one that immediately springs to mind). But I also don't see a problem with imaginary violence in the first place, and won't say it can't be a fun part of gaming and just as worthwhile a motivation for roleplaying as someone wanting to roleplay High Tea with Queen Victoria using the Wuthering Heights RPG.

I also tend to think most gamers go through a progression of "zen moments" (to quote the now infamous Old School Primer), and that these classically proceed along the following lines...

Play Dungeoncrawls ("zoos" as they were called in the 80s, a simple maze like construct housing random monsters and treasures w/o rhyme or reason.

>start thinking about how all those monsters got there and learn to create in-game rationales for both the residents of the dungeon and the explorers thereof

>remove the controlled environment of the dungeon and start exploring the open-ended environment (wilderness, a city, etc)

>removing the restrictions of the specific environment and start gaming in worlds as sandboxes. Sometimes sandboxes within sandboxes with meta-settings such as the Planes.

While these seem less than zen as such, each is accompanied by a lesser degree of reliance on a ruleset and a greater reliance on a DMs capacity for invention and improvisation.

Essentially whether the games were initially completely focused on or revolved around combat, that couldn't last as roleplaying becomes more and more tied to the idea of a "living setting".

Note that the aforementioned progression is in isolation of outside elements such as experienced GMs, adventure modules, published settings, or even online indoctrination. As such one would rarely these days find any individual gamer that exactly follows this like an algorithm, and there is always those who find one step along the way hits the sweet spot for them and are not interested in traveling further. I do not assign any implication of evolution nor superiority to one step or another, this is just the most commonly observed benchmarks I've observed with most older players eventually adopting sandbox as their preferred form of play (until nostalgia hits and they decide to give one of the earlier setups a try again, and sometimes find they prefer one of those. It's rare to see this come about without first trying sandbox to some extent, or for a player to stay still from the beginning to end of thier involvement with the hobby,assuming it outlasts high school.

I've also not addressed the divergent paths into narrative gaming because, well, this isn't storygames.com and I don't care about that as much other than to note the inversive differences.

TL;DR: who cares whatever sense Arduin might have made upthread, it was drowned out by him being an asshat.

I guess the baser answer is there is no answer that fits.
Theres too much variance from group to group. Too many ways to approach things, too many ways things can get entrenched. Way way too many players who near willfully ignore any other evidence that there ever was other ways to play.

If someone comes in with a closed mind then they are likely to see exactly what they want to see.

If someone has never had any other example to base off of then they might have a hard time viewing any other alternative.

And some people just read some hype positive or more likely negative and just set their minds in stone thereafter.

"I dont like D&D because it forces me to play combat all the time" isnt a problem with the game, its a problem with the player and possibly the group. This has been pointed out from several different angles. Yes, there are combat rules, and its an adventure game and the darn modules tend to be combat oriented. But there are usually plenty of options too to interact, or add interaction. Its not an all or nothing deal unless a group makes it so.

Pretty much.

Look: I don't like D&D.  But it really can be about whatever its players want it to be about.  Changing the XP system from rewarding "only" what you don't like to something suiting your preferences would take an experienced GM all of 90 seconds.

The gold=EXP system helped a little there as characters could do non-com stuff for say rewards and still garner exp.

I thought for sure there was a section in the DMG mentioning awarding EXP for good role playing. But Im not seeing it now on a glance through.

Quote from: Ravenswing;701851TL;DR: who cares whatever sense Arduin might have made upthread, it was drowned out by him being an asshat.

QFT!

The asshat noise ratio is part of the charm of this place. For me it just looks like he blended in with gusto, and under 50 posts at that. Bravo?
:idunno:
Hopefully whatever hatchet you all have, may it be buried soon enough. We're likely running out of ice cream, bourbon, and hugs.

That said I want to hear other subjective experiences from ExploderWizard's topic:

Do players select RPGs according to systems with mechanics that favor their desired play scope?

And do players who have a differing play scope end up gravitating towards the de facto assumed rewards of a particular system?

(Play scope is a condensing of "the scope of one's play," in reference to the table's focused range of play within a campaign. This can differ from play style, as that is a player/PC attitude and can be carried throughout different ranges of a setting's societies and locales.)

Quote from: Opaopajr;701893That said I want to hear other subjective experiences from ExploderWizard's topic:

Do players select RPGs according to systems with mechanics that favor their desired play scope?

And do players who have a differing play scope end up gravitating towards the de facto assumed rewards of a particular system?

(Play scope is a condensing of "the scope of one's play," in reference to the table's focused range of play within a campaign. This can differ from play style, as that is a player/PC attitude and can be carried throughout different ranges of a setting's societies and locales.)

Unfortunately depends on the player.

Marketing way back by TSR showed that the damn box art could be a big factor in deciding sales moreso than the system! Or at least work as a strong attractor enough to get someone to pick up the box, and hopefully flip it over and like what they saw.

Indicators are that a portion pf players buy RPGs sight unseen just because the setting blurb appeals. Others research and try to figure out if a system appeals. Unfortunately information tends to be so conflicting it can regress to buying sight unseen.

D&D boxed I got because I wanted a D&D game and it was on the shelves in the department store.
Gamma World I got because A: The box art caught my attention and B: the setting info on the back grabbed me instantly.
Star Frontiers I got from reading previews in Dragon. Otherwise I'd have grabbed it because the setting appealed.
Marvel Superheroes I got because again of the back blurbs.
Spelljammer I got again because of the setting.
Dark Sun I got out of curiosity. I was fairly sure it wouldnt appeal. But you never know till you try. Same for Planescape. That at least went over alot better.
Tunnels & Trolls I got because I'd heard of it for decades and finally ran into the BF folk at Gen con and I said I'd buy a copy when I had the cash (Found them at the trailing end of the con) and so I did.
Dragon Storm I got because Susan was at the booth explaining the basics and it looked like alot of fun.
Universe I got because it was so unlike anything I'd seen before for rules structure at a glance through. Totally impenetrable at a glance. I had to have it... aheh...

All of those and others I got without knowing a thing of the mechanics. Or because I was fairly sure it was based on a mechanic I allready knew. The exception being Dragon Storm which I bought knowing a bit of the mechanics. Enough to perk interest.

I know nothing of Travellers original mechanics and I STILL want a copy even now. Just havent had cash and opportunity co-incide.

For me the setting had to fit my play scope. Deadlands, Vampire, GURPS, Paranoia, BESM, PAlladium, and others I passed on because some element didnt appeal. One or two games I havent bought because I dont like the company or the designer.

Mm.  I think a lot of people fall into playing this game or that because of circumstance or happenstance, not so much a matter of deliberate, thoughtful shopping around.

By around 1980 my homebrew was in full swing, and it was -- in retrospect -- this ramshackle, baroque construct.  Nonetheless, I was a very popular GM in our gaming circles, and two players asked permission to run my system.  One was still running it pretty much from force of habit as late as 1988, when I got *back* from him a copy of my homebrew's magic system, which I had long since lost.

But I'd long since moved on.  In 1983, I was about to start my campaign back up after a hiatus of nearly a year.  By that time, I'd started writing for Gamelords, which had just got a license to develop Fantasy Trip adventures.  The president of the company suggested that I reboot to TFT, to give me more scope for writing TFT adventures.  I'd long liked the system, finding it clean and easy, and that was the incentive I needed to use it.  (Repeating history, FOUR players in our gaming circle started to GM TFT campaigns, following my lead, and two did so well into the 90s at least.)

A couple years down the road, the aforementioned president got a courtesy copy of the GURPS playtest from Steve Jackson at a convention, and decided to fork it over to me.  I was still playing TFT (Metagaming having folded didn't bother me any), but GURPS looked to correct some of the problems I'd had with TFT, and I was tickled to get in on the ground floor of a new system.  (And yeah, several GMs in our circle promptly started running GURPS, including two of the folks I'd converted to running TFT.)

A whole lot of happenstance and follow-the-leader.

Quote from: Omega;702143I know nothing of Travellers original mechanics and I STILL want a copy even now. Just havent had cash and opportunity co-incide.

Today is your lucky day: http://www.rpgnow.com/product/80190/CT-ST-Starter-Traveller

Well, everyday really.

Favorite publisher can factor in too.

You got game A. And liked it. So you are willing to give game B a try even if it is a totally new system.

Especially if the publisher has done fairly consistently good or at least ok work so far.

Quote from: Omega;702143... Marketing way back by TSR showed that the damn box art could be a big factor in deciding sales moreso than the system!...

Indicators are that a portion pf players buy RPGs sight unseen just because the setting blurb appeals. Others research and try to figure out if a system appeals...

All of those and others I got without knowing a thing of the mechanics. Or because I was fairly sure it was based on a mechanic I allready knew...

For me the setting had to fit my play scope...

Quote from: Ravenswing;702148Mm.  I think a lot of people fall into playing this game or that because of circumstance or happenstance, not so much a matter of deliberate, thoughtful shopping around...

(edit: interesting anecdote about communal homebrews and publisher betas making the rounds from word of mouth and exposure)

A whole lot of happenstance and follow-the-leader.

These responses to the first part sound similar to what I experienced. Granted I think Exploder's phrasing might assume a shelf of already purchased and read materials, instead of shopping around either literally or communally, but the results read the same. GM and players don't seem to be as deliberate and conscientious selectors of RPGs for the table.

I guess a lot of this new school "select the right tool for the task" attitude finds little purchase among RPG actual play.

Which brings us to the second part.

When play scope expectations conflicted with game system reward structures (be they real or assumed), did the players alter their behavior towards the system's structures, or did the GM/table alter the system towards the play's expectations?

Its the same with board games and PC games. Players tend to buy it sight unseen. Possibly with a review or two to sway them. But usually its some aspect of the theme or setting that draws them.

GURPs is a good example of draw and touting itself as a "do anything RPG".
That is going to attract anyone who likes to tinker but who do not want to, or simply do not have the mind to create a game from the ground up.

Albedo is an example of IP attraction on top of the other factors as it attracts readers of the comics, hard SF fans, anthropomorphic fans, sociopolitical intrigue fans and military action fans all rolled into one.

AD&D appeals to world builders, fantasy players, roll playing, role playing, hack-n-slash, courtly intrigue, high fantasy, low fantasy, horror, comedy, drama, and so much more. And WOTC really should tout more the world building and other aspects rather than trying to foolishly market brand players into a corner. Tout it as a do anything system and then sell settings for those who prefer someone else do the workhorse part..

And so on.

Now-a-days you do not see RPG boxed sets in retail stores. You may though find them in book stores. Players are a-lot less likely now to buy a game sight unseen and I think now tend to research more or go with a known company unless an unknown has a theme they really gravitate too.