Quote from: James J SkachIf you're in a group, and you fall into a comfortable set of (often unwritten, unspoken) accommodations wherein different play styles are melded into one, it might seem silly to think of some kind of distinct style or approach...

There are also people for whom their style is a moderated mix of everything and I suspect few people play in purely one style.  That's one of the problem with style discussions is they tend to make people start thinking in terms of single pure styles.

For example, when I play the Hero System or D&D 3.5, I tend to approach combat as a tactical exercise rather than a role-playing exercise and my head is often in the positioning and odds more than what the character is thinking.  It's not my idea, but I can do it and have fun with it.  Similarly, I can tolerate a certain amount of light fudging or GM fiat so long as it doesn't become intrusive enough to damage in character verisimilitude.  So, in practice, I do play with a mixed group and tolerate mixed styles but that doesn't mean that the style issues aren't there.  And it doesn't mean that there aren't other games (including ones that I've experienced) where the average or norm is so heavily shifted toward one particular style that it causes problems for other styles because they are not used to that sort of compromise or accommodation.  And discussion of style can help people understand those problems and how to fix them.

Quote from: James J SkachThe idea that there are different play styles is separate from the discussion of the stupid, inane, borderline-fraudulent ways in which that fact is used by some folks to sell games.

It's also separate from the discussion of whether people use the idea of different play styles to boost their egos and put other people down.

Quote from: J ArcaneI appreciate your response, because it's general egostroking, condescending fuckwittedness does a marvelous job of illustrating the kinds of ulterior motives people have in overstating the "playstyle thing" in online discourse, much like John Morrow's previous and equally fuckwitted statement about "RvR".

Wow, and I thought I was just being a jackass. Little did I know I'm multi-talented.

Silly me, I thought that since we'd been here posting side-by-side for years you'd recognize that when someone (me) makes a post that's condescending against a certain style of play (like I just did), but that person has a history of always posting that play styles differ but none are objectively better, that the reader of the post (you), would realize they were fucking around.

For the record I like what I like. I don't like what I don't like. I also don't really give a shit what other people like until they try to impose it on me. Nobody in this thread is saying X is better then Y, just that X and Y exist.

QuotePeople like to go on about "playstyles" on message boards largely because for some reason, it gives them some kind of fucked up ego boost.  

You honestly think that everyone who ever talks about play styles online is doing it because they want to feel special? It is completely impossible that some of those people honestly want to understand their fellow gamers and/or increase their enjoyment at the table?

Interesting.

Quote from: SpikeJust because I'm overdue this week:

Housecats. Say it with me.

House.

Cats.

Oh, and Wolf Wrestling. Yeah. That too.

Focus, people.

Sorry dude, can't help you.

Quote from: J ArcaneBecause the situations described can, and more often than not do, take place within the same game, andeven the same player. This is why RvR is bollocks, why Forge/TBM is bollocks, and why Morrow's post is bollocks because it's nothing more than a restatement of the same general attitude.

Real play is a lot more fluid than that, which is why so little online discourse has any bearing on reality or the way gamers actualyl play, and why the Forge is such a useless bunch of shit to anyone but the idiots on it's boards who've managed to convince themselves of it's truth despite evidence to the contrary, largely to let them feel like they're part of some great movement.

But just because TBM may or not be bullshit, does it necessarily follow that there are no differences in approaches to play between players/groups? I won't dispute that such arguments are used to tell people they are having the "badwrongfun" but to say "therefore, there are no playstyles" is contrary to my own experience and the experience of most of the people posting on this thread. Details like minis/no minis, GM screen/no screen, are very real differences in the way some people play the very same game, for example. To then compare such statements to the hunt for bigfoot eggs is really a bit of an absurd dodge. Do you share this opinion with the OP? I started a whole thread about playing with a screen and there are a variety of answers. I don't believe anyone on that thread is saying one way is objectively better than than the other. Nevertheless, this is a stylistic approach and it affects gameplay. Do you agree or disagree?

Political debates frequently end up as back-patting bitchfests filled with people looking to make themselves feel superior. Does it then follow that deep down everyone makes the same choice when faced with a situation involving the possibility of abortion? Or could it be that people really are different, right down to some being jackasses and others not?

Quote from: SgtSpaceWizardBut just because TBM may or not be bullshit, does it necessarily follow that there are no differences in approaches to play between players/groups? I won't dispute that such arguments are used to tell people they are having the "badwrongfun" but to say "therefore, there are no playstyles" is contrary to my own experience and the experience of most of the people posting on this thread. ...

Well said.  I agree that "playstyle" is often raised to then criticize said style and that 90% of those I've played with have a mix of the "styles".  It may even be my "playstyle" is the mix, a game that focused exclusively on one of the areas would not be my style.

Quote from: James McMurrayPolitical debates frequently...

Huh? Whuh? Where did that come from? Back to kitties, please!

I was drawing a parallel between this discussion and other times when people get pissed because they're worried about ideologies instead of looking at the underlying situation. It was an attempt at wittily saying "just because someone uses a term for bad doesn't mean that it ceases to exist.

Now then, since you're so interested in kitties... I'll just remind you that

Aaaaaayyyy!

Leave it to an Aussie to not understand how this works...

Quote from: James J SkachI'd agree, depending on what it is that you're discussing. In fact, ironically, I could see where things would all look the same from the 1" (as it were) altitude  as well. If you're in a group, and you fall into a comfortable set of (often unwritten, unspoken) accommodations wherein different play styles are melded into one, it might seem silly to think of some kind of distinct style or approach...

It has been my experience that functional groups fall into exactly this kind of natural compromise.

Certainly I've run into a few players occasionaly who were selfish fuckwits who insisted on forcing everything and everyone to do exactly as they demanded, but that's not a "playstyle" issue, that's a "worthless shithead" issue, and they generally don't last long.  

In a healthy group, certainly there may be people at the table whose preferences shift about a bit, and may not even be consistent (my last group for instance, played with minis as often as not, and liked both), but generally it's the job of the players and GM both to allow the feel and flow of a game to accomodate what everyone wants to do.

The people who aren't willing to do so, have a tendency to find themselves without groups, or get over it.  Or they simply gripe about how they can't find a game on message boards and join silly "movements".

Quote from: J ArcaneIt has been my experience that functional groups fall into exactly this kind of natural compromise.

While I tend to agree in general, the there are two places where that's not a given:

The first is when the vast majority of players in a particular group favor a particular style and pull the group strongly in that direction.  That can leave one or two players feeling left out and the other players not understanding why ("What's wrong with you?  We're all having fun!").  Discussion of play style issues could help the people understand what's wrong and appreciate that different people play differently.  Anecdotal evidence suggests to me that a lot of the more bitter people who have a chip on their shoulder about other play styles fall into this category.  They were a minority in the group or groups that they played in and their preferences were ignored.

The second is when a group develops a natural compromise and then adds players with a style preference not found in the group before or for whom the existing compromise doesn't quite work.  Again, discussion of play style issues could help the people understand what's wrong and how to fix it.

There is also the broader problem of players who know that they like or don't like something but don't know how to explain it, thus a group could have an unhappy player or players and be willing to compromise but not know how to discuss what's wrong or how to fix it.

Quote from: SgtSpaceWizardDetails like minis/no minis, GM screen/no screen, are very real differences in the way some people play the very same game, for example.

And that's a play style? 4e is going to destroy people's ability to play with a screen?

Seanchai

Quote from: James McMurrayYou've done a good job of explaining what your statement didn't mean. Mind telling us what it does mean?

Just what I've already said. People's perceptions and memory aren't reliable. People often behave in ways that don't match their stated intentions or preferences. It's not a value judgement about those people, however.

Quote from: James McMurrayNope. I believe there is more objectively verifiable (i.e. my eyeballs) proof for different playstyles than there are for ghosts.

And the people who believe in ghosts, particularly those that go out to capture evidence, believe that they, too, have objectively verifiable proof of their existence.

Quote from: James McMurrayAs opposed to "look at all those playstyles, at least half of them have to be wrong." Interesting choice of debate styles.

Except that's not what I'm saying. There's no wrong. I just don't believe there are play styles, but rather a basic play style.

Quote from: James McMurraySeveral people have given you several very clear cut examples of subsets that fall under "different play style." That you constantly ignore them is both telling and amusing.

I'm not ignoring them at all. I'm discounting the reports as evidence that

Quote from: James McMurrayAnd I'll ask for the proof. The difference here is that is that in hundreds of years no concrete evidence of ghosts has been found.

No, the difference is that you feel your evidence for play styles is concrete and the evidence for ghosts is not concrete.

So why do you get to decide what evidence is concrete and what isn't? And why can't I? My saying, "I don't find self-reports credible for various reasons," any different than your saying, "There isn't concrete proof that ghosts exist."

Quote from: James McMurrayI can point to GM Screens and Epic Level Handbooks, just as easily as I can sit and watch a game that involves 0 combat, then stroll 3 feet in the convention hall and see a straight up no-talking dungeon crawl..

And I can show you hundreds of photos, hours of footage, tons of audio files, and thousands and thousands of eye-witness accounts going back thousands of years.

Quote from: James McMurrayWho said that?

You. For example, "Several people have given you several very clear cut examples of subsets that fall under 'different play style.' That you constantly ignore them is both telling and amusing."

Seanchai