Quote from: James McMurraySo 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?

I'm patient, but not a kindergarten teacher. Peddle it elsewhere.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiI'm patient, but not a kindergarten teacher. Peddle it elsewhere.

Seanchai

Dude, even Helen Keller's teacher would have stopped putting up with your oblique smugness by now.  Ghandi would be slashing your tires by this point.

Can you even make a clear argument to support your position?  Are you capable of using basic reasoning and examples instead of pedantic wannabe intellectual psychobabble about the unreliability of memory (which has jack all to do with your actual claim)?

Honestly, you are even worse than Ron Edwards.  At least when he makes a lame argument ("brain damage") he lists out his line of thinking.

Quote from: SeanchaiI'm patient, but not a kindergarten teacher. Peddle it elsewhere.

Seanchai

Quote from: James J SkachSo that would be a "yes"?

If I understand what you're getting at, yes.

Quote from: James J SkachIs that enough of a difference?

You're asking me to provide a definition for something I don't think really exists. At least, not how it's being used here.

Quote from: James J SkachTake/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.

Heavy roleplay versus light roleplay might be said to be a play style difference, but given my own experience, what I've read online, schemas and revealed preferences, I think most people are at basically the same spot on the heavy versus light roleplay continuum.

Quote from: James J SkachNo, you just seem to write off peoples' play experiences.

Not "write off" per se, but I know that people misinterpret experiences, misremember them, and can be primed to recount certain things. Particularly online, in an argument.

Quote from: James J SkachI'm left wondering if you know that and simply continue the conversation to annoy people.

If folks find this conversation annoying, why would they participate or read it?

Quote from: James J SkachSo what you're really looking for is a definition of a play style? Is that your hesitation?

No. I'm saying it's a flaw in the opposing argument.

Quote from: James J SkachSo 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?

That seems to be an example, not a definition.

Quote from: James J SkachSo 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 agree that those are attributes - you're saying they're attributes of play styles.

Quote from: James J SkachI'm curious, then, as to why you even recognize those attributes/measurements.

As far as I can tell, there's no disagreement about there being different attributes, only specifics related to how they're used.

Quote from: James J SkachI 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?

There are a different power levels, sure. There's a continuum. But it really isn't worth noting or discussing because everyone is basically at the same spot on it.

Quote from: James J SkachOtherwise 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.

Maybe this will clarify.

Other side: People play RPGs all manner of different ways. It's worth having a special name for the differences in approach, discussing it, and discussing . Here's a list of all the different approaches.

1. Gaming with people.
2. Gaming with dead tigers.
3. Gaming with human beings.

Me: Number one and three are basically the same thing. You're just using synonyms. And is number two even worth brining into this discussion? Is it worth noting, having a term for? It's not meaningful.

Other side: No, they're different things. One begins with a "p" and one begins with an "h."

Me: But that's not substantive. Yes, one begins with a "p" and one begins with an "h." But so what? They're just different words for the same thing. Why bother recognizing a difference between them?

Other side: There are meaningful differences. One is with a dead tiger, one with a "p," and one is with an "h."

Me: I agree there are differences, but, no, they're not meaningful enough to categorize, discuss, worry over, etc..

Seanchai

Quote from: jgantsCan you even make a clear argument to support your position?

I've already done so. Which is, as you know, leagues beyond your side: "How do we define a play style? Well, a play style is a play style." You're not in a position to be casting stones.

Quote from: jgantsAre you capable of using basic reasoning and examples instead of pedantic wannabe intellectual psychobabble about the unreliability of memory (which has jack all to do with your actual claim)?

You talk about basic reasoning and yet can't follow a simple debate.

Your side says there are play styles because you all play differently. What proof is there that you play differently? You say you do.

So, sorry, your ability to remember and recognize what you're doing is at the heart of the debate.

Now if you could get an objective non-participant to observe and record a good sized sample of game sessions, he or she might be able to help. But for that to happen, you'd have to tell him or what to look for and you can't seem to get beyond "A play style is a play style."

Seanchai

You, sir, are one hell of troll.

Huh.

I experience different playstyles with my same group, in different games.  

Trust me - I'm familiar with research on schemas, false memory, and whatnot, but I believe you're mis-using the psychology, at best.

We can make empirical observations which would constitute "play-style differences" without resorting to anecdotes.  Since play-style is at best a vague term, I suggest (empirically measurable) components could include the following.  For these purposes, I'll consider a 4-hour period of gaming to be a "session."  This is an arbitrary figure; hours can be used instead.

* Average number of dice rolls per session.
* Percentage of at-table time spent in combat situations.
* Average number of statements made "in character" (though this is a foggy one) per session.  It would require further definition, but it's workable.
* Average number of PC deaths per-session.
* For D&D, average treasure yield (in gold pieces) per-session.
* Number of times dice are rolled to resolve the outcome of non-combat character interaction with NPCs.
* Use of battle-mat and miniatures in combat and non-combat situations.

I'd argue that there are plenty more empirical data points you could use if you really wanted to experimentally verify that there are differences in the way people play RPGs.

-O

QuoteYou, sir, are one hell of troll.

In 4e terms, maybe he's an Elite one !  

Quote from: SeanchaiHeavy roleplay versus light roleplay might be said to be a play style difference, but given my own experience, what I've read online, schemas and revealed preferences, I think most people are at basically the same spot on the heavy versus light roleplay continuum.

OK, so here we are again. You think that heavy role-play versus light role-play might be a difference, but your experience and some appeals to theory that might not be relevant, you think most people are at "basically" the same spot.

Others in this thread are saying based on their experiences, what they've read on-line (and in this very thread), they are of the opinion that there are people at different points on the continuum.

First - is this a fair assessment?
Second - can you explain why your anecdotally based opinion is any more valid than anyone else's?

Quote from: SeanchaiNot "write off" per se, but I know that people misinterpret experiences, misremember them, and can be primed to recount certain things. Particularly online, in an argument.

Right, so this undermines your argument in a similar fashion as you could be misremembering, misinterpreting, etc. - correct?

Quote from: SeanchaiThere are a different power levels, sure. There's a continuum. But it really isn't worth noting or discussing because everyone is basically at the same spot on it.

And you know this, how, again?

Quote from: SeanchaiMaybe this will clarify.

Other side: People play RPGs all manner of different ways. It's worth having a special name for the differences in approach, discussing it, and discussing . Here's a list of all the different approaches.

1. Gaming with people.
2. Gaming with dead tigers.
3. Gaming with human beings.

Me: Number one and three are basically the same thing. You're just using synonyms. And is number two even worth brining into this discussion? Is it worth noting, having a term for? It's not meaningful.

Other side: No, they're different things. One begins with a "p" and one begins with an "h."

Me: But that's not substantive. Yes, one begins with a "p" and one begins with an "h." But so what? They're just different words for the same thing. Why bother recognizing a difference between them?

Other side: There are meaningful differences. One is with a dead tiger, one with a "p," and one is with an "h."

Me: I agree there are differences, but, no, they're not meaningful enough to categorize, discuss, worry over, etc..

Seanchai

Here - let me fix it for you:

Other side: People play RPGs all manner of different ways. It's worth understanding this, and the different approaches, when discussing how rules might impact the enjoyment of the game. In this case, it's important to understand there are:

People who prefer cinematic/heroic games.
People who prefer realistic, gritty games.

Seanchai: There isn't enough of the a difference in the way people really play - those two things are "basically" the same.

Other side: No, they're different things. In one, there tends to be less chance of death. In the other, death is a real constant possibility.

Seachai: That might be true, but people, whether their characters can die or not, essentially play the same way.

Other side: Then why do people express a desire to play in different ways?

Seachai: They are confused about how they actually play.  They are misreporting or misunderstanding their own actual play and/or preferences.

Other side: so given something like level of role-play, something which you agree exists as a continuum of possibilities, everyone clusters around the same spot to such a degree that it's a meaningless distinction?

Seachai: Yes - there is no such thing as a different play style. People are simply mistaken about their own play.  They are unable to objectively determine something about themselves.

Other side: Do you have any proof of this?

Seanchai: My experience, online information, and my knowledge of preferences.

Really, it's just an iteration of the you-don't-realize-you're-not-having-fun argument.

Did somebody say Brain Damage?

Quote from: SeanchaiYour side says there are play styles because you all play differently. What proof is there that you play differently? You say you do.

So, sorry, your ability to remember and recognize what you're doing is at the heart of the debate.

Now if you could get an objective non-participant to observe and record a good sized sample of game sessions, he or she might be able to help. But for that to happen, you'd have to tell him or what to look for and you can't seem to get beyond "A play style is a play style."

Actually, several examples of potential play styles have been listed. For example...

Quote from: jgantsSome groups would never, ever consider permanent death for a PC. Other groups love to go through different characters.

Now 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. I don't care for ranch dressing either.

EDITED 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.

I think you'll find that it's fairly easy for one to mistakenly remember one's ranch dressing preferences, especially on the internet.



No, it has nothing to do with the conversation, butI couldn't help myself. Now then, has anyone seen my xengal woogies?

Quote from: SeanchaiI've already done so. Which is, as you know, leagues beyond your side: "How do we define a play style? Well, a play style is a play style." You're not in a position to be casting stones.

A play style has a very simple definition - it is the preferences of the players used to determine how they like to play games.  Furthermore, if a game appeals to their preferred style as opposed to a style they do not like, then they will be more likely to play that particular game.

If everyone's preferences balance each other out, you end up with the "applie pie" syndrome where everyone plays a game they can agree on, in a way they can agree on (I've long theorized that a fair amount of D&D's continued popularity has to do with with it's apple pie factor of appeal).

Quote from: SeanchaiYou talk about basic reasoning and yet can't follow a simple debate.

Your side says there are play styles because you all play differently. What proof is there that you play differently? You say you do.

So, sorry, your ability to remember and recognize what you're doing is at the heart of the debate.

Now if you could get an objective non-participant to observe and record a good sized sample of game sessions, he or she might be able to help. But for that to happen, you'd have to tell him or what to look for and you can't seem to get beyond "A play style is a play style."

I disagree.  The 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).


But let's look at this another way - there are certainly preferred play styles for other types of games.

Look at strategy/war games for example.  Some people absolutely love games with no random elements at all (such as go or chess).  Others hate that, and love games with a high degree of randomness (risk and axis/allies are somewhat random because of dice - other games are even more random).

Look at the basic boardgame of Monopoly.  Some people prefer to use the "free parking" rule to add more chance to the game.  Others want to keep it a game of skill.  Some people love playing the game where people make trades and deals with properties.  Others will never play that way.

Or how about card games.  Poker is poker, right?  But why have several variants: 5 vs 7 cards?  draw vs stud?  texas hold-em?  Because people prefer different styles of playing the game.  Plus, there are people who like playing the games without betting real money vs people who want to play for real money.  And you get into the whole "high stakes" vs "low stakes" thing.

How about something as simple as marbles?  Some people would play for keeps.  Others hate the idea of playing for keeps.

How about CCGs?  Some people rigidly played MtG by the tournament rules when it first came out, including playing for keeps with cards.  Other people were much more relaxed and preferred the whimsiness of being able to construct any kind of deck they wanted and/or without the risk of actually losing a card.

Or what about croquet?  Some people like to play "nice" and never knock another's ball off the court.  Others love a cutthroat level of competition.

What about b-ball on a half court?  Some people will play without ever calling fouls.  Others prefer to call every foul.

Are all those different ways of playing in people's imaginations, too?  I'm pretty sure one is capable of accurately remembering whether or not they are playing for keeps or not.  Or how much/if they like to bet real money when they play cards.  I'm also pretty certain people remember if they like to use the "free parking" rule in monopoly, or if they prefer wargames that emphasize skill over luck, or how they play croquet or basketball.

So, unless everyone on the planet are dirty liars or have had their memories implanted by the government (in collusion with aliens, natch), it's pretty safe to say that play styles differ for games outside of RPGs.  And if that is the case, I'd like to know what makes RPGs so damn special that they are able to avoid having differences in play styles.

Besides, you still haven't addressed the clear-cut case of allowing character death vs. not allowing character death.  That is a very objectively measurable play style - does the GM kill off characters or not?  It's pretty hard to "misremember" that.

Quote from: obrynI believe you're mis-using the psychology, at best.

How so?

Quote from: obrynI'd argue that there are plenty more empirical data points you could use if you really wanted to experimentally verify that there are differences in the way people play RPGs.

And yet all the "data" offered thus far as been ancedotes. "I know there are differences in play style because I've experienced them," not "We did a study of 50 groups and counted the number of times each rolled the dice per session. We observed a high degree of variance between the groups."

Seanchai

Quote from: James J SkachSecond - can you explain why your anecdotally based opinion is any more valid than anyone else's?

It isn't. I just have the upper hand because I'm not trying to prove a positive with ancedotes.

Quote from: James J SkachReally, it's just an iteration of the you-don't-realize-you're-not-having-fun argument.

Oh, I think people are having fun with what they're doing.

Seanchai