Where's Ape? (Did she catch on?)

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiAnd that's a play style? 4e is going to destroy people's ability to play with a screen?

Seanchai

I believe what I said in another thread was in regards to 4e and sandbox play. You don't believe in sandbox play. Fine. So now we are talking about objectively knowable playstyles. FOR EXAMPLE. Does your group use Minis or not. It's a very obvious difference in style of play, requiring different choices to be made. Movement rate becomes a bigger factor when a map is used. The use of a screen allowing the DM to fudge rolls creates a different style of play too. You are free to say it's basically the same, but that is as useful as saying that AD&D and Call of Cthulhu are the same. Is the play of those games fundamentally the same or not?

Quote from: SgtSpaceWizardI believe what I said in another thread was in regards to 4e and sandbox play. You don't believe in sandbox play. Fine. So now we are talking about objectively knowable playstyles. FOR EXAMPLE. Does your group use Minis or not. It's a very obvious difference in style of play, requiring different choices to be made. Movement rate becomes a bigger factor when a map is used. The use of a screen allowing the DM to fudge rolls creates a different style of play too. You are free to say it's basically the same, but that is as useful as saying that AD&D and Call of Cthulhu are the same. Is the play of those games fundamentally the same or not?

My D&D group swapped rather freely about between using the minis or not, often in the course of a single session, based on whatever we felt like doing that night.

Quote from: J ArcaneMy D&D group swapped rather freely about between using the minis or not, often in the course of a single session, based on whatever we felt like doing that night.

There's many groups like this, including mine. But I have also played in groups that never used minis (at least not on a map during combat), and groups that almost always use them, even when theres not a fight going down. It's a fundamentally different experience worth noting, and is but one of many ways in which players and groups approach RPGs. Some of those differences may not be as obvious as the minis example, but I think most people can agree they are there.

I'm headed to the mountains for Christmas, so as much as I'd like to continue this enjoyably pointless argument in which nobody will ever be convinced, I'll have to say adeiu.

Happy holidays!

Quote from: SgtSpaceWizardIt's a very obvious difference in style of play, requiring different choices to be made.

And again, is that a play style? Is using minis or no, using painted minis or unpainted ones, using official WotC painted minis versus some other painted mini a play style?

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiAnd again, is that a play style?  

Dude, did you actually read what I wrote? Because I wrote this...

QuoteSo now we are talking about objectively knowable playstyles. FOR EXAMPLE. Does your group use Minis or not. It's a very obvious difference in style of play, requiring different choices to be made.

It's a difference between approaches to play that should be obvious. This bit however...

Quote from: SeanchaiIs using minis or no, using painted minis or unpainted ones, using official WotC painted minis versus some other painted mini a play style?

...makes it clear you are incapable of having this discussion. I don't know if that's because you are autistic or just an asshole. Either way, I think everyone is pretty tired of this thread.

Quote from: SgtSpaceWizardThis bit however...

"Is using minis or no, using painted minis or unpainted ones, using official WotC painted minis versus some other painted mini a play style?"

...makes it clear you are incapable of having this discussion.

I would shy away from answering the question, too, were I in your shoes.

Because it's clear that not all differences represent a different play style. Thus there has to be more to play styles than just "Here's something different."

There has to be substance to the difference. It has to be meaningful.

And there in lies the rub, for your side. Because you can point out that this group uses minis and that doesn't, that his GM uses a screen and this one doesn't, but to keep your definition of play style from being ridiculous, you have to separate out the meaningful from that which isn't.

Which is a big nasty job, isn't it? I mean, if you say, "Using painted minis versus non-painted minis isn't meaningful," people will pop up out of the woodwork to tell you how wrong they are, how much better their gaming is now that they've made the switch and that they know a lot of people for whom the same is true.

And if you don't, well, you're agreeing with me, that people basically play the same way.

So, yeah, I'd avoid the question, too...

Quote from: SgtSpaceWizardEither way, I think everyone is pretty tired of this thread.

And yet you responded. Sounds like stated versus revealed preferences to me.

Seanchai

"MY GOD!  IT'S FULL OF CRAZY!"

Quote from: SeanchaiAnd yet you responded. Sounds like stated versus revealed preferences to me.

I know you are, but what am I?

!i!

Quote from: SeanchaiI would shy away from answering the question, too, were I in your shoes.

If there's one thing you have demonstrated in this thread, it's that you are a proponent of shying away from tough questions.

Quote from: SeanchaiBecause it's clear that not all differences represent a different play style. Thus there has to be more to play styles than just "Here's something different."

There has to be substance to the difference. It has to be meaningful.

And there in lies the rub, for your side. Because you can point out that this group uses minis and that doesn't, that his GM uses a screen and this one doesn't, but to keep your definition of play style from being ridiculous, you have to separate out the meaningful from that which isn't.

The difference between using miniatures or not using miniatures IS meaningful. It has fuck all to do with "my side", it has to do with 25+ years of gaming, observation, and common sense. It changes the dynamic of play significantly. If you don't think so, perhaps you should explain why instead of shifting the goalposts of your argument. You certainly didn't make a case against playing with or without a GM screen being a playstyle. You went off about how fallable human memory is.

And therein lies the rub for you, sir. Because if there are no playstyles, then you have to make the argument that a group playing with GM rolls hidden behind a screen and no minis is really no different than a group with no screen and miniatures on a hex map. That is your contention, is it not? Or is it that these groups don't exist, or rather they SAY they do but they don't really. That is the crux of your argument with regard to more subjective playstyles. You are determined to say that people's stated preferences are in error but "oh isn't it too bad we can never know without a hypothetical study that will never happen". I have given you examples of ways in which stated preferences are observable. Now you want to say "oh well those aren't meaningful differences"? Why don't you explain why these two groups aren't any different?
 

Quote from: SeanchaiWhich is a big nasty job, isn't it? I mean, if you say, "Using painted minis versus non-painted minis isn't meaningful," people will pop up out of the woodwork to tell you how wrong they are, how much better their gaming is now that they've made the switch and that they know a lot of people for whom the same is true.

Well let them! It's a good deal more honest than saying "we can never know if your miniatures are painted or not without independent observation by a neutral party." However since this is a superficial difference for the most part, I'm sure its the argument you would rather be having.

Quote from: SeanchaiAnd if you don't, well, you're agreeing with me, that people basically play the same way.

If I don't take my argument to the absurd extreme you postulate then I agree with you? Maybe you should refute what I have written rather than strawmen of your own invention if you have any desire to be taken seriously.  

Quote from: SeanchaiAnd yet you responded. Sounds like stated versus revealed preferences to me.

More of this amateur psychology to remind us we can never know if we used a GM screen last week? You do know that the field of psychology depends on the self-reporting of individuals for its existence for the most part?

Quote from: SgtSpaceWizardThe difference between using miniatures or not using miniatures IS meaningful.

Go ahead and demonstrate that.

Quote from: SgtSpaceWizardIt changes the dynamic of play significantly.

You've said that, but not why.

Quote from: SgtSpaceWizardYou certainly didn't make a case against playing with or without a GM screen being a playstyle. You went off about how fallable human memory is.

Yeah, because I don't believe play styles exist.

Quote from: SgtSpaceWizardBecause if there are no playstyles, then you have to make the argument that a group playing with GM rolls hidden behind a screen and no minis is really no different than a group with no screen and miniatures on a hex map.

Yeah.

Quote from: SgtSpaceWizardI have given you examples of ways in which stated preferences are observable.

By the people participating in the activity. Which is useless.

Quote from: SgtSpaceWizardHowever since this is a superficial difference for the most part, I'm sure its the argument you would rather be having.

Why is it superficial?

Quote from: SgtSpaceWizardYou do know that the field of psychology depends on the self-reporting of individuals for its existence for the most part?

Spoken like someone whose never bothered to pick up a textbook.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiGo ahead and demonstrate that.

The holiday season has put me in a giving mood so I will try one more time...

Here are a couple of case studies of groups I have observed in my day for you to consider then. These are not hypothetical groups and I have not delineated all the differences between them.

GROUP A: Plays with miniatures and a combat map. The GM does not use a screen to hide rolls. Encumbrance is calculated to the nearest pound so that proper movement rates are used. Ranges and area of effect are likewise implemented by the book. Die rolls are never fudged. Players are cautious and meticulous because of this, both during character generation and during play.

GROUP B: Plays without miniatures or a combat map. The GM uses a screen to hide rolls. No one calculates encumbrance or worries about movement rate. Ranges and area of effect are not worried about too much. Die rolls are fudged in the player's favor behind the screen from time to time. Players take bigger risks, using less advantageous builds and tactics.

Saying that these groups are playing the same basic way is as helpful as saying that the Budapest String Quartet and the Foggy Mountain Boys are basically just playing music on stringed instruments. With all other factors being equal, some people would rather play in one group over the other. The differences are meaningful to the people who buy miniatures and combat maps. The 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.

It doesn't have to be an all or nothing proposition, either. Some nights the group might play like either group. It doesn't void the concept of playstyles anymore than if a Jazz artist makes a Country record. The style of the play is the thing more than the style of the group or the individual. However, people have real preferences in gaming as surely as they have preferred foods. That 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. A revealed preference is still a preference.

I leave the choice of a thoughtful refutation or a flip dismissal up to you, whichever is your preference. If J Arcane or anyone sharing your point of view wants to tell me how I'm wrong, that would be welcome as well.

saturnalia

drunk as shit for seven days

so. hung. over.

make fun of you later, suzie

Quote from: SgtSpaceWizardHere are a couple of case studies of groups I have observed in my day for you to consider then. These are not hypothetical groups and I have not delineated all the differences between them...

I posted a similar, real-life experience with two groups much like the ones you outlined. I also pointed out a player who has decided not to play in one of the groups anymore, because it is does not suit his prefered style of play. He would rather not play D&D at all, than spend some of his extremely limited leisure time playing in a group that devotes much of their sessions to doing stuff he has no interest in doing. Futhermore, his unwillingless to embrace the style of this group (he won't take the rules home to read about his feats and tactical options, or play his PC in an optimal tactical fashion), means the group doesn't want him to play with them either. And my buddy is about the nicest guy you'll ever meet, and friends with the guys in the group he's leaving.

Seanchai simply shrugged off my friend's decision to drop out of his group as either bullshit or delusional. Nothing you or anyone else says in this thread is going to make any difference to him. As you noted yourself, the guy is either autistic, or a troll. Practically, it makes no difference - just ignore him.