TheRPGSite

Thanks to a thread over at TBP, I was able to find some posts by WotC staffer Mike Mearls over on their forums.

http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=14491016#post14491016http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=14491016#post14491016 (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=14491016#post14491016)

http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=14450767#post14450767 (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=14450767#post14450767)

http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=14456843#post14456843 (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=14456843#post14456843)

Salient points for me:

"First, the cards are not a system, but I suspect you're talking about the quest mechanic anyway. The cards have nothing to do with the mechanics of how a quest work, just like paper and pencil don't determine how hit points work. They are tools used to implement a mechanic, but not a mechanic. You can use the mechanic without those tools.

Second, what's to stop the DM from asking the players to create quests?"

"In 4e, we have mechanics that have that potential: allow you players to make up their own quests."

"Not every DM needs this mechanic, and not every DM who uses this mechanic needs to use cards to represent quests. We have no plans to produce quest cards or make them a standard part of D&D, and the adventures I've worked on do not include them."

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai"Not every DM needs this mechanic, and not every DM who uses this mechanic needs to use cards to represent quests. We have no plans to produce quest cards or make them a standard part of D&D, and the adventures I've worked on do not include them."

Thanks for clearing that up.

Not that anyone in the original thread claimed DMs would be forced to use cards to represent quests.

Can you link to the part where Mearls says the 4E rules set will facilitate sandbox play better than other editions of D&D?

I was pleasantly surprised by some of the statements quoted on rpg.net.

There may be a confusion of perception at the root of a lot of the strife about 4E. According to Mearls, the 4E rules remain the toolbox they used to be in earlier editions, not a set of laws chiselled in stone.

Thing is: It's as the latter, not as the former, as which they are celebrated by so many of the 4E fanboiz. What Mearls seems to intend as helpful suggestions for newb GMs, people treat as the prescriptions of a BTB Forge game.

Quote from: HaffrungNot that anyone in the original thread claimed DMs would be forced to use cards to represent quests.

No, they just repeatedly spoke as if it weren't entirely optional and ignored attempts to get them to admit that this was the case.

Quote from: HaffrungCan you link to the part where Mearls says the 4E rules set will facilitate sandbox play better than other editions of D&D?

No. How could I when no editon of D&D facilitates sandbox play than any other?

Seanchai

Said it before I'll keep saying.  I haven't seen anyting yet about 4th edition that has thrown me off.  It all looks like fun.  Different, from D20.  But a fun game all on it's own.  For me that's a plus.  I'm generally unhappy with current D20 for the most part.  4th ed looks like a fun new foray into the world of fantasy RPG's.  High adventure with no pretense that it's anything but a video game RPG.  - Fan-fucking-tastic.

I was wondering that those Mearls comments would make their way over here...

As far as I'm concerned his comments have reaffirmed my mostly optimistic stance on 4e. I'm not outright positive about it because it's not the product of a single man, but this gives me hope that the final product is shaping up into something that will hit the right notes: give players even more options while simultaneously making the game easier to run.

Seanchai gets bonus points for most hilarious title in a while.

I found a transcript on ENWorld  (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=213497)with some interesting things from Mearls. There are all quotes from him:

"you ask if we're making a 4e a game that gamers want, or a game that I want. Well, I'd ask you the same question: do you want us to make a game that gamers want, or do you want us to make a game that you want?"

"Roles have no mechanics attached to them. They simply serve to inform players about a class and help people make clear, understandable choices."

"We are never going to make D&D more complicated than it needs to be. Roleplaying is not some sacred hobby that requires a minimum mental or creative requirement. There are few enough outlets for creativity in the world that I'd never stoop to make D&D less accessible.

The core of D&D is roleplay and the DM as creator/judge/actor/storyteller. Those two tools are the advantage that we have over every other form of game out there. They are awesome advantages, powerful enough to keep D&D going for over 30 years. We'd be insanely stupid to get rid of them or de-emphasize them."

All in all, this continues to make me feel enthusiastic about the upcoming game.

Quote from: architect.zerothis gives me hope that the final product is shaping up into something that will hit the right notes: give players even more options while simultaneously making the game easier to run.

I'm with you but I still want easier combats to run and (this may seem contradictory) I wish they had found a way to change the way armors work.

I will also be very curious to see how tied the rules are with physical representation (maps, minis of any sorts).

I can't wait until we hear more on the mechanics proper!

Quote from: architect.zeroI'm not outright positive about it because it's not the product of a single man, but this gives me hope that the final product is shaping up into something that will hit the right notes...

In no way am I saying this applies to you, but I think this is a good point and thread to say that I'm no more for unbridled enthusiasm than I am for all the negativity. We haven't seen the whole game yet - only bits and pieces. So I'm with you - cautious optimism.

Seanchai

I take this as a snipe from Mearls @ the PR strategy.

I know I've wavered along the way but at the moment I'm cautiously optimistic too. Actually, fuck it, Mearls is saying the things I want to hear about roles, campaign settings and ease of play.

hAVE YOU HEARD THAT PODCAST WITH cHRIS pERKINS ABOUT 4e Forgotten Realms ?

On RPGnet they're still goin' mental about Golden Wyvern Adept - change that broken record

I suspect that once 4E is released half of the controversies we've been discussing so far will seem like utter irrelevancies, with no basis in reality, while half the stuff which will be controversial after 4E comes out will be things we currently have no idea about.

Quote from: SettembriniI take this as a snipe from Mearls @ the PR strategy.

If you're going to have me on your ignore list, at least have the decency to ignore me (especially if you make a public display of putting me there).

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiWe haven't seen the whole game yet - only bits and pieces.

And that, folks, is the key.

We are like the proverbial blind men trying to describe an elephant when each of us can only sense, through sub-optimal faculties, a very small set of a much larger whole.

This isn't a new phenomenon.  Just go and dig up the old usenet discussions surrounding 3e, forget any other example from countless sea-change events in other fields.

Quote from: architect.zeroAnd that, folks, is the key.

We are like the proverbial blind men trying to describe an elephant when each of us can only sense, through sub-optimal faculties, a very small set of a much larger whole.

This isn't a new phenomenon.  Just go and dig up the old usenet discussions surrounding 3e, forget any other example from countless sea-change events in other fields.

"An elephant is warm and squishy".

Quote from: WarthurI suspect that once 4E is released half of the controversies we've been discussing so far will seem like utter irrelevancies, with no basis in reality, while half the stuff which will be controversial after 4E comes out will be things we currently have no idea about.

That's most probably true. As Seanchai said in this thread, wild optimism or pessimism at this point in time would not be cautious.

And yeah, I bet some issues will be popularly controversial that we can't even suspect at this point in time.

On a tangent here: looking at WotC's upcoming summer schedule, it's more setting/adventure agressive than the one we got when 3e was released. I think they've figured out Dancey was out to lunch with his "adventures/settings are sinkholes" philosophy.

Which most probably means they will correct the OGL mistake by 5th edition.

Quote from: SettembriniI take this as a snipe from Mearls @ the PR strategy.

You're on the right track, but I see it more as damage control.

Mearls is one of the primary reasons that my hopes for 4e being a game I will like haven't faded away completely yet. These statements by him confirm my faith in him a bit more.

Quote from: ColonelHardissonYou're on the right track, but I see it more as damage control.

Mearls is one of the primary reasons that my hopes for 4e being a game I will like haven't faded away completely yet. These statements by him confirm my faith in him a bit more.

To each his own. I wasn't thrilled to learn he was working on the 4th edition. But I'm taking news on 4th edition one at a time and putting my feelings aside.

I'm glad he's not (from what I can gather) messing around with the core engine behind d20 too much and instead concentrating on practical issues as well as the fluff. Mearls is at his best (IMO) when doing fluff.

Quote from: ColonelHardissonYou're on the right track, but I see it more as damage control.

Spot on, Col.

Quote from: Old Geezer"An elephant is warm and squishy".

So is it's poo. :P

Quote from: Consonant DudeThat's most probably true. As Seanchai said in this thread, wild optimism or pessimism at this point in time would not be cautious.

And yeah, I bet some issues will be popularly controversial that we can't even suspect at this point in time.

On a tangent here: looking at WotC's upcoming summer schedule, it's more setting/adventure agressive than the one we got when 3e was released. I think they've figured out Dancey was out to lunch with his "adventures/settings are sinkholes" philosophy.

Which most probably means they will correct the OGL mistake by 5th edition.

My guess is that Dancey looked at some of the infamous TSR boxed sets that were serious money losers, and threw the baby out with the bathwater.

Quote from: LeSquideMy guess is that Dancey looked at some of the infamous TSR boxed sets that were serious money losers, and threw the baby out with the bathwater.

Exactly. Didn't try to figure out what happened. It was rather surprising of him.

Quote from: LeSquideMy guess is that Dancey looked at some of the infamous TSR boxed sets that were serious money losers, and threw the baby out with the bathwater.

It also raises the question of how much received wisdom in the industry is acyually worth a damn. I've seen people cite the failure of TSR as a good enough reason to launch and/or scrap entire product lines, and am left wondering exactly how much of this approach is based on empirical data.

Last night we had another session of Chris Perkins' newest campaign, called Iomandra and the Dragon Sea. It was a pretty wild session. We had our second death in as many sessions, amid a knock-down, drag-out fight.

Yesterday before the game I grabbed the latest 4th Edition documents off our shared server and updated my eladrin wizard (Vargas) to the newest rules. Took about 5 minutes (one of my feats had been renamed, and another feat that had higher prereqs before but got lowered replaced one of the feats I didn't really want). The new revision of the wizard gave me an additional power (I picked ray of frost so I could slow enemies down), and several of my spells got tweaked a bit (like magic missile). Not much else changed for my character, though, except a few things like ranges on spells or the frequency with which I could use my wand power. So Vargas remains much the same, but with a new trick up his sleeve.

Anyways, we trudged back through the jungle to the village of Terak'n with the body of Garrot (Mat Smith's human fighter, who had died in an orc ambush at the end of the last session). We got back to town, rested, recuperated, and then discovered that Garrot had been mysteriously resurrected thanks to a ring stolen from one of the Sea Kings. After a little bit of investigation of some previous plots (my character's mentor, Aiven, gave me some clues to the origins of a killer who attacked Chris Thomasson's tiefling warlock, Deimos, last session), Mayor van Zarkyn summoned us to his manor to tell us that the green dragon that rules over the island, Keth, wanted someone from the village to investigate a burning ship that was lodged on a sandbar a few miles offshore.

We made it out to the ship, climbed aboard, and started searching for anything valuable. While most of us were on the deck of the ship, Deimos went belowdecks to look in the captain's stateroom. Within seconds Deimos was surrounded by goblins, who rushed out from under debris and other goblins' bodies to ambush him. At one point there were 8 goblin minions, 4 normal goblins, 2 goblin spellcasters, and a crazy uber-goblin spellcaster all surrounding us. Fortunately, Garrot rushed downstairs to help protect Deimos, and Andrew Finch's warlord (Abraxus) followed close behind, with Greg Bilsland's tiefling rogue (Amnon) in tow. Our low-Initiative cleric went down last, while I moved across the top deck to peer down through a grate at the scene below. While they held off the waves of minions, I shot magic missiles and used my fireblast powers to pick off those few that I could see. Once they got out of Vargas' line of sight, I used my fey step power to teleport down below (rather than wasting a full round running to the stairs and then down), behind the goblins, and started flinging my AoE effects. To powers later I'd cleared out most of the minions, and had taken out a chunk of the goblins as well. However, the tide had turned, and we were mopping them up.

That's when a copper dragon landed on the deck of the ship. Amnon, who was notorious for having a grudge against all dragons, attacked it...and then ran down below. Within a few rounds, the copper dragon was now chowing down on our party, much to our chagrin. Half the party was taking acid damage every round at one point, and the dragon's frightful presence froze three characters in their tracks, leaving it up to Vargas, Amnon, and Divin (Curt Gould's half-elf cleric) to try and deal with this. No defender, which made things interesting. I tried to negotiate with the dragon, but even with a solid Diplomacy roll and the half-elf's bonus to my check I couldn't talk it down. Funny how a dragon might stay mad at someone that attacked it, especially since I'm pretty sure it was there to talk to us (it had looked at me curiously but didn't attack, until Amnon shot first and asked questions later). The dragon was tough, and was probably a solo monster (though I didn't have its stats available to me), intended for the whole party to take it on. Since this was part of the same encounter with the goblins, we were running low on resources. The copper dragon zoomed in on Amnon, and a combination of an instant breath weapon attack when the dragon was bloodied and then its bite plus ongoing acid damage killed poor Amnon, making him our second casualty in as many sections.

That's when the goblins who had fled from us decided they were going to "kill the dragon," and in true goblin fashion they set fire to their powder reserves in the cargo hold...which proceeded to blow up the middle section of the ship. The ship falls into two pieces, Deimos is blown clear (and into the water, thankfully), and the copper dragon is unharmed. Sigh. Luckily, Deimos had managed to place an ongoing fire effect on the copper dragon, and as that whittled it down we managed to score a few hits, including an instantaneous magic missile attack from me thanks to one of Abraxus' powers, and Garrot making a monster, max-damage critical hit on the dragon. The dragon vanquished, we picked up our asses (which the dragon had been kind enough to hand to us) and dragged ourselves and our dead back to Terak'n.

It was a hell of a session, and while we spent about the first two hours doing investigation stuff the last two hours were taken up by the monster fight, and then a little bit of conclusion stuff. I used every trick at my disposal, and I'd say the combat probably went on for, oh, 20 rounds or so. It was trouble, and we had some luck. I'm pretty happy with my wizard right now, though I'm looking forward to hunting down some more rituals so I can do some more versatile things. I've discovered the warlord is my friend, letting me use magic missile at some unexpected times, and the minion rules seem to be working very well. The exploding boat in the middle of the fight certainly changed things unexpectedly, but Chris has always been good at using dynamic terrain.

I think at the end of the night we all could safely say that it was our best 4E game yet. Not every one of us had access to the newest version of their classes (the guys from outside R&D have to use our copies, of course, as we can't let them out of our sight) but by next week everyone should be up to date. Good times!  Rodney Thompson,  WOTC

Now read this (http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3927377&postcount=45)

Is Rodney stirring it up or was the party really 2nd level ?

cool session, though !

Cool session?

I´d rather call it void of any soul or enthusiasm.

Sett just won me £5, cheers  ;)

Twenty rounds of combat in two hours of play seems pretty reasonable by current D&D standards.

I seem to recall reading that 4E combat is designed to have the same running speed regardless of level. I'm guessing that an Epic version of the above would look quite similar, with the principle difference being the amounts of damage being dished out.

I also recall reading that iconic monsters would be scalable, so a 2nd level party wouldn't have to miss out on them when playing through a short or gritty campaign.

And yes, I read plenty of enthusiasm in the playtest report.

Soul, on the other hand... WTF?

Quote from: SeanIs Rodney stirring it up or was the party really 2nd level ?

cool session, though !

Hmmm... I read the thread, he doesn't seem to be kidding.

I am lost as to how they were able to fight so many creatures including a dragon (doing continuous damage) at this level.

A supposition is that some things (such as HP) are now front-loaded at first level instead of linear by level. That might be cool if it is done well and allow smoother play between characters and monsters of different power levels.

It could be a lot of things.

Over at ENWorld, they seem amazed this only took two hours but I am not that impressed. If what looks like an episodic fight (not a story arc clincher or a bigass campaign conclusion) can last two hours, it better be much more exciting for my group than 3e. Otherwise, I doubt I'll buy.

Quote The dragon was tough, and was probably a solo monster (though I didn't have its stats available to me), intended for the whole party to take it on. Since this was part of the same encounter with the goblins, we were running low on resources.

no comment.

all that for 2nd level?  you're shitting me, right?

the power curve gets higher.  (sigh) if it brings in new blood for the hobby, good.  i'll be having more fun with low-power fantasy playing something else.

Quote from: SettembriniCool session?

I´d rather call it void of any soul or enthusiasm.

You must've read something different from what I read, then.

Quote from: Consonant DudeOn a tangent here: looking at WotC's upcoming summer schedule, it's more setting/adventure agressive than the one we got when 3e was released. I think they've figured out Dancey was out to lunch with his "adventures/settings are sinkholes" philosophy.

Yeah, but a) they're not supporting as many settings as TSR did back in the day, which was the whole point of the Dancey strategy - paring down the number of settings that Wizards was providing direct support for to a managable number, and b) many of the adventures seem to be designed to provide smooth introductions to the 4E system, which sounds very sensible to me - people will want to have examples of how 4E adventures are constructed.

QuoteWhich most probably means they will correct the OGL mistake by 5th edition.

What "OGL mistake" are you thinking of?

Quote from: Settembrinino comment.

Well thank fucking god for small miracles.

Quote from: DrewI also recall reading that iconic monsters would be scalable, so a 2nd level party wouldn't have to miss out on them when playing through a short or gritty campaign.

Sounds like the philosophy behind 4E is: Everything. Now.

Quote from: HaffrungSounds like the philosophy behind 4E is: Everything. Now.

*shrug* Even if true, I'd say it's better than "Some Stuff You Should Like, Some Day. For Now, Avoid The Angry Terrier, Schlub!"

Quote from: beeberall that for 2nd level?  you're shitting me, right?

the power curve gets higher.  (sigh) if it brings in new blood for the hobby, good.  i'll be having more fun with low-power fantasy playing something else.

Is it even a curve anymore?

Or by level 10, does the fighter have the power to cleave the planet in twain, the cleric to resurrect dead gods, and the wizard to hurl cosmic stars at people instead of fireballs?

I have a feeling that immortals from the old BD&D game are going to be significantly weaker than Epic level characters in 4e...

Quote from: jgantsIs it even a curve anymore?

Or by level 10, does the fighter have the power to cleave the planet in twain, the cleric to resurrect dead gods, and the wizard to hurl cosmic stars at people instead of fireballs?

Thus far in favor of that idea we have:
1) Nerd Rage
2) Rampant Speculation
3) Things Pulled Directly From Asses

Opposing that idea we have:
1) Anything coming out of WotC that would describe the power level.

Here's the two feats we've seen intended for levels 10+:

First Reaction
Tier: Paragon
Benefit: If you are surprised, you may spend an action point to act during the surprise round.

Golden Wyvern Adept
Tier: Paragon
Benefit: You can omit a number of squares from the effects of any of your area or close wizard powers. This number can’t exceed your Wisdom modifier.

Holy shit it's Dragonball!!11!11one!11dumbfuckery.

:rolleyes:

Quote from: jgantsI have a feeling that immortals from the old BD&D game are going to be significantly weaker than Epic level characters in 4e...

Then I'd have to recommend putting down the crack pipe and educating yourself on what they've released so far, via this page (http://www.enworld.org/index.php?page=4e#rules), unless you want to keep on :hissyfit: :footinmouth:. You'd be in broad company, but there's a better way.


EDIT: In retrospect this may be harsher than warranted; I just see a whole lot of people saying dumbfuck things about 4e pretty much every day on ENWorld where they can't be...properly corrected...and it kinda exploded. But I'm not gonna backtrack and edit my words; just know on reflection they were more explosive than calculated.

Quote from: Consonant DudeMearls is at his best (IMO) when doing fluff.

I consider him to have one of the deeper understanding of mechanics and their short and long term effects on play.  I've always had the impression that he likes 80-90% of 3E so I wouldn't be surprised if the core system is largely the same.

Quote from: NicephorusI consider him to have one of the deeper understanding of mechanics and their short and long term effects on play.  I've always had the impression that he likes 80-90% of 3E so I wouldn't be surprised if the core system is largely the same.

It likely -operates- similarly, but there's been much talk from their mathematician on staff (yes, they have one in Design & Development) about how the math underlying the whole system was both changed and done in advance on a spreadsheet, from which all design flows.

Oh, and the unified 1/2 level BAB/save advancement.

...Or we could just all wait for the book(s) to come out in May and see if they're worth all the fuss or not.

We really don't know much until we can physicaslly browse at these books or purchase them and try to put them in play. (yeah I know, I'm not really a D&D player - but you know what I mean)

If WotC really screwed up - then we'll all know that by sometime around the next Gencon.


- Ed C.

Hey, thanks for another non-post there, K-man.

The men with the two hairiest avatars on theRPGsite... locked in mortal combat! Excellent.

Quote from: Christmas ApeEDIT: In retrospect this may be harsher than warranted; I just see a whole lot of people saying dumbfuck things about 4e pretty much every day on ENWorld where they can't be...properly corrected...and it kinda exploded. But I'm not gonna backtrack and edit my words; just know on reflection they were more explosive than calculated.

I think your EnWorld experience has led to brain fever, my dear holiday simian, for you clearly misinterpreted my post.  :D

The first part was using sarcasm.  I wasn't saying 10th level characters really would have powers like that; I was saying that in order to have a power curve that 10th level characters would have to have insanely high powerful abilities like that if the example we were given represented typical 2nd level characters (as tackling a mob of powerful goblins and a dragon without breaking too bad of a sweat is more akin to 7-9th level PCs in ye olde versions of (A)D&D).

As to the second part, I do seriously think that epic level characters in D&D 4e will be more powerful than BD&D immortals.  Immortals weren't that high powered in the grand scheme of things.

It looks to me like D&D is going to flatten the curve a bit - with more front-loaded abilities and the potential for more powers later (more similar to the way the Palladium/Rifts system handles character power levels).

PCs teleporting around and killing dragons at 2nd level sounds pretty high-power to me.

And there's nothing wrong with that, if that's what WotC and its customers want. The thing that I get a kick out of is people who, for some peculiar reason, feel the need to deny that 4E will be a different game in some respects than 3.5, or 1E.

Why is it so hard to admit that different versions of D&D are tailored to different play styles, and folks may have legitimate reasons for prefering not to play a particular edition?

Just a small observation: there's no indication of the dragon's age/size which, in past terms, correlated to threat level.  It might've been a hatchling, or otherwise very young, for all we know.  It's a plausible scenario and, iirc, has been used in at least one published adventure for 3.0: Dungeon of the Fire Opal (http://paizo.com/dungeon/products/issues/2001/84) contains a very young dragon captured by some kobolods, iirc.

As Koltar recently mentioned, and as we were saying in this thread RIGHT BEFORE THE PLAYTEST REPORT WAS POSTED, we haven't seen shit about this fucking game except for some ridiculously sparse bits and pieces.

The only thing that's been revealed via WoTCs marketing "strategy" of half-baked releases and lobotomized previews is that the fan base is  full of screeching muppet heads without an ounce of rationality between them.

Quote from: architect.zeroThis isn't a new phenomenon. Just go and dig up the old usenet discussions surrounding 3e, forget any other example from countless sea-change events in other fields.

Which is the important part. The massive hoopla surrounding 3e died down when folks got to see the final product. Some still didn't like it. But for many, seeing and playing the final product laid to rest some reservations. It definitely laid to rest speculation.

Which is the crux of the problems now. Assumptions. Juxtapose the assumptions made in the first 4e quest thread with the clarifications/statements made by Mearls and you can see how easily and how far off base these assumptions can take you.

Sure, you may like some stuff you hear and may not like other things. But to really know how those things operate, you need context. The context of the whole game. You can read a few random pages from a novel and know how it's going to end.

Seanchai

Quote from: DrewSoul, on the other hand... WTF?

Something destroying the soul or legacy of a previous thing is a kind of argument of last resort.

Seanchai

Quote from: architect.zeroJust a small observation: there's no indication of the dragon's age/size which, in past terms, correlated to threat level.  It might've been a hatchling, or otherwise very young, for all we know.  It's a plausible scenario and, iirc, has been used in at least one published adventure for 3.0: Dungeon of the Fire Opal (http://paizo.com/dungeon/products/issues/2001/84) contains a very young dragon captured by some kobolods, iirc.

You're thinking of the Sunless Citadel. It had a wyrmling white dragon. Dungeon of the Fire Opal, if it's the one I ran for my group, used the AD&D DMG's sample map and random monsters to fill it out. It had a horse-sized red dragon in it.

Quote from: HaffrungSounds like the philosophy behind 4E is: Everything. Now.

Would any philosophy satisfy you? Seriously, you're going on and on about how 4e is destroying the "legacy," making claims and assumptions based next to nothing. You're clearly one of the "edition warriors" you referred to in another thread. Would anything make you happy?

Because, personally, I don't see the point. I can't imagine WotC would bother listening to you and unless I'm a OD&D roxxor-er like yourself, why would I bother either. It's not as if you're having an intelligent discourse anymore...

Seanchai

Quote from: HaffrungWhy is it so hard to admit that different versions of D&D are tailored to different play styles...

'Cause it ain't true.

Quote from: Haffrungfolks may have legitimate reasons for prefering not to play a particular edition?

Who is arguing with that?

Seanchai

Quote from: James McMurrayYou're thinking of the Sunless Citadel. It had a wyrmling white dragon. Dungeon of the Fire Opal, if it's the one I ran for my group, used the AD&D DMG's sample map and random monsters to fill it out. It had a horse-sized red dragon in it.

Thanks for the correction.  I suppose I have them super-imposed on each other due to that "tiny dragon for low-level PCs" relationship.

So that makes TWO adventures where this phenomenon has already occurred.

...or all of you D&D fans could just homebrew your own version of the game and take parts and fiddly bits from each version that you like for your group of friends to game with.

 Is it really that difficult?

I've met plenty of people who still play 2nd edition D&D - but they buy "3.5" dungeon Tiles and miniatures for use with their group's adventures.

 The city maps in CITYSCAPE aren't invalid for 4th or 2nd edition - just because they were released during the 3.5 time period.


- Ed C.

Quote from: sithsonSo is it's poo. :P

Where do you think that particular blind man was searching?

Quote from: Seanchai'Cause it ain't true.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Sorry Seanchai, but you lost a huge chunk o' credibility there.

Are you honestly saying that BD&D's "nobody low level can do anything" (slight exaggeration) and 4e's "second level characters teleport" are the exact same play styles?

Quote from: James McMurrayAre you honestly saying that BD&D's "nobody low level can do anything" (slight exaggeration) and 4e's "second level characters teleport" are the exact same play styles?

You have 4e?

What I'm honestly saying is that when folks talk about "play styles" they generally mean "the casual gaming I actually do as opposed to the gaming that I claim to do online" and when they say "support" they generally mean "it has rules I like."

Seanchai

Quote from: KoltarI've met plenty of people who still play 2nd edition D&D - but they buy "3.5" dungeon Tiles and miniatures for use with their group's adventures.

 The city maps in CITYSCAPE aren't invalid for 4th or 2nd edition - just because they were released during the 3.5 time period.

Also, minis.

You can use minis for any version of D&D. Hell, the D&D orcs work great as disad'ded GRUPS characters.

Use some common sense here, people.

Quote from: SeanchaiYou have 4e?

Have you been reading this thread?

Change it to 3e's infinnite healing for 2nd level characters if you must.

QuoteWhat I'm honestly saying is that when folks talk about "play styles" they generally mean "the casual gaming I actually do as opposed to the gaming that I claim to do online" and when they say "support" they generally mean "it has rules I like."

So when you plainly state that playstyles of editions don't differ, you're actually saying that you don't think people mean what they say?

Well, thanks for clarifying. Or not. :rolleyes:

Quote from: James McMurrayChange it to 3e's infinnite healing for 2nd level characters if you must.

Depends on the granularity of the conversation. At the basic level, D&D is mainly about exploring and fighting. I don't think that's changing. In all versions so far, you occasionally get beat up so much that you have to stop and rest for a while. What you're talking about is details like amount of healing per day. Yes, those things are likely to change. And the rate at which you go from schlub to go might change.  But I don't think the basics are going to change much.

I have decided to allow 4e to fuck my sister.

Quote from: James McMurraySo when you plainly state that playstyles of editions don't differ, you're actually saying that you don't think people mean what they say?

I didn't say anything about play styles per se, I said Haffrung's statement wasn't true.

It's not true because the rules supporting play styles stuff is hogwash.

Clear enough?

Seanchai

Quote from: AosI haver decided to allow 4e to fuck my sister.

"Hell, I like you. You can come over to my house and fuck my sister."

Quote from: SeanchaiI didn't say anything about play styles per se, I said Haffrung's statement wasn't true.

It's not true because the rules supporting play styles stuff is hogwash.

Clear enough?

Seanchai

Clear, yes. Also utter garbage. Unless you don't think preferred power level of characters is a part of playstyle. I've agreed with you on many things, but on this one you're hilariously wrong.

Quote from: NicephorusDepends on the granularity of the conversation. At the basic level, D&D is mainly about exploring and fighting. I don't think that's changing. In all versions so far, you occasionally get beat up so much that you have to stop and rest for a while. What you're talking about is details like amount of healing per day. Yes, those things are likely to change. And the rate at which you go from schlub to go might change.  But I don't think the basics are going to change much.

I'm just talking about playstyles. That includes power level, what your characters do, how fast they level, preferred levels of realism, and pretty much everything else.

No, I don't think D&D has ever changed so fundamentally that it stopped being D&D. But to say that different editions don't support different styles of play is ludicrous.

Power level is all relative in a game anyway.  I dasn't think there is anything wrong with a party of 2nd level characters having a knock down drag out fight with a large band of goblins.  If the PC's are 'so powerful' so too, apparently, are the Gobbos.

Dragon? Probably over the top.

Then again, I've always had my beef with the D&D power curve. Seriously: Housecats are lethal to first level parties. How fucked up is that?

And you just know, I'm going to post an AP one day of a housecat mauling a group of first level characters. Probably as my fond farewell to the 3E days...

Heck, just about everything's relative. That doesn't mean you can't point to a measurable change over time.

Quote from: jgantsI think your EnWorld experience has led to brain fever, my dear holiday simian, for you clearly misinterpreted my post.  :D

The first part was using sarcasm.  I wasn't saying 10th level characters really would have powers like that; I was saying that in order to have a power curve that 10th level characters would have to have insanely high powerful abilities like that if the example we were given represented typical 2nd level characters (as tackling a mob of powerful goblins and a dragon without breaking too bad of a sweat is more akin to 7-9th level PCs in ye olde versions of (A)D&D).

Well...fine then. I dispute "half the party paralyzed by fear and a PC death" being "without breaking too bad of a sweat", however.

QuoteAs to the second part, I do seriously think that epic level characters in D&D 4e will be more powerful than BD&D immortals.  Immortals weren't that high powered in the grand scheme of things.

Sadly, my sole experience with Immortals is the MGP Classic Play book of the same name (flavorful, at least), and they seemed rather impressive. I never had more than the red box of that branch.

QuoteIt looks to me like D&D is going to flatten the curve a bit - with more front-loaded abilities and the potential for more powers later (more similar to the way the Palladium/Rifts system handles character power levels).

It occurs to me that they once stated the 1-30 level tree of 3e would replicate the "sweet spot" of levels 7-13 in 3e. I'm now beginning to wonder how much of that meant "math" and how much of that meant "badassery".

Quote from: James McMurrayUnless you don't think preferred power level of characters is a part of playstyle.

No, I don't. Again, I think "play styles" are largely people telling themselves that they're special, different, or even quantifiable, really.

Seanchai

Quote from: AosI haver decided to allow 4e to fuck my sister.

I have also decided to allow 4e to fuck your sister.

Quote from: SpikePower level is all relative in a game anyway.

And the playtest. When we playtested 3e, we were out to break it by building the most min-maxed character possible. Did the same with other playtests.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiNo, I don't. Again, I think "play styles" are largely people telling themselves that they're special, different, or even quantifiable, really.

Seanchai

Oh, ok. Might want to put a "I don't talk about the subject" in your sig or something. Save us honest folks the hassle of trying to communicate with you. :D

Quote from: James McMurrayOh, ok. Might want to put a "I don't talk about the subject" in your sig or something. Save us honest folks the hassle of trying to communicate with you. :D

Shrug. Why not put, "I'm a jackass when people disagree with me" in yours?

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiShrug. Why not put, "I'm a jackass when people disagree with me" in yours?

Project much? You're the one presuming anyone who says different editions of D&D are better choices for particular styles of play is a fool or a liar. You believe people who disagree with you do so out of ignorance or dishonesty. So yeah, you're pretty much a jackass.

Quote from: Christmas ApeWell...fine then. I dispute "half the party paralyzed by fear and a PC death" being "without breaking too bad of a sweat", however.

D'oh - I totally glossed over the end of the paragraph where the PC died from the acid damage.  That makes it a little less high-powered than I was reading it, then.

Quote from: Christmas ApeSadly, my sole experience with Immortals is the MGP Classic Play book of the same name (flavorful, at least), and they seemed rather impressive. I never had more than the red box of that branch.

You didn't miss much.  The BD&D Immortals set was kind of a convoluted mess that didn't really fit in well with D&D IMO.  But at least it had the D20 w/ Tentacles monster (or whatever that was).

Quote from: James McMurrayHeck, just about everything's relative. That doesn't mean you can't point to a measurable change over time.

Putting aside the snark for the moment (I grow weary of the topics that dominate this site...I am reduced to sniping....:what: )

Consider 'Exalted': Powerful demigod roaming around smaking the living daylights out of creation, right?  I mean, much more powerful than any edition of D&D, no bones about it. Starting characters bitch slap minor Gods for fun, dude!

Only... not so much.  Given that the setting equivilent of Goblins (that is, a low level threat that works best, even at beginner levels, in large groups and STILL should be a managable threat...) can wipe out whole villages of 'NPC's' without even a scratch.  Once you start peeling away the fluff of what various things are (this is a goblin, that is a dragon, that over there? Yeah, that's a God...) mechanically, the threat to any given party is roughly the same, be it a OD&D game where having a vial of poison is gamebreakingly powerful, to 3e to fucking Exalted, man...  You still have little shits that jump you in large numbers and will probably be lucky to seriously threaten even one character, and you have big scary shit you seriously shouldn't mess with until you hit 'endgame'... We CHOSE to add descriptions to these threats that make them seem stronger or weaker (housecats...) but really, they are just mechanics scaled to provide a given level of comparative challenge within the system in use.

This even holds true for 'Superhero games'. All the fancy powers and colorful costumes are dressing for a given level of threat (either way... players can have a 'threat level' if you like...).

So yes: Power level IS entirely relative. I can make a '1st level dragon' out of a fucking orc.  Mechanically all that is really important is how much pain it dishes out and how much it can take, what I call it, as the GM, depends on me.

Obviously simplified but still true.

Quote from: HaffrungYou're the one presuming anyone who says different editions of D&D are better choices for particular styles of play is a fool or a liar.

That's not what I said.

Quote from: HaffrungYou believe people who disagree with you do so out of ignorance or dishonesty.

In some cases, sure.

It's ironic, however, that you chose to respond with, basically, "Pot, kettle, black," given your posting history with 4e. You've been, shall we say, more than a little strident and dismissive to those who have disagreed with you. If someone was going to call me on my post, it probably should have been someone with clean hands, so to speak.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiShrug. Why not put, "I'm a jackass when people disagree with me" in yours?

Seanchai

I said "playstyles" assuming it to mean "the styles in which people play." You read it as "ego trip." It's not disagreement, it's a fundamental difference in vocabulary.

Quote from: SpikePutting aside the snark for the moment (I grow weary of the topics that dominate this site...I am reduced to sniping....:what: )

Consider 'Exalted': Powerful demigod roaming around smaking the living daylights out of creation, right?  I mean, much more powerful than any edition of D&D, no bones about it. Starting characters bitch slap minor Gods for fun, dude!

Only... not so much.  Given that the setting equivilent of Goblins (that is, a low level threat that works best, even at beginner levels, in large groups and STILL should be a managable threat...) can wipe out whole villages of 'NPC's' without even a scratch.  Once you start peeling away the fluff of what various things are (this is a goblin, that is a dragon, that over there? Yeah, that's a God...) mechanically, the threat to any given party is roughly the same, be it a OD&D game where having a vial of poison is gamebreakingly powerful, to 3e to fucking Exalted, man...  You still have little shits that jump you in large numbers and will probably be lucky to seriously threaten even one character, and you have big scary shit you seriously shouldn't mess with until you hit 'endgame'... We CHOSE to add descriptions to these threats that make them seem stronger or weaker (housecats...) but really, they are just mechanics scaled to provide a given level of comparative challenge within the system in use.

This even holds true for 'Superhero games'. All the fancy powers and colorful costumes are dressing for a given level of threat (either way... players can have a 'threat level' if you like...).

So yes: Power level IS entirely relative. I can make a '1st level dragon' out of a fucking orc.  Mechanically all that is really important is how much pain it dishes out and how much it can take, what I call it, as the GM, depends on me.

Obviously simplified but still true.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree then, if you're saying that Exalted and BD&D are effectively the same power level because typical combats have the same level of threat. I'm talking about what the PCs can do in relation to a bog standard human, not how often they get hurt.

Exalted: starting PCs are practically gods in comparison
3.x (and what we've heard of 4e): 1st - 2nd level PCs are badasses, sometimes even with infinite use magic
BD&D: 1st - 2nd level characters are barely stronger than a commoner, and if they have any magic they get 1 or 2 uses per day at beast.

In terms of starting character power level, the playstyle of D&D's editions has changed. I'm not saying it's good or bad (I like it, others don't). I'm just saying it's pretty easy to tell that it happened.

Quote from: James McMurrayWe're just going to have to agree to disagree then, if you're saying that Exalted and BD&D are effectively the same power level because typical combats have the same level of threat. I'm talking about what the PCs can do in relation to a bog standard human, not how often they get hurt.

Exalted: starting PCs are practically gods in comparison
3.x (and what we've heard of 4e): 1st - 2nd level PCs are badasses, sometimes even with infinite use magic
BD&D: 1st - 2nd level characters are barely stronger than a commoner, and if they have any magic they get 1 or 2 uses per day at beast.

In terms of starting character power level, the playstyle of D&D's editions has changed. I'm not saying it's good or bad (I like it, others don't). I'm just saying it's pretty easy to tell that it happened.

You are missing my point then: Comparison to 'NPC Humans' is sort of pointless. We can agree that D&D has long LONG since abandoned the idea of NPC humans being remotely like 'real humans'. Housecats, man, how many times do I need to point out the folly of any NPC commoner owning a housecat (d3 pts of damage per attack, two? attacks a round, something like AC 20...) or OD&D NPCs having ONE.MOTHER.FUCKING.HITPOINT!!!  

How, exactly does that compare then to Exalted? D&D adventurers, by comparison to commoners, have always been walking demigods by HP alone.

But again: Not the point. Wether I call a threat a goblin, an 8-tailed mole hound, or a God of War is unimportant mechanically. Power level of play is an illusion we lay over the mechanics to make it interesting.   Complaining that the power level of the game is 'too high' is therefore somewhat amusing in its nonspeceficity.

Quote from: WarthurYeah, but a) they're not supporting as many settings as TSR did back in the day, which was the whole point of the Dancey strategy - paring down the number of settings that Wizards was providing direct support for to a managable number, and b) many of the adventures seem to be designed to provide smooth introductions to the 4E system, which sounds very sensible to me - people will want to have examples of how 4E adventures are constructed.

Oh yes, it doesn't look right now like it will be the old days of TSR. But it sure looks like, by this release schedule, adventures and settings are going to be released more agressively than they were under Dancey's watch in the early days of 3e. And I think that's the smart thing to do.

I'll also be curious to see if the rumored "1 setting per year" is actually more than a rumor.

Quote from: WarthurWhat "OGL mistake" are you thinking of?

I've always believed that WotC was too generous and too liberal in their opening and licensing of the D&D core engine. I believe they have realized that and are slowly tightening the grip.

Quote from: SpikeYou are missing my point then: Comparison to 'NPC Humans' is sort of pointless. We can agree that D&D has long LONG since abandoned the idea of NPC humans being remotely like 'real humans'. Housecats, man, how many times do I need to point out the folly of any NPC commoner owning a housecat (d3 pts of damage per attack, two? attacks a round, something like AC 20...) or OD&D NPCs having ONE.MOTHER.FUCKING.HITPOINT!!!  

How, exactly does that compare then to Exalted? D&D adventurers, by comparison to commoners, have always been walking demigods by HP alone.

But again: Not the point. Wether I call a threat a goblin, an 8-tailed mole hound, or a God of War is unimportant mechanically. Power level of play is an illusion we lay over the mechanics to make it interesting.   Complaining that the power level of the game is 'too high' is therefore somewhat amusing in its nonspeceficity.

It may or may not be an illusion, but it's a very pervasive one. Or are you saying that everyone who likes the power level of D&D also likes the power level of Exalted because they're the same? That everyone is equally happy playing Superheros or Roman Legionnaires? Or for that matter that they're all equally happy with the power level of 1st level D&D vs. 20th?

If we can agree that's not the case, then we've agreed that playstyles in power levels exist, regardless of what the underlying threat levels might seem to say. and if we agree on that, we're just a few short breaths from possibly agreeing that the power level of D&D has changed, and hence its support level for one measurement of Playstyles has changed.

Quote from: James McMurrayIt may or may not be an illusion, but it's a very pervasive one. Or are you saying that everyone who likes the power level of D&D also likes the power level of Exalted because they're the same? That everyone is equally happy playing Superheros or Roman Legionnaires? Or for that matter that they're all equally happy with the power level of 1st level D&D vs. 20th?

I'm saying that they are happy with the illusions we place over the mechanics. The illusion is important, even necessary, otherwise we are just rolling dice for the hell of it. But mechanically, no, there is not much difference between the threats encountered at any given level in any given game.  Again, its a bit simplified.

Quote from: James McMurrayIf we can agree that's not the case, then we've agreed that playstyles in power levels exist, regardless of what the underlying threat levels might seem to say. and if we agree on that, we're just a few short breaths from possibly agreeing that the power level of D&D has changed, and hence its support level for one measurement of Playstyles has changed.

This is a bit harder. OD&D you obviously weren't going to 'fey step' around the battlefield (how often can he do that? Once a day? Once a battle? At will?), but then again the 'average human' had that one whopping hit point, while a fighter had (on average) 5-7 or so... at first level.

3e D&D might seem a bit more powerful, but if we take our mythical 'average commoner' as a baseline, not so much, where a commoner has a 1d8 hit die (as I recall...) and thus, in all probability, 8 hit points. A starting fighter? 12-14, probably. In terms of hit points, he actually lost ground.

Now: Going by SAGA, front loaded hit points at lower levels means that fighter probably has something like 40 hp, but we don't know the baseline commoner yet (well, SAGA probably gives us some advice, but I don't recall seeing it...).  Maybe he gained ground, maybe he lost it.

What I see? Second level characters struggling to face Goblins.

When I look back to 3E, what do I see? Second level character struggling to face Goblins.

When I look back to Old Skool what do I see? Second level characters struggling to face Goblins.

Power Creep? If so the Goblins are benefitting too.  Which brings my argument full circle: Power levels are relative. Goblins are still a threat to second level characters, the only thing that has changed is that more 'special abilities' are in play, apparently.

If I ran exalted and I made 2 essesnce Goblins, then goblins are a threat to low level solars, the only difference being that the swords are bigger.

Which, ironically enough, makes this debate about having 'too many options'....

A 3.x commoner has 1d4 hit points, and doesn't get max.

But you can just compare what the characters can do and leave the NPCs out of it if you prefer. No 2nd level PC in a BD&D game is going to be able to teleport any distance, even once per millenium simply by willing it. No Second level medic will have access to infinite healing just by standing near the wounded.

I'm not disagreeing with you about threat levels. I agree that challenges are comparative, and will average out to the same across most levels of play. You are 100% correct when you say that you can create something, call it a goblin, and make it a threat to a starting Solar. However, that has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm calling the preferred power level playstyle (for want of a snazzy term). I'm talking about comparative power levels between the games, not within them.

I guess what I'm saying is

1) the kewl toys a character has matter to most players.
2) the kewl toys available in different editions of D&D, especially at earlier levels, has changed
3) therefore, different versions of D&D support different preferred power levels

Quote from: SpikeWhich, ironically enough, makes this debate about having 'too many options'....

Actually, I'd say it's a debate about "too many options... that I don't particularly care for." :razz:

Quote from: James McMurray1) the kewl toys a character has matter to most players.
2) the kewl toys available in different editions of D&D, especially at earlier levels, has changed
3) therefore, different versions of D&D support different preferred power levels

That's not power level though, that's just trappings and flavour of power level.  It's simply HOW the power is presented and how it manifests itself.  The relative threat level isn't much different - how it's dealt with... well, that's something else entirely.

Quote from: SpikePower Creep? If so the Goblins are benefitting too.  Which brings my argument full circle: Power levels are relative. Goblins are still a threat to second level characters, the only thing that has changed is that more 'special abilities' are in play, apparently.

Which is a pretty big change for some of us. I know that gaming culture today presumes that players want arrays and combos of cinematic superpowers to play with. And that's cool. But that wasn't always the case. Some people do genuinely enjoy playing (or at least starting with) characters that are more like normal humans, and who have narrow options. It's not a mainstream preference today, to be sure. But it was the default premise of the earliest iterations of D&D. You became a hero. And only the spellcasters had extraordinary/superheroic powers.

But hey, I'm a guy who thinks the fights in Spartacus look cooler than the ones in Gladiator, the charge of the Bedouin in Lawrence of Arabia is more awe-inspiring than the charge of the Roharrim in Lord of the Rings, and the 300 is an exhibition of titanic bad taste. I'm fine with the fact that popular geek culture caters to different tastes than mine. But I don't let assertions that "it has always been thus" go unchallenged.

Quote from: architect.zeroThat's not power level though, that's just trappings and flavour of power level.  It's simply HOW the power is presented and how it manifests itself.  The relative threat level isn't much different - how it's dealt with... well, that's something else entirely.

Then in those terms:

1) the trappings have changed
2)people care about trappings
3) therefor different editions have different support for differences in preferred trappings.

I don't really care what we call it. I'm not looking to create new terminology. All I'm saying is "that guy teleports, this one doesn't, some people will prefer one over the other."

Quote from: James McMurrayThen in those terms:

1) the trappings have changed
2)people care about trappings
3) therefor different editions have different support for differences in preferred trappings.

I don't really care what we call it. I'm not looking to create new terminology. All I'm saying is "that guy teleports, this one doesn't, some people will prefer one over the other."

Well, that just about sums up the whole damn argument, doesn't it?

I like Chocolate!
I like Vanilla!
DIE!!!! Fucking Vanilla liking scum!!!
TO HELL WITH YOU, CHOCOLATE BIGOT!!!!

What a fucking waste of effort.

Quote from: architect.zeroWell, that just about sums up the whole damn argument, doesn't it?

I like Chocolate!
I like Vanilla!
DIE!!!! Fucking Vanilla liking scum!!!
TO HELL WITH YOU, CHOCOLATE BIGOT!!!!

What a fucking waste of effort.

Sort of what I've been saying.
:D
James: I sort of used you to bounce an idea around that's been floating in my head for a while. I expanded it a bit in the Theory Forum if you like.

But yeah: Trappings, not power level.

Quote from: architect.zeroWell, that just about sums up the whole damn argument, doesn't it?

Which is all I was trying to do. I'm not trying to say which play style is best, just illustrate that, contrary to one opinion, they have changed.

Well, that and kill some time waiting for the rest of the game group to arrive so we can do our best to survive a Warhammer trap dungeon without any kind of Search skills. :)

Quote from: James McMurrayWhich is all I was trying to do. I'm not trying to say which play style is best, just illustrate that, contrary to one opinion, they have changed.

Well, that and kill some time waiting for the rest of the game group to arrive so we can do our best to survive a Warhammer trap dungeon without any kind of Search skills. :)

I smell a TPK.  Have fun!

Quote from: ColonelHardissonYou're on the right track, but I see it more as damage control.

Mearls is one of the primary reasons that my hopes for 4e being a game I will like haven't faded away completely yet. These statements by him confirm my faith in him a bit more.

ATM, the only official 4e product I am interested in checking out is his starting adventure. I'm curious what he will bring to the table.

Quote from: architect.zeroWell, that just about sums up the whole damn argument, doesn't it?

I like Chocolate!
I like Vanilla!
DIE!!!! Fucking Vanilla liking scum!!!
TO HELL WITH YOU, CHOCOLATE BIGOT!!!!

What a fucking waste of effort.

To a degree - this certainly exists.

But there's another point/counter-point going on that's not captured by this succinct summary.

"I like Chocolate, and this is Vanilla."
The response is, strangely, one of two:

• "It's always been Vanilla."
• "It's still Chocolate."

It's NEAPOLITAN!

Quote from: James J SkachBut there's another point/counter-point going on that's not captured by this succinct summary.

"I like Chocolate, and this is Vanilla."
The response is, strangely, one of two:

• "It's always been Vanilla."
• "It's still Chocolate."

I think it's a matter of perception. All three of those viewpoints would likely contain some subjective observations.

The Golden-Wyvern-Something drama that is currently unfolding at ENWorld/RPG.net is very much the latest case of this. Is this kind of stuff new, or did it always existed? The response depends very much on who you are asking. It is not a clear cut answer of vanilla or chocolate.

Ditto for those who feel the game is now becoming a superheroic fest, where I've thought it was a superheroic fest since the early 80s and others will surely contend none of the versions (including the next one) are superheroic.

A lot of it is about impressions.

Quote from: Consonant DudeI think it's a matter of perception. All three of those viewpoints would likely contain some subjective observations.

The Golden-Wyvern-Something drama that is currently unfolding at ENWorld/RPG.net is very much the latest case of this. Is this kind of stuff new, or did it always existed? The response depends very much on who you are asking. It is not a clear cut answer of vanilla or chocolate.

Ditto for those who feel the game is now becoming a superheroic fest, where I've thought it was a superheroic fest since the early 80s and others will surely contend none of the versions (including the next one) are superheroic.

A lot of it is about impressions.

Just a quick not to point out that I did not bring up the strict dichotomy, ony extended the metaphor.

I would also not that the question of whether or not it was superheroic could be hashed out using definitions.  For example, just tonight I was explaining to my son the editions (he's only really seen the 3.5 PHB, and I had the 1e on the night stand for reading).  I happened to look at the strength tables and was reminded that at 15 you still didn't get a bonus to hit - I don't think that kicked in until 16.  At strength, 15, 3.5 to hit bonus is +2.

Something factually changed. Now some have argued that as long as other things the threat level didn't really change, the change is essentially illusion. That's an interesting point, but it doesn't address a play style that does not prefer the higher power illusion.

The question remains, to Seanchai's point, that we won't know the sum total of all of the changes, and how they affect Spike's illusion, until the game comes out. However, it seems a bit silly to say that people can't speculate about the possible impacts of those small chucks of information coming from WotC.

Halflings: These also get a stature boost, and will now be about four feet tall on average. They are now presented as a nomadic race that travels on river barges, one that is instrumental in promoting trade amongst the races, granting them something of an "invisible empire" across the land. They are differentiated from hobbits in that they are lean and athletic rather than portly (and now they wear shoes, too). Their racial abilities evidently involve luck, trickery and trade. It is also mentioned they are good at raising and training animals. EXCELLENT!!!!!!!!!!!!

NOW I actually want to play a halfling - GOOD ON 'EM !

QuoteI've always believed that WotC was too generous and too liberal in their opening and licensing of the D&D core engine. I believe they have realized that and are slowly tightening the grip.

Well, there won't be a D&D trademark licence, but the OGL will still be there. There's even mention on the ENWorld page that they are considering allowing some OGL products to describe themselves as "compatible with 4th edition D&D", which is more than the current OGL allows.

They can't really close that Pandora's box. Legally speaking, the OGL licence is about copyright, the D20 licence is about trademarks. You are correct that they are taking the trademark back, but they're pretty much stuck on the OGL issue: it would be too trivially easy for someone to use the old 3.X OGL to create a rough approximation to 4E anyhow, because you can't patent game rules; you can only own copyright over a particular presentation of them. (Heck, legally speaking game companies could have probably gotten away with putting out D&D-compatible adventures in pre-OGL days, so long as they were careful not to mention any trademarks of TSR/Wizards, but people were too afraid of TSR's legal teams.)

Quote from: WarthurWell, there won't be a D&D trademark licence, but the OGL will still be there. There's even mention on the ENWorld page that they are considering allowing some OGL products to describe themselves as "compatible with 4th edition D&D", which is more than the current OGL allows.

They can't really close that Pandora's box. Legally speaking, the OGL licence is about copyright, the D20 licence is about trademarks. You are correct that they are taking the trademark back, but they're pretty much stuck on the OGL issue: it would be too trivially easy for someone to use the old 3.X OGL to create a rough approximation to 4E anyhow, because you can't patent game rules; you can only own copyright over a particular presentation of them. (Heck, legally speaking game companies could have probably gotten away with putting out D&D-compatible adventures in pre-OGL days, so long as they were careful not to mention any trademarks of TSR/Wizards, but people were too afraid of TSR's legal teams.)

If my suspicions are correct (that they've figured out it's counter-productive) then they are taking exactly the appropriate steps I would have taken. You are correct that OGL is forever. And you the company can't turn their back right away.

Phase 1 (4e release):
-Take back what you can (D20 License)
-Become less accomodating with regards to third party companies (See companies like Paizo currently whining because they don't have any word on draft documents and fear they won't leech as effortlessly as they used to)
-Don't stray too far away from 3e but make a few moves system-wise
-Place a few name references here and there, like the Wyvern-thingie making litteral open transplants a bit harder

What I predict next:

Phase 2 (during 4e's life, approx. 5 years):
-Compete in the setting/adventure market (drop a few nostalgia bombs here and there)
-Let the OGL market further fragment into different "ultimate OGL system", which are ultimately irrelevant except for a few exceptions
-Make sure your yearly core books introduce explosive new concepts, making it harder for third-party to leech off
-Explore areas where it is difficult for 3rd parties to compete. Online support and softwares.
-Explore exclusive licensing (similar to what they had with Kenzer/Kalamar) here and there

Phase 3 (5th edition release)
-By then, the 3rd party market is probably fragmented but if it is still a nuisance:
-Plan 5th edition carefully, release with a bang earlier than anyone expect and give no help to 3rd parties at all
-The system should now be far away from 3rd edition D20
-Make several core mechanics almost impossible to replicate. (See M:tG tapping)There are numerous ways to do this. Special trademarked dice with symbols instead of numericals, weird character sheet or an engine that requires a pda. Or dozens of other ways, really. Integrate new IPs into the system as well.

Quote from: Consonant DudePhase 3 (5th edition release)
-By then, the 3rd party market is probably fragmented but if it is still a nuisance:
-Plan 5th edition carefully, release with a bang earlier than anyone expect and give no help to 3rd parties at all
-The system should now be far away from 3rd edition D20
-Make several core mechanics almost impossible to replicate. (See M:tG tapping)There are numerous ways to do this. Special trademarked dice with symbols instead of numericals, weird character sheet or an engine that requires a pda. Or dozens of other ways, really. Integrate new IPs into the system as well.

Dude, that's crazy. No matter how far the system drifts from 3.X, it'd still be possible for third parties to come up with OGL versions because you can't patent game mechanics. You could potentially trademark the symbols on the dice (but what's to stop people using normal dice and "translating" the symbols to normal numbers), or character sheet designs (but what's to stop third parties from coming out with different character sheets with the same information but with a different design). Requiring proprietary PDA software to run the game could work, but you'd just be opening up a market for third parties to publish "hacks" to get around the requirement for a PDA.

Really, those ideas are on the level of putting out a pop-o-matic with a D20 in it. They rely on gimmicks, and gimmicks are trivial to back-engineer.

I always kinda thought that the issues we've seen with the conceptions of D&D lie on which level you're looking at. First of all, I'm not sure how dangerous high-level play was in older editions, but anecdotally, I remember playing a mid-level game of AD&D as a kid where my party and I trounced a few young dragons and giants, and I felt kinda like a bad-ass.

I mean, giants and dragons arn't gods or anything, but whatever. The point is that the highest level I ever played in anything before 3rd Ed. was something like '9'. Since Pundit played the shit out of what seems to be RC D&D, he might be able to tell us what kind of power scale we're looking at here.

OTOH, anything below level 5 is pretty fragile. It's fragile in AD&D and before, and it's pretty fragile in 3.5. But since you've got a few more options to fall back on and hit die rose some (from original editions, when fighters had a d8 and thieves had a d4...) you're probably not as screwed. Some people liked that and others saw it as part of a power escalation thing that pretty much changed what they considered the game to be. That's not because D&D became dramatically different, but because the change occured on what they considered to be a crucial aspect of the system; lethal low level play, and D&D's power curve.

Now, I think it's difficult to argue that at high levels of the game, the characters are a force to be reckoned with. They are, in all iterations. And like it's been said before, what we're looking at isn't the raw power level of the characters, but their power level relative to the setting to measure the difference in power between editions. Newer editions have more 'stuff' in them, which change the game on another axis - complexity.

I haven't measured it, but I'm looking at it, and frankly the game has gotten more complex at the character level over the course of the game. And honestly, devising a character of greater then 4th level is kind of a chore. (1st level takes long enough. I made a 9th level fighter-mage, and by the time I got to what spells and equipment to take, I got tired and just invested in shit like Fly and a couple of stand-bys I knew worked, and because I power-gamed, I went really cheap on the gear. And by 'really', I mean 'thousands of gold cheaper'.)

I figure it caters roughly to the same playing style, but where the extra additions give it more flexibility to apply rules to situations, it also makes it more complicated. I think the areas that see the most shift are 1) complication of the game, 2) rules application to areas that didn't have rules before, and 3) percieved change in power level (which I don't really think has been looked at carefully enough, since most people will just state that there has been/hasn't been a change in overall powerlevel instead of presenting numbers which, to be fair, would be a massive chore). A brilliant runner-up would be 4) change in ascetics, which Set tends to harp on a bunch. I don't consider this to be a great reason because if you could play the game with all the pictures covered up, then the actual game wouldn't change. It always felt, to me, about complaining about a book because you don't dig the art on the cover.

Quote from: WarthurDude, that's crazy. No matter how far the system drifts from 3.X, it'd still be possible for third parties to come up with OGL versions because you can't patent game mechanics. You could potentially trademark the symbols on the dice (but what's to stop people using normal dice and "translating" the symbols to normal numbers), or character sheet designs (but what's to stop third parties from coming out with different character sheets with the same information but with a different design). Requiring proprietary PDA software to run the game could work, but you'd just be opening up a market for third parties to publish "hacks" to get around the requirement for a PDA.

Really, those ideas are on the level of putting out a pop-o-matic with a D20 in it. They rely on gimmicks, and gimmicks are trivial to back-engineer.

Phase 3 is probably not needed and the cases are extreme. But you'd be surprised at what a company like that can actually do. The card tapping in Magic is actually a great example.

The point is not to make back-engineering completely impossible. The point is to make it sufficiently difficult to not be worth it for all but the most dedicated companies, and for less return than there are right now. This will likely not require the drastic changes I outlined later. Just by encouraging this stuff less and less, companies will die out and the market will fragment. Eventually, OGL will continue but the games will be only distant cousins of D&D much like, say, Rolemaster or Warhammer were distant cousins of AD&D.

Once this is done (I would assume by 5th edition, if they are remotely competent), Wizards is back holding the larger piece of the supplement/fluff pile. Possibly licensing specific items (an IP like Ravenloft, stuff like that) and their edition have a longer life shelf by as much as 3-5 years. Which brings stability. The current overflow of products makes it impossible for an edition to be as profitable as it could past the first 3 years. (And 3 years between editions is way too straining and would alienate everybody)

Quote from: Thanatos02I always kinda thought that the issues we've seen with the conceptions of D&D lie on which level you're looking at. First of all, I'm not sure how dangerous high-level play was in older editions, but anecdotally, I remember playing a mid-level game of AD&D as a kid where my party and I trounced a few young dragons and giants, and I felt kinda like a bad-ass.

In "Ye Olde Dayse", a 7th level character was considered pretty competent to take care of him/herself.  9th to 11th level was definitely badass.

Quote from: HaffrungI know that gaming culture today presumes that players want arrays and combos of cinematic superpowers to play with. And that's cool. But that wasn't always the case. Some people do genuinely enjoy playing (or at least starting with) characters that are more like normal humans, and who have narrow options. It's not a mainstream preference today, to be sure. But it was the default premise of the earliest iterations of D&D. You became a hero.

First, even in OD&D and AD&D, the starting PC was much better off than the average person. They had Hit Points, armor, weapons, class abilities, etc.. They're already heading off in search of adventure while the average person is tending a bit of land for the local lord. They didn't become heroes, they started off that way.

Second, check out the recent thread about when people started playing. The people you're saying used to want to play normal humans are the very same people you're saying now want cinematic superpowers.

Here's my point: They've always wanted cinematic superpowers, even back in the days of OD&D and AD&D. It was OD&D and AD&D that created min-maxers, munchkins, Monty Haulism, and Drizzt.

There hasn't been a sea change here: People have always played, basically, fantasy superheroes.

Seanchai

Quote from: James J SkachHowever, it seems a bit silly to say that people can't speculate about the possible impacts of those small chucks of information coming from WotC.

It's not silly to speculate. In my opinion, it's silly to work yourself up in a lather over the bits and pieces and the speculation - particularly when said speculation is generally not related to what the company said, but what someone said somebody on some other message board inferred from what the company actually said.

Seanchai

Quote from: James McMurrayI said "playstyles" assuming it to mean "the styles in which people play." You read it as "ego trip."

No, I'm saying that like some of the other discussion about illusions vs. mechanics/chocolate vs. vanilla, the idea of "supporting a play style" and "different play styles" is basically different subjective takes on the same core thing. People all generally play D&D the same way and have always played D&D basically the same way.

Pick a random D&D player off the street, ask him what is play styles is, and he'll say, "It's Forgotten Realms. I play a Dwarf Fighter/Cleric."

Cross post on some different message board to try and come to some consensus about what constitutes a play style and what the boundaries of said styles are and you'll end up with arguments and bickering that'll last for months.

Gather data from roleplayers about what games/mechanics support or engender what play style and you''ll get a myriad of different answers (and more bickering).

Why?

Why would people's experiences with and opinions about play styles be so different if they're all talking about the set of core, objective things?

Because there's basically just one core, objective thing and a myriad of different personal views of it. Although they tend to think of themselves as unique, different, or special, in general, people play RPGs the same basic way.

More to the point, people basically play D&D the same way. And they've always played D&D basically the same way.

Note: I say "basically" because, the Internet aside, there is a group out there who really is different. But they're the exception, not the rule.

Note about the note: I say "the Internet aside" because isn't it interesting how the greatest variations in play are reported on the Internet and not seen in real life.

Seanchai

Quote from: Old GeezerIn "Ye Olde Dayse", a 7th level character was considered pretty competent to take care of him/herself.  9th to 11th level was definitely badass.

Just today, my players, who were running 4th to 6th level characters, killed some 52 low-level swordsmen, a mummy and a coupla flying sword; also, a grey ooze. So yeah, in the "old school" sphere, a 7th level character is pretty badass. :D By the time you are 9th-11th, it may be time to think of taking down lesser gods and taking their stuff.

WRT Consonant Dude's suspicions, I have no idea if Wizards is going to go in their direction. However, if they do, OSRIC suddenly becomes very relevant as an experiment of going to very distant limits in reverse-engineering. So far, nobody has really cared since there are so few active 1e players, and d20 is open. If/when WotC attempts to close down its game... well... someone will take a long look at a set precedent.

That's my prediction, and if it comes true, I will definitely remind you guys of it. :pundit:

Quote from: SeanchaiWhy would people's experiences with and opinions about play styles be so different if they're all talking about the set of core, objective things?

I'm going to assume you're the sort of gamer who plays everything by the book, and who considers a game to be strictly the mechanics as described in the book. When there's any dispute, they turn to the rules. When there's anything not covered by the rules, they make a new rule. There are lots of folks like you. Rules Canon is probably the dominant approach to D&D today.

But some of us don't play like that. Never have. That's why all the bullshit about AD&D being such a complex game because of wepons speeds is just that - bullshit. Most people I met who played AD&D ignored about a third of the stuff in the PHB and about two-thirds of the stuff in the DMG. In my experience, it was very, very rare for anyone to play AD&D by the book.

I've watched other groups play D&D. The way they played was different enough from the way my group played that it may as well have been a different game.

We play with a very high degree of DM fiat. My old DM got to the point where the only material we had at the table was some photocopied tables, a couple sheets of lined paper with the adventure scrawled on it, and a map penned on the back of a pizza box. Everything other than to hit, damage, and saves was resolved by the DM giving it odds and having the player roll a d6. The monsters were almost all the creations of the DM, many made up on the fly. There were no prescribed stories - everything was sandbox. Death was common. Very common (you could expect to lose 1-3 PCs before you had one reach level 3). And PC level was irrelevant to the adventures we ran. The DM would draw up a dungeon or wilderness setting, and then DM a group of 2nd level PCs or a group of 7th level PC through the same adventure. THe 2nd level group would just have to be more cautious.

An old buddy of mine came for a visit last weekend and talked about the 3E campaign he plays in with his brother-in-law. He likes the guys he plays with, but dislikes the game. He's expected to take the PHB home and learn about his skills, feats, and combat tactics. He never had to do that when he played a fighter in AD&D. Combats now take a couple hours to resolves. He finds that's too slow. He told me the focus on the miniatures on a battle mat detracts from his sense of immersion in the game. He said it feels more like a boardgame than an RPG.

This guy isn't part of some edition war. He doesn't read RPG discussion boards. He isn't some bitter old grognard. He's a nice, happy-go-lucky guy who remembers having fun playing D&D and has found the newest edition of the game not to his taste. He wants me to get the old gang back together and play an older version of the game, one where a fighter doesn't have to know any feats, skills, or maneovers, and where we can run 5 or 6 encounters a night, withouting breaking out the miniatures.

So is my buddy a fool, or a liar? Does his brother-in-law play 3E differently from other groups? Because me sense is, there's a lot more consistency in how people play 3.x, because that version of the game is much more explicity and comprehensive in its rules. My buddy would likely have the same issues with other 3.x groups (pressure to master the rules, too many PC options, detailed tactical combat, slow pace).

Conversely, someone who plays 3E by the book would be absolutely miserable in my group, where the players are happy to leave many issues to DM fiat, where building and developing the mechanics of their PCs isn't a game in itself, where low-level play is usually lethal, PC advancement very slow, and where combat is largely abstracted.

QuoteMore to the point, people basically play D&D the same way. And they've always played D&D basically the same way.

Absolute bullshit. And the fact you use terms like 'people like to feel they're special' means you have contempt for the motives of those people. How else to explain the fact that you don't believe people who say they prefer one game over another?

I mean shit, the people who designed 3E have said themselves that they designed the game with certain goals in mind - to encourage rules mastery, to ramp up the power level, to provide more options for players, to speed up the pace of PC advancement, and to give the rules set overall a much more comprehensive and integrated structure. You don't think all those things affect the style of play for a game?

You could even go back to 1981 and the release of Basic D&D. That game was published and supported alongside AD&D for many years. They had different rules. Different people played the games. Why in fuck would that be the case if those two rules set didn't facilitate different styles of play?

QuoteI say "the Internet aside" because isn't it interesting how the greatest variations in play are reported on the Internet and not seen in real life.

What is that supposed to mean?

Quote from: SeanchaiNo, I'm saying that like some of the other discussion about illusions vs. mechanics/chocolate vs. vanilla, the idea of "supporting a play style" and "different play styles" is basically different subjective takes on the same core thing. People all generally play D&D the same way and have always played D&D basically the same way.

Can I get a hit of that?

QuotePick a random D&D player off the street, ask him what is play styles is, and he'll say, "It's Forgotten Realms. I play a Dwarf Fighter/Cleric."

Really? I'm afraid I'll need to see your survey data before I'll take you as an authority on D&D surveys. You could very well be right, but if you want to phrase it like a fact you'll need to supply some proof.

QuoteCross post on some different message board to try and come to some consensus about what constitutes a play style and what the boundaries of said styles are and you'll end up with arguments and bickering that'll last for months.

So people have different playstyles? I thought you just said they didn't.

Or are you saying that people are too stupid to define their playstyles properly, and really everyone is just like you at heart?

QuoteGather data from roleplayers about what games/mechanics support or engender what play style and you''ll get a myriad of different answers (and more bickering).

Why?

Because opinions are subjective. Nobody said they weren't.

QuoteBecause there's basically just one core, objective thing and a myriad of different personal views of it. Although they tend to think of themselves as unique, different, or special, in general, people play RPGs the same basic way.

More to the point, people basically play D&D the same way. And they've always played D&D basically the same way.

Sorry, but I'm gonna need that proof again.

QuoteNote: I say "basically" because, the Internet aside, there is a group out there who really is different. But they're the exception, not the rule.

Note about the note: I say "the Internet aside" because isn't it interesting how the greatest variations in play are reported on the Internet and not seen in real life.

Proof?

Quote from: SeanchaiNo, I'm saying that like some of the other discussion about illusions vs. mechanics/chocolate vs. vanilla, the idea of "supporting a play style" and "different play styles" is basically different subjective takes on the same core thing. People all generally play D&D the same way and have always played D&D basically the same way.

Pick a random D&D player off the street, ask him what is play styles is, and he'll say, "It's Forgotten Realms. I play a Dwarf Fighter/Cleric."

Cross post on some different message board to try and come to some consensus about what constitutes a play style and what the boundaries of said styles are and you'll end up with arguments and bickering that'll last for months.

Gather data from roleplayers about what games/mechanics support or engender what play style and you''ll get a myriad of different answers (and more bickering).

Why?

Why would people's experiences with and opinions about play styles be so different if they're all talking about the set of core, objective things?

Because there's basically just one core, objective thing and a myriad of different personal views of it. Although they tend to think of themselves as unique, different, or special, in general, people play RPGs the same basic way.

More to the point, people basically play D&D the same way. And they've always played D&D basically the same way.

Note: I say "basically" because, the Internet aside, there is a group out there who really is different. But they're the exception, not the rule.

Note about the note: I say "the Internet aside" because isn't it interesting how the greatest variations in play are reported on the Internet and not seen in real life.

Seanchai

Yanno what, it sounds a little wierd the way you chose to word it, but in my experience, I pretty much find I must agree.

It's part of the reason I find online RPG discussion so fucking worthless and understing about half the time.

Out here in the rest of the world, everyone's just playing the damn game.  And by and large, if you walk in to any given D&D game, they're all going to be pretty much playing damn near close to the same way, at least, close enough that you're not likely to be seriously thrown off with any great frequency when changing groups.  

All this rambling on about codifying playstyles and shit is largely an Internet fabrication, and has more to do with obsessive overcategorization than actual reality.  Overanalyzing shit to the extent of drastically overstating it's importance simply be side effect of the amoutn of attention it is given.

Quote from: James McMurrayCan I get a hit of that?

You're back to being an asshat. If you want to have a resonable discussion, fine. If you just want to caper about like an idiot, tossing out ad hominems because you don't like what I'm saying, go fuck yourself.

You called for proof, so I'm assuming you have some to share yourself. I'm interested to see what kind of proof you have that play styles exist and that various editions of D&D support different play styles. You mentioned surveys...

Seanchai

Quote from: HaffrungI'm going to assume you're the sort of gamer who plays everything by the book, and who considers a game to be strictly the mechanics as described in the book. When there's any dispute, they turn to the rules. When there's anything not covered by the rules, they make a new rule. There are lots of folks like you. Rules Canon is probably the dominant approach to D&D today.

That's not the type of gamer I am, but that's how I approach discussions online. If you're going to have a remotely meaningful discussion, you've got to have a meeting of the minds. In other words, we have to be talking about the same thing.

Quote from: HaffrungBut some of us don't play like that. Never have. That's why all the bullshit about AD&D being such a complex game because of wepons speeds is just that - bullshit. Most people I met who played AD&D ignored about a third of the stuff in the PHB and about two-thirds of the stuff in the DMG. In my experience, it was very, very rare for anyone to play AD&D by the book.

Yeah, I know. It's what makes most of your arguments in other threads full of dumbness.

Quote from: HaffrungSo is my buddy a fool, or a liar?

Shrug. I'd say he was wrong. Fool and liar are you terms.

Quote from: HaffrungAnd the fact you use terms like 'people like to feel they're special' means you have contempt for the motives of those people.

No, I used those terms because that's how it is. Whether we're talking about D&D, knitting, sports, sex, life in general, or whatever, people like to feel like they're special. It's usually not true.

Quote from: HaffrungHow else to explain the fact that you don't believe people who say they prefer one game over another?

I have no idea what you're talking about. It's pretty damn clear you prefer AD&D over other editions

Quote from: HaffrungWhy in fuck would that be the case if those two rules set didn't facilitate different styles of play?

Because one was available and not the other? Because they purchased one and not the other? People their friends played one and not the other? Because the wanted more rules or fewer rules? Because they just plain ol' liked one better than the other?

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiYou're back to being an asshat. If you want to have a resonable discussion, fine. If you just want to caper about like an idiot, tossing out ad hominems because you don't like what I'm saying, go fuck yourself.

Aww, how cute. He's getting all tough on me. :)

(http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/lolcats-funny-pictures-angermanagement.jpg)

QuoteYou called for proof, so I'm assuming you have some to share yourself. I'm interested to see what kind of proof you have that play styles exist and that various editions of D&D support different play styles. You mentioned surveys...

We both frequent the same boards. Therefor we have both seen countless discussions about people and their playstyles. If it is your assertion that they are all liars and/or deluded (or just plain wrong), prove it. Otherwise you're just making yourself look stupid. That's certainly entertaining, but it lacks a certain amount of usefulness outside of the shits and giggles department. :D

Quote from: J ArcaneOut here in the rest of the world, everyone's just playing the damn game.  And by and large, if you walk in to any given D&D game, they're all going to be pretty much playing damn near close to the same way, at least, close enough that you're not likely to be seriously thrown off with any great frequency when changing groups.  

All this rambling on about codifying playstyles and shit is largely an Internet fabrication, and has more to do with obsessive overcategorization than actual reality.  Overanalyzing shit to the extent of drastically overstating it's importance simply be side effect of the amoutn of attention it is given.

J Arcane speaks truth.

Quote from: James McMurrayWe both frequent the same boards. Therefor we have both seen countless discussions about people and their playstyles.

And those discussions, along with 24 years of real world experience with more groups and con games than I can count, have led me to conclude that people generally all play the same way.

Quote from: James McMurrayIf it is your assertion that they are all liars and/or deluded (or just plain wrong), prove it.

You can play "prove it" all night, but a few things are clear:

1. Your assertion predates mine. If one party in this discussion gets to ask for proof, it's me.

2. If you had a shred of proof for your case or against mine, you'd have posted it already instead of saying, "Yeah, well...you can't prove it."

3. Instead posting arguments for your side, you've gone with ad hominems, kittens, and "prove it." Again, I'm guessing that's because you don't have any arguments to post.

Quote from: James McMurrayOtherwise you're just making yourself look stupid.

You're the one resorting to school yard name calling and posting pictures of kittens. I've been civil; you've gone from zero to my-panties-are-in-a-twist. Even if I'm mind-blowingly wrong, I'm not the immature one...

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiAnd those discussions, along with 24 years of real world experience with more groups and con games than I can count, have led me to conclude that people generally all play the same way.

Despite the fact that many of them describe their playstyles differently? Intersting... ummm... logic you've got there.

QuoteYou can play "prove it" all night, but a few things are clear:

1. Your assertion predates mine. If one party in this discussion gets to ask for proof, it's me.

I pointed you to testimonials, to which you replied "nuh-uh!" :rolleyes:

Quote2. If you had a shred of proof for your case or against mine, you'd have posted it already instead of saying, "Yeah, well...you can't prove it."

Every argument about "my play style is betteer than yours" is proof that at least two seperate playstyles exist.

Are you claiming that everyone on the planet either

a) prefers combat or
b) prefers roleplaying

and

a) prefers high powered games or
b) prefers low powered games

and (I won't go on, I think even you would understand where I'm going with this by now).

If you're not, then there are at least two definable playstyles right there. Keep in mind before you answer, that countless arguments over which is better in both of those categories have occured. If you think everyone has the same playstyle, you'll have to be able to explain why those arguments occur.

Quote3. Instead posting arguments for your side, you've gone with ad hominems, kittens, and "prove it." Again, I'm guessing that's because you don't have any arguments to post.

(http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/funny-pictures-bored-cat.jpg)

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.  I win.*

QuoteYou're the one resorting to school yard name calling and posting pictures of kittens. I've been civil; you've gone from zero to my-panties-are-in-a-twist. Even if I'm mind-blowingly wrong, I'm not the immature one...

LOL. Less backpatting, more funny. Not that it isn't funny, it's just that your rationalizations and dodges are funnier. :D

* What? It makes as much sense as your patented "nuh-uh" maneuver. You saw the kitty and it made you miss the proof. Try again. :D

Quote from: SeanchaiAnd those discussions, along with 24 years of real world experience with more groups and con games than I can count, have led me to conclude that people generally all play the same way.

If there is one thing that I've learned from my anecdotal experience of talking to various people, watching various groups play, and being in plenty of online discussions about how people role-playing and what they like, it's that anecdotal experience about what the role-playing hobby varies so much from person to person and represents such a small slice of the hobby for any particular person that it's nearly worthless for proving what's normal, average, or the majority in the hobby.  And if your anecdotal experience doesn't match mine or someone else's (there are plenty of people here with 20+ years of role-playing experiences, etc.) it's not going to be very persuasive unless I have some reason to believe your experiences are more valid than my own or someone else's.

However, anecdotal evidence can be useful in proving that things exist. If you have, for example, one person who likes grim and gritty play but can't stand superheroes, while another person wants to play nothing but epic powerhouses, you have conclusively proven the existence of multiple play styles.

This whole cat pictures as Statler & Waldorf-esque peanut gallery is amusing.


Please continue.

Quote from: John MorrowIf there is one thing that I've learned from my anecdotal experience of talking to various people, watching various groups play, and being in plenty of online discussions about how people role-playing and what they like, it's that anecdotal experience about what the role-playing hobby varies so much from person to person and represents such a small slice of the hobby for any particular person that it's nearly worthless for proving what's normal, average, or the majority in the hobby.  And if your anecdotal experience doesn't match mine or someone else's (there are plenty of people here with 20+ years of role-playing experiences, etc.) it's not going to be very persuasive unless I have some reason to believe your experiences are more valid than my own or someone else's.

Fun fact of the week: 100% of the players I have encountered were Hungarians, most of them were men, and the majority of them were D&D fans of some sort.

Clearly, 4e should have a bit more paprika. :haw:

Quote from: James McMurrayHowever, anecdotal evidence can be useful in proving that things exist. If you have, for example, one person who likes grim and gritty play but can't stand superheroes, while another person wants to play nothing but epic powerhouses, you have conclusively proven the existence of multiple play styles.

Correct.  But what it can't show is whether that's really a common problem worth worrying about or something unusual and rare that only a handful of people ever run into.

There is a (likely apocryphal) story about how he late film critic Pauline Kael expressed disbelief over Richard Nixon's 1972 reelection by saying, "I don't know how Nixon could have been elected; nobody I know voted for him." (Nixon won in a landslide.)  The story is meant to illustrate how social insularity can lead to a warped view of reality.  Gamers tend to associate with particular slices of the hobby while missing others because those are the sorts of social circles they move in.  As a result, one person's experience of the hobby can vary substantially from another.  And, no, going to conventions or participating in online discussions doesn't entirely solve the problem because large segments of the hobby do neither of those things.

Quote from: KoltarThis whole cat pictures as Statler & Waldorf-esque peanut gallery is amusing.

I just want to know how many people that angry cat killed when he finally crawled out of that pool.

Quote from: Consonant DudePhase 3 is probably not needed and the cases are extreme. But you'd be surprised at what a company like that can actually do. The card tapping in Magic is actually a great example.

No it isn't. The "trading card game" patent was able to slip through because it was a patent on a whole new variety of game, not solely on a specific game mechanics. (Particular game mechanics were specified in the patent, but that's by the by). You wouldn't be able to get a similar patent through for an RPG; the RPG format has become too widely-established for someone to patent it now, and a patent based solely on a few game mechanics in an otherwise-ordinary RPG would probably fail.

Quote from: WarthurNo it isn't. The "trading card game" patent was able to slip through because it was a patent on a whole new variety of game, not solely on a specific game mechanics. (Particular game mechanics were specified in the patent, but that's by the by). You wouldn't be able to get a similar patent through for an RPG; the RPG format has become too widely-established for someone to patent it now, and a patent based solely on a few game mechanics in an otherwise-ordinary RPG would probably fail.

You're probably thinking in  terms of very traditional, old school roleplaying game mechanics. You're probably thinking books with fluff, some instructions in the form of basic math equations, a character sheet and standard polys. Think outside the box.

There are many ways to make roleplaying more evocative and more profitable. And to patent it. And to make it difficult for companies that don't have the financial ressources or the means to manufacture products.  

But really, it won't be necessary anyway. The OGL will be irrelevant to WotC before it comes to that.

Quote from: John MorrowI just want to know how many people that angry cat killed when he finally crawled out of that pool.

It depends on the edition. In 1st, he killed a village before put to death by a 10th level Magic User. In AD&D, a party of might 1st level adventurers were hired by Elminster to kill it before anyone was hurt. In 3.0, it killed 4 Commoners, and its high Move Silently and Hide let it get the drop in the Wizard too. (The Wizard rolled poorly, and the cat's good init plus 4 attacks turn the wizard to jelly.)

In 4th Edition, it's rumored that the cat will destroy half a kingdom before a party of second level adventurers find it. The cat will teleport behind the wizard and kill him with laser eyes before the Paladin hits the cat with his dragon-sword and Raises the Wizard with his smite. Then everyone gets exp. because they filled out their cards.

Quote from: James McMurrayDespite the fact that many of them describe their playstyles differently? Intersting... ummm... logic you've got there.

I never said folks didn't believe they played differently than other folks. In fact, that was part of my point.

Witnesses to a single crime will often report wildly different things to police, even changing the race of the criminal to better match their own ideas of what race he or she should be. They all literally see the same thing and are all convinced it happened some way other than how it did.

People telling you how they play, particularly on the Internet, in a certain setting, and among peers and other reports, doesn't remotely mean that's how they actually play.

Quote from: James McMurrayI pointed you to testimonials, to which you replied "nuh-uh!"

I must have missed those...

But if testimonals are evidence, you have three for D&D being played basically the same across the board just in this thread. Are you satisified that I've proved my point now?

Quote from: James McMurrayEvery argument about "my play style is betteer than yours" is proof that at least two seperate playstyles exist.

No, it's only proof that people believe they play differently or very differently than others.

You mentioned high versus low-powered games. Some people in this thread have said that OD&D is low-powered. Others have said high-powered. They're all playing the same game, but apparently have two takes that are polar opposites of each other. Given this, how is asking them whether or not their games are high-powered or low-powered meaningful?

Moreover, two people who played the same game at the same table can come away with different impressions of what the game was like.

So I take you back to..."No, I'm saying that like some of the other discussion about illusions vs. mechanics/chocolate vs. vanilla, the idea of "supporting a play style" and "different play styles" is basically different subjective takes on the same core thing. People all generally play D&D the same way and have always played D&D basically the same way."

Seanchai

Quote from: Thanatos02It depends on the edition. In 1st, he killed a village before put to death by a 10th level Magic User. In AD&D, a party of might 1st level adventurers were hired by Elminster to kill it before anyone was hurt. In 3.0, it killed 4 Commoners, and its high Move Silently and Hide let it get the drop in the Wizard too. (The Wizard rolled poorly, and the cat's good init plus 4 attacks turn the wizard to jelly.)

In 4th Edition, it's rumored that the cat will destroy half a kingdom before a party of second level adventurers find it. The cat will teleport behind the wizard and kill him with laser eyes before the Paladin hits the cat with his dragon-sword and Raises the Wizard with his smite. Then everyone gets exp. because they filled out their cards.

Sheer genius,sir. Bravo!

Quote from: SeanchaiI never said folks didn't believe they played differently than other folks. In fact, that was part of my point.

Now I'm definitely confused. So, if I get this straight, you're saying that people do in fact prefer different styles of play, but that there's no such thing as different preferred play styles?

(http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/funny-pictures-exclamation-cat.jpg)

QuotePeople telling you how they play, particularly on the Internet, in a certain setting, and among peers and other reports, doesn't remotely mean that's how they actually play.

The "everyone but me is a deluded liar" maneuver. How intriguing.

QuoteBut if testimonals are evidence, you have three for D&D being played basically the same across the board just in this thread. Are you satisified that I've proved my point now?

No, but I'm satisfied that you're a deluded liar, just like the rest of the world. Thanks for the entertainment! :D

QuoteNo, it's only proof that people believe they play differently or very differently than others.

Meaning they have different preferred play styles.

QuoteYou mentioned high versus low-powered games. Some people in this thread have said that OD&D is low-powered. Others have said high-powered. They're all playing the same game, but apparently have two takes that are polar opposites of each other. Given this, how is asking them whether or not their games are high-powered or low-powered meaningful?

So you're claiming that Exalted and BD&D are he same game?

QuoteMoreover, two people who played the same game at the same table can come away with different impressions of what the game was like.

Completely true, and wholly irrelevant.

QuoteSo I take you back to..."No, I'm saying that like some of the other discussion about illusions vs. mechanics/chocolate vs. vanilla, the idea of "supporting a play style" and "different play styles" is basically different subjective takes on the same core thing. People all generally play D&D the same way and have always played D&D basically the same way."

Which reminds me... HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! :D

Quote from: AosI have decided to allow 4e to fuck my sister.

You realise that's an open invitation for Koltar to change his name to 4e? :D

Quote from: TrevelyanYou realise that's an open invitation for Koltar to change his name to 4e? :D

How do you say it in Klingon?

Quote from: Thanatos02How do you say it in Klingon?

Dunno, my Klingon is so rusty that I can barely remember how to say "surrender or die!".

In other news, I notice in the playtest report that several of the goblins survived and attacked the dragon before enveloping it in the blast frmo an exploding ship before it fell. It didn't seem to me that the PCs alone were anything like a match for the beast.

If I were to look at that scene with my GM hat on, I'd suggest that the dragon was intended to be a social encounter (this was pretty much given) but that the GM decided it didn't take kindly to being attacked by the tiefling and so fought back. When it became apparent that the PCs were incapable of bringing the fight to a peaceful conclusion, the GM invoked the goblins as a deus ex to remove the dragon from the fight.

With that same hat on I'd class the tiefling player as a complete tit and suggest that his whiney excuse of "my character hates dragons and always attacks them" is the kind of piss poor justification for taking stupidly suicidal actions in game that doesn't endear anyone to my group or me as GM in particular.

On the play styles issue, I have several people within my group who prefer different play styles ranging from detailed tactical combat to heavily involved social "I want to seduce the Duke" stuff. Fortunately for me the latter situation lends itself well to circumstances provoking the former.

Also, I like kittens so can we have more of those please?

Quote from: James McMurraySo, if I get this straight, you're saying that people do in fact prefer different styles of play, but that there's no such thing as different preferred play styles?

No, you're saying people prefer different play styles. I'm saying people all basically play the same way.

Seanchai

The Diceman School of Informal Debate is failing me, so let's try something slightly more Classical:

Can we agree that some people prefer to roleplay social situations, while others want to roll their skill check and move on, and still others like a mix?

Quote from: SeanchaiNo, you're saying people prefer different play styles. I'm saying people all basically play the same way.

Seanchai

And you have proof of this where again...? :)

Quote from: TrevelyanYou realise that's an open invitation for Koltar to change his name to 4e? :D

Please.  Hugs and backrubs only.

!i!

Quote from: TrevelyanYou realise that's an open invitation for Koltar to change his name to 4e? :D

If you knew my sister, you'd see the genius of my plan.

Quote from: AosIf you knew my sister, you'd see the genius of my plan.

You want Koltar as a brother-in-law so you can play GURPS over Thanksgiving and Christmas instead of having to talk to the rest of the family?

Quote from: jgantsYou want Koltar as a brother-in-law so you can play GURPS over Thanksgiving and Christmas instead of having to talk to the rest of the family?

We'll considering how estranged I am from the rest of the family, having Koltar as a brother in law would pretty much assure that I would only have to deal with him when my mother dies- such a joyus event could never be ruined for me by a mere klingon impersonator. Furthermore my sister is evil- unbelievably evil, in fact; it took me decades to finally accept it. She would destroy him utterly.

we would, of course, require that final, crushing moment to be posted on youtube

QuoteOn the play styles issue, I have several people within my group who prefer different play styles ranging from detailed tactical combat to heavily involved social "I want to seduce the Duke" stuff. Fortunately for me the latter situation lends itself well to circumstances provoking the former.

In my experience, sometimes the players in a group will have different hings they enjoy doing, but generally, everyone still plays together, the game still goes roughly the same regardless, and the GM just gives each individual the chance to do their favorite thing, and the game largely still plays out the same regardless.

This notion of some vast difference in playstyle that somehow seperates groups from one another the way is often implied or openly stated in online discourse is a load of fetid dingo's kidneys, with little to no connection to any but a handful of elitist jerks who probably don't actually game that often.

Quote from: J ArcaneThis notion of some vast difference in playstyle that somehow seperates groups from one another the way is often implied or openly stated in online discourse is a load of fetid dingo's kidneys, with little to no connection to any but a handful of elitist jerks who probably don't actually game that often.

In my case it's based on a quarter-century empirical experience, and I've seen groups play D&D in vastly different ways.

Not to mention what happens when you step outside the D&D bubble and start looking at WoD-groups, Indie-gamers, etc.

Quote from: J ArcaneThis notion of some vast difference in playstyle that somehow seperates groups from one another the way is often implied or openly stated in online discourse is a load of fetid dingo's kidneys, with little to no connection to any but a handful of elitist jerks who probably don't actually game that often.

Or maybe they are people who have actually gamed with a wide enough variety of people to have seen the differences.

As it is being discussed in this thread: Playstyles != Forge Agendas
Don't conflate the two.

Some players like their character to be like a videogame character.  Maybe they have a name or background, but they don't want to socialize - they want pure tactical combat dungeoncrawls.  Anything in the RPG that isn't a fight scene or giving them a big bonus for the next fight scene is wasted time in their opinion.

Other players might like to focus on the socialization aspect of gaming, and consider combats to be boring filler.

These two groups of players have vastly different styles of play.  I should know - I've played with groups of each.  There is nothing remotely similar between the way I played RPGs in these cases except that both times I had a character sheet and rolled dice.

Now, these are just two examples.  I don't believe that you can lump everyone into a few discrete categories or anything.  The vast majority of my gaming experience has been fairly moderate (as you suggest gaming to be for everyone) - but that doesn't mean these different styles don't exist.

Tons of different styles exist.  Some groups would never, ever let a PC be evil, or take an action against another PC.  Others encourage it.

Some groups would never, ever consider permanent death for a PC.  Other groups love to go through different characters.

Some players love to play strictly by the book.  Others love to use fiat when the rules don't make common sense.

Some players would never play a high crunch game because they like things more freeform.  Others love having everything codified.

Some players love games with super-high powered PCs.  Others hate it and want PCs they can identify with.

Some players love over the top combat where PCs take hundreds of hits.  Others prefer quick and gritty combat.

Some groups love for adventures to be off-the-cuff from the GM.  Others absolutely hate it and consider it cheating when the GM doesn't have things plotted out in advance.

Those are all different styles of playing RPGs!!!

...okay just got home from work, read the last 3 pages of this thread we're in....and basically found myself  thinking WTF is all this about?

 Something humorous was said somewhere.

 Aos - your sister is safe, I'm not changing my name to a number/letter combination ...besides plenty of potential partners for me locally in that department anyway.

As for 4/e ?? I hope its liked well enough that game stores like the one I work at stay in business.


- Ed C.

On the issue of the dragon, I'll point out that dragons have always been scalable in D&D.

From the 1E Monster Manual, I see that a young adult copper dragon could have only 28 hit points - 7 hit dice, 4 HP per die. It's spellcasting abilities are vaguely between those of a 3rd and 4th level magic user. It is damn hard to hit, and will probably hit most 2nd level characters in close combat, and it's breath attack is obviously nightmarish, but if the party can keep their distance from it they may be able to take it down (especially if they can distract it with a goblin tribe).

Killing it would bag the party about 1655 XP, which is a lot but not earth-shatteringly so. It'd be a very tough encounter for a 2nd level party, but one which a smart party could survive.

Quote from: KoltarAos - your sister is safe, I'm not changing my name to a number/letter combination ...besides plenty of potential partners for me locally in that department anyway.

I'm throughouly convinced that Koltar has had sex with more GURPS books than anyone else would even dream of. :D

Quote from: WarthurI suspect that once 4E is released half of the controversies we've been discussing so far will seem like utter irrelevancies, with no basis in reality, while half the stuff which will be controversial after 4E comes out will be things we currently have no idea about.

That's my exact opinion.

Quote from: J ArcaneIn my experience, sometimes the players in a group will have different hings they enjoy doing, but generally, everyone still plays together, the game still goes roughly the same regardless, and the GM just gives each individual the chance to do their favorite thing, and the game largely still plays out the same regardless.

I agree that this is the way things generally work out when you have mixed personal play styles but a collective will to see everyone enjoy themselves, but it's still entirely possible for everyone in the group to share a similar playstyle and persue that almost exclusively and to the detriment of any other style.

I actually had a guy in my Ptolus group who liked the tactical combat side of D&D far more than any social aspect. He doesn't care overly much for the reason for a fight so much as requireing that the scenary be inspiring and provide many opportunities for creating manouvering and feat use. His character is well developed (to the point where he choses clearly suboptimal feats in favour of thematic ones, and possibly also to make combat more of a personal challenge) but he personally has no desire to drive the story between fights.

Similarly, one of the remaining players ran a V:tR game which was almost entirely social. Her Ptolus charcter spends time buying elaborate dresses in the South Market district (for equipment bonuses in high society) and plotting to marry her way into a title. Her character, a ranger, is by coincidence one of the stronger fighters in the group, but even there she was (mostly) more interested in ploughing points into crafting to make her own bow than in using said weapon to deal death to chosen enemies.

Are these two playstyles entirely incompatible? No, since players are generally willing to compromise. Would a different balance of players within the group with a strong focus on one style over the other alter the balance of the game as our group plays it? Absolutely, and the recent departure of the first of my two example players (due to family commitments) has already resulted in a shift in focus in the most recent two sessions.

I can't speak of the extent to which groups find themselves drawn to different styles of play or the number of different styles to which they may be drawn, but it seem ludicrous to suggest that every group plays D&D the same way.

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

This is a huge one. Someone who writes two pages of backstory for his PC, spends three hours assigning stats, skills, and feats, and sits down to begin his hero's epic journey is going to be mighty pissed when he gets bit by a giant spider in the second room of my dungeon, fails his save versus poison and dies. Then when the rest of my players laugh at him and tell him to play one of the hirelings, or just roll up another guy in 5 minutes, he may regard our play style as somewhat contrary to his preferences.

But if Senchai says that kind of thing couldn't happen, we have to believe him.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityIn my case it's based on a quarter-century empirical experience, and I've seen groups play D&D in vastly different ways.

Same here.

I'm genuinely baffled by these people who claim that everyone plays essentially the same way.

This claim has been falsified too many times in my experience, and the experiences of people I know, to be taken seriously.  It's both sad and amusing that the response to experiences like mine (and Pierce's, and many others) is simply that we're deluded about our own experiences (suffering from 'false consciousness' or some nonsense).

It comes down to the idea that if you boil down D&D enough, you get "kill it and thake its stuff". Yeah, and if you boil down humans enough, you get carbon, water and a little bit of calcium.

QuoteThis is a huge one. Someone who writes two pages of backstory for his PC, spends three hours assigning stats, skills, and feats, and sits down to begin his hero's epic journey is going to be mighty pissed when he gets bit by a giant spider in the second room of my dungeon, fails his save versus poison and dies. Then when the rest of my players laugh at him and tell him to play one of the hirelings, or just roll up another guy in 5 minutes, he may regard our play style as somewhat contrary to his preferences.

This was the experience of a lot of people I knew who saw D&D as an opportunity to give them experiences like Tolkien's books did. They were damn pissed when they got 10' corridors, gelatinous cubes and semi-random death. Most of these fellows still hate the game with a fiery passion... although some were won back by 3e, a game much more friendly towards character customisation.

Quote from: HaffrungBut if Senchai says that kind of thing couldn't happen, we have to believe him.

But Seanchai says it couldn't happen,
and Seanchai is an honourable man.

Quote from: MelanThey were damn pissed when they got 10' corridors, gelatinous cubes and semi-random death.

...or mummy rot.

(On Dragonsfoot, Melan was recently chuckling about the misfortune of a PC in his megadungeon who got mummy rot and may have trouble finding a cleric of high enough level to cure it. Another poster complained that it was unfair of Melan to put a mummy in a dungeon and not have a cure for mummy rot on-hand. I think that poster may prefer a different style of D&D to Melan and his friends. Or maybe Melan and the other poster are both delusional liars.)

I'm a delusional liar. Chicks love it.

Unless you're married to them.

Trust me on this.

Quote from: James McMurrayUnless you're married to them.

Trust me on this.

:D

Quote from: James McMurrayNot to mention what happens when you step outside the D&D bubble and start looking at WoD-groups, Indie-gamers, etc.

Minorities.  A good three quarters of gamers at any given time are just playing whatever the current flavor of D&D is with their buddies.  They get together with their friends, and play some D&D, kill some stuff, have some fun.  

And a significant portion of the remaining quarter are people with no great problem with D&D.  Despite desperate attemtps to build a culture to the contrary, half the WoD players I've ever met were also quite accepting of D&D too.  

And the whole indie/Forge thing may seem like a big deal if you spent too much time listening to the Pundit or RPGnet, but it's largely completely and utterly irrelevant.  

So no, I don't think it's as big a thing as people make it out to be, and by and large you can walk into any D&D game, and generally most other games, and have them by and large be just as familiar as the last.  

The level of fear and loathing built up about it online is just a lot of hot air and smokeblowing.

I don't care if they're minorities or not. I'm not going to start ignoring the desires of the Asian community, why should I ignore "True Roleplayers"?

The claim was made that they didn't exist, not that they were few in number. I agree that it's not as big a deal as some people claim, but that's not what the discussion was about.

Quote from: James McMurrayCan we agree that some people prefer to roleplay social situations, while others want to roll their skill check and move on, and still others like a mix?

Sure. But I'm not talking about what they prefer (or say they prefer), I'm talking about what they actually do.

Here's the root of my argument:

Schemas and their role in eyewitness testimony
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schema_(psychology)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_identification
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761578303_5/Memory_(psychology).html

Basically, what people believe happened in a given situation is highly influenced by their basic belief systems. A group of people can all be shown the same picture, for example, and report completely different details when the picture is taken away.

If they believe or have reason to want to believe that they roleplay their characters more than they focus on game mechanics, then they will recall roleplaying more than focusing on mechanics regardless of what actually happened.

Revealed versus stated preferences
There's a lot of jargon and theory around these terms, but it boils down to this: You can't make accurate predictions based on what people say they are going to do. They have stated preferences (what they say in focus groups, tell interviewers, put down on surveys, etc.) and revealed preferences (what researchers find they actually do when they observe the subject's behavior). For example, a person might state that he rarely shops at Wal-Mart, but a quick check of his credit card bill reveals that he shops there weekly or bi-weekly.

A gamer might tell you that he seeks out a specific type of group to play with, but actually plays with whomever is available or closest.

Despite what others have said or implied, bringing up schemas, eyewitness testimony, etc. isn't meant to accuse people of lying or being "deluded fools." Rather, it's meant to highlight a fact of human existence that's highly revelant to the discussion at hand, particularly since it involves self-reporting and memory.

Seanchai

(http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/hmmmm-i-disagrees-with-your-theories.jpg)

If we can't agree that the play styles people prefer are their preferred play styles, we may as well not bother. Enjoy your theory! :)

Quote from: SeanchaiSure. But I'm not talking about what they prefer (or say they prefer), I'm talking about what they actually do.

Here's the root of my argument:

Schemas and their role in eyewitness testimony
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schema_(psychology)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_identification
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761578303_5/Memory_(psychology).html

Basically, what people believe happened in a given situation is highly influenced by their basic belief systems. A group of people can all be shown the same picture, for example, and report completely different details when the picture is taken away.

If they believe or have reason to want to believe that they roleplay their characters more than they focus on game mechanics, then they will recall roleplaying more than focusing on mechanics regardless of what actually happened.

Revealed versus stated preferences
There's a lot of jargon and theory around these terms, but it boils down to this: You can't make accurate predictions based on what people say they are going to do. They have stated preferences (what they say in focus groups, tell interviewers, put down on surveys, etc.) and revealed preferences (what researchers find they actually do when they observe the subject's behavior). For example, a person might state that he rarely shops at Wal-Mart, but a quick check of his credit card bill reveals that he shops there weekly or bi-weekly.

A gamer might tell you that he seeks out a specific type of group to play with, but actually plays with whomever is available or closest.

Despite what others have said or implied, bringing up schemas, eyewitness testimony, etc. isn't meant to accuse people of lying or being "deluded fools." Rather, it's meant to highlight a fact of human existence that's highly revelant to the discussion at hand, particularly since it involves self-reporting and memory.

Seanchai

It's an interesting point - thanks for clearing up your position.

Question: take away all of the titles and names about this play style or that play style. Take away self reporting. Do you think it's possible for an enlightened, self-aware individual to watch a group of players and observe that they do not play in a way that the observer plays - that there are differences between the way the current players are actually playing and the way the self-aware observer actually plays?

'I'd be very pleased if they (Dragonborn females) don't have mammaries. I know D&D isn't based on realism, but mammaries on reptilian-looking critters hurts my suspension of disbelief.'

Those chaps on the WOTC board, you gotta love 'em !

Quote from: Sean'I'd be very pleased if they (Dragonborn females) don't have mammaries. I know D&D isn't based on realism, but mammaries on reptilian-looking critters hurts my suspension of disbelief.'

Those chaps on the WOTC board, you gotta love 'em !

At which point they should decide that gender is not a valuable designator for reptiles.

This is a silly 'non-issue', as I don't think it has ever been canonical that any reptilian has boobies.  I am reasonably certain that there haven't been any major artistic reptile boobies worthy of note.

Worthy of note being operative here: I have lots of faith in artist types to slip a little boob action into a pic just because they can: See Also Disney.

Quote from: SpikeI am reasonably certain that there haven't been any major artistic reptile boobies worthy of note.

Spike, I shall be sure to quote you in polite society. This sentence is wearing a smoking jacket and is the foppish heir to a country estate in Surrey. :)

Quote from: James J SkachDo you think it's possible for an enlightened, self-aware individual to watch a group of players and observe that they do not play in a way that the observer plays - that there are differences between the way the current players are actually playing and the way the self-aware observer actually plays?

Do I think it's possible? Sure. I think it's possible that out there, for example, people play using live hampsters as minis. I just don't think it's worth worrying about or classifying these outliers.

Do I think they would? Not really. Because once you remove the titles, names, etc., I think we all pretty much play the same way.

I do think, however, that highlights one of the flaws of there-are-different-play-styles position: There's no real definition to what a play style is. For example, I play using a wooden pencil. All the other people at my table play using mechanical pencils. Is that a difference in play styles?

We have examples of play styles that deal with the game (power level), that deal with players (genres), and that deal with behavior (sandbox). We have small and large examples, examples about actions and about preferences.

It covers a lot of ground. In fact, play styles seems to mean whatever is convenient for the author at the time. Sure, a play style is the style in which people play, but then we're dealing with self-referential definitions and all that.

It seems odd to me to argue that something must exist that can't or hasn't been defined.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiDo I think it's possible? Sure. I think it's possible that out there, for example, people play using live hampsters as minis. I just don't think it's worth worrying about or classifying these outliers.

So people actually playing differently - in some objective way not muddled by revealed versus stated preference is possible, but only about as much as people using live hamsters.  Is that correct?

Quote from: SeanchaiDo I think they would? Not really. Because once you remove the titles, names, etc., I think we all pretty much play the same way.

How much do you feel needs to be removed before it all looks the same?

Quote from: SeanchaiI do think, however, that highlights one of the flaws of there-are-different-play-styles position: There's no real definition to what a play style is. For example, I play using a wooden pencil. All the other people at my table play using mechanical pencils. Is that a difference in play styles?

We have examples of play styles that deal with the game (power level), that deal with players (genres), and that deal with behavior (sandbox). We have small and large examples, examples about actions and about preferences.

It covers a lot of ground. In fact, play styles seems to mean whatever is convenient for the author at the time. Sure, a play style is the style in which people play, but then we're dealing with self-referential definitions and all that.

It seems odd to me to argue that something must exist that can't or hasn't been defined.

Seanchai

I don't think people are arguing that it must exist - but that it does.  There's a difference.  And I don't think just because people don't have specific definitions (although GNS, GDS, TBM, etc. all seem to have at least some set of definitions) doesn't mean a thing can't exist.

You yourself gave three possible axis for differentiation - power level, genres, and sandbox - that could be used to define different styles. So, they exist then?

Quote from: SeanchaiI do think, however, that highlights one of the flaws of there-are-different-play-styles position: There's no real definition to what a play style is. For example, I play using a wooden pencil. All the other people at my table play using mechanical pencils. Is that a difference in play styles?

Does it affect your play?

QuoteIt seems odd to me to argue that something must exist that can't or hasn't been defined.

Check your favorite dictionary. "Play" and "style" have been defined for a really long time. :D

Quote from: James J SkachSo people actually playing differently - in some objective way not muddled by revealed versus stated preference is possible, but only about as much as people using live hamsters. Is that correct?

I'm pretty certain that people using live hampsters as minis is extreme. That is, it's far enough from the norm to readily say it's not part of the norm.

Again, I think people pretty much play the same way. Not absolutely everyone, but enough that there's really just one general approach to playing that's worth quantifying/discussing.

Quote from: James J SkachHow much do you feel needs to be removed before it all looks the same?

Shrug. How much of a difference does there need to be between one thing and the next for them to be different play styles?  

Quote from: James J SkachI don't think people are arguing that it must exist - but that it does.  There's a difference.

The difference would be that you can prove one. If it does exist, you can point it out. Prove that it's there and that it's distinct. Thus far, the proof that play styles exist - in complete absence of a definition of what a play style might be - is that they're self-evident.

Quote from: James J SkachAnd I don't think just because people don't have specific definitions (although GNS, GDS, TBM, etc. all seem to have at least some set of definitions) doesn't mean a thing can't exist.

No, but having a discussion about xengal woogies without having an idea of what a xengal woogie might be is...an interesting approach. True, we can't say that a xengal woogie doesn't exist.

Quote from: James J SkachYou yourself gave three possible axis for differentiation - power level, genres, and sandbox - that could be used to define different styles. So, they exist then?

Not quite. I gave three examples of things others cited as examples of different play styles. (Out of them, I'd only consider power level and sandbox within the realm of what a play style might be - and, again, I think people pretty play at the same power level and at the same "sandbox level.")

Seanchai

Quote from: James McMurray"Play" and "style" have been defined for a really long time.

"Tingly dove bright" isn't necessarily a functional term because "tingly," "dove," and "bright" are all previously defined, functional terms.

Moreover, there's nothing in the denotative definitions of "play" or "style" or indicate that some affect is required, as your response to the question about the pencils implies.

Seanchai

Every time you argue with Seanchai god kills a kitten.

Quote from: Seanchai"Tingly dove bright" isn't necessarily a functional term because "tingly," "dove," and "bright" are all previously defined, functional terms.

Moreover, there's nothing in the denotative definitions of "play" or "style" or indicate that some affect is required, as your response to the question about the pencils implies.

Seanchai

You're honestly telling me that after 17 pages of context and examples you can't figure out how to read the phrase "play style"? And that's just this thread; these things have been discussed in countless others. And you still don't understand?

(http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/specialcat-pam.jpg)

Quote from: Seanchai"Tingly dove bright"

Wasn't that the third Cocteau Twins album ?

Quote from: SeanCocteau Twins

*swoon*

Quote from: Pierce Inverarity*swoon*

I've met 'em at a backstage party after one of their gigs. I'm not really a fan, but can't deny that Liz Frasier is stunning.

Quote from: SeanchaiIn fact, play styles seems to mean whatever is convenient for the author at the time. Sure, a play style is the style in which people play, but then we're dealing with self-referential definitions and all that.

The same can be said about preferences in food. I guess that means there's no difference between steak and brocolli, and anyone who says he prefers one to the other is delusion or has an agenda.

:raise:

*popped in here to check out new posts while listening to Violaine*

*backs out slowly*

Whattsamatta, Ape? You don't like

(http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/funny-pictures-invisible-revolving-door.jpg)

Quote from: SeanchaiI'm pretty certain that people using live hampsters as minis is extreme. That is, it's far enough from the norm to readily say it's not part of the norm.

Again, I think people pretty much play the same way. Not absolutely everyone, but enough that there's really just one general approach to playing that's worth quantifying/discussing.

So that would be a "yes"?

Quote from: SeanchaiShrug. How much of a difference does there need to be between one thing and the next for them to be different play styles?

Well, for one small example, people who think random death is perfectly acceptable versus people who believe the characters have "script immunity" if you will.  Is that enough of a difference? I'm asking for you to provide some guidelines as to why something someone else thinks is playing different is not. Take/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.

Quote from: SeanchaiThe difference would be that you can prove one. If it does exist, you can point it out. Prove that it's there and that it's distinct. Thus far, the proof that play styles exist - in complete absence of a definition of what a play style might be - is that they're self-evident.

No, you just seem to write off peoples' play experiences.  There are people in this thread trying very hard to point out to you the differences. So far, your response is that they are mistaken.  If that's the case, nobody will ever convince you.  I'm left wondering if you know that and simply continue the conversation to annoy people.

Quote from: SeanchaiNo, but having a discussion about xengal woogies without having an idea of what a xengal woogie might be is...an interesting approach. True, we can't say that a xengal woogie doesn't exist.

So what you're really looking for is a definition of a play style? Is that your hesitation? So 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? Again, what i've seen in this thread are people providing descriptions of xengal woogies, and their close cousin the xengal farouk, and explaining how they are different.  You're response seems to be that they are really the same - they are both xengal's after all. Where does your classification come from - Kingdom? Phylum? Class?

Quote from: SeanchaiNot quite. I gave three examples of things others cited as examples of different play styles.

Fair enough.

Quote from: SeanchaiOut of them, I'd only consider power level and sandbox within the realm of what a play style might be - and, again, I think people pretty play at the same power level and at the same "sandbox level."

So 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'm curious, then, as to why you even recognize those attributes/measurements.  I 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?

Otherwise 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.

QuoteOut of them, I'd only consider power level and sandbox within the realm of what a play style might be - and, again, I think people pretty play at the same power level and at the same "sandbox level."

So 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?

QuoteElite Monsters

Elite monsters represent a greater challenge: They count as two monsters of their level for encounter building and rewards. Elite monsters have the word "elite" preceding their level and role.
 
Here's how a fight against a pair of such beasts might go:

The bulettes are underground using their burrowing movement. Even though the PCs can hear the creatures (a bulette isn't exactly stealthy), they can't attack until the bulettes rise to the surface.
When the bulettes go, they go mean. The first burrows shallowly through the earth under the fighter and rogue – the fighter keep his feet, but the rogue falls down and makes a good target. The bulette leaves the ground to take advantage of this and bites the poor fellow, doing some serious damage.
Bulette number two uses the same opening gambit but knocks over both the cleric and the wizard, who were next to each other. It opts to burst from the ground in a spray of packed dirt and stone. The prone heroes are easier to hit and take more damage from the wave of rocks. The fighter is also in range of the burst, but he brushes the soil aside with his shield.
The party gets to act. The rogue rises. He's not in a position to flank, but he can still try to do some damage. He doesn't like the look of the bulette's heavy armor, so he tries to slip his short sword between two stony plates before the bulette can react and he draws blood.
The wizard's in a bad spot. He probably can't lay down an attack without provoking an opportunity attack or burning his allies, so he delays. Good thing, because the cleric places fear in the bulette's tiny mind, which doesn't offer much resistance. The bulette burrows away, taking an opportunity attack from the cleric before he gets underground (avoiding like attacks from the fighter and the rogue.
This gives the wizard the chance to stand and cover the bulette's space with crackling lightning -- the monster's bulk means it doesn't have much chance to evade the blast and it doesn't. The fighter follows with a good, old-fashioned heavy sword swing and gets lucky: a critical hit. The bulette isn't looking good (it's bloodied), but now it gets to act.
Bulette number one dives into the earth so rapidly that the heroes around it don't get opportunity attacks. Safely in the ground, it heals some damage and then burrows under the heroes, who are now clustered close enough that the bulette can affect them all. Bulette number two follows by burrowing back into the action and bursting from the ground to rain more rocks down on the party, reminding them all that it's time for some healing.
The battle goes on. Even though there are four heroes, it only takes two bulettes to give them a run for their money. Fourth Edition has such elite monsters because you don't always want a straight one-on-one fight -- sometimes a monster should just be bigger, tougher, and scarier than the norm.

WOTC (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20071211&authentic=true)

Does this float yr boat ? Is this like fighting bulettes in earlier editions ?

QuoteRegarding Clerics and Amour: Clerics and Warlords, as well as the occasional elf or halfling fighter, prefer the sturdy feel of a chained male.

ENWORLD (http://www.enworld.org/)
new edition - same old jokes :rolleyes:

Scroll doon on enworld - Drizz still emo posterboy I see, but checkout the beardy giant redhead - I wanna play him !

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

(http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/01/dood-why-u-gota-be-so-mean.jpg)

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.

(http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/bring-me-a-tricycle-i-must-get-to-the-circus.jpg)

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

(http://www.thelolcats.com/pics/served.jpg)

Hello, my name is James, and I'm a lolcat addict.

Quote from: SgtSpaceWizardNow 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.

Again, who's talking about preferences? I'm talking about action. I prefer wholesome, excellent tasting dinners - doesn't mean that's what I actually eat...

Quote from: SgtSpaceWizardEDITED 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.

Except in actual clinical studies, people misremembered the details of a drawing (who had been holding the knife) they had seen just minutes before. There are clinical studies about getting people to misinterpret things right in front of them with a technique called priming.

Seanchai

Quote from: jgantsA play style has a very simple definition - it is the preferences of the players used to determine how they like to play games.

If you're talking about just preferences and not actual action, I don't disagree.

(But that is a pretty broad definition.)

Quote from: jgantsThe 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).

I like xengal woogie movies. Did I just prove they exist? But, again, I don't disagree that people have different preferences, only whether or not they actually put those preferences into play to the degree that there's a meaningful difference between games.

Quote from: jgantsThat is a very objectively measurable play style - does the GM kill off characters or not?  It's pretty hard to "misremember" that.

There are a lot of supposed play styles that could be objectively measured. Saying, "Well, my GM always kills of characters" and "Mine never does," is not an objective measurement, however.

I've been to The Atlantic Paranormal Society conferences. Ask and you'll get a sea of hands of people who claim to have seen a ghost. They're earnest. They remember it. A lot of make the same claims. I obviously believe in ghost.

Did I just prove that ghosts exists? Or would you say that the memories and experiences of everyone who claims to have seen a ghost isn't good enough to prove that ghosts exist?

I, personally, think the latter is true.

Seanchai

(http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/roflhamster1.jpg)

Quote from: SeanchaiExcept in actual clinical studies, people misremembered the details of a drawing (who had been holding the knife) they had seen just minutes before. There are clinical studies about getting people to misinterpret things right in front of them with a technique called priming.

Seanchai

So are you seriously saying that I don't remember if I used a GM screen last week or the week before etc? Is that the crux of your argument? I'm not talking about remembering how often someone talked in character. I'm talking about whether or not there was a piece of cardboard on the table, which kept the GM's rolls secret from the players. I'm talking about actions, not preferences. I know when I ran 1st ed AD&D for a while sans DM screen, some of the players wanted me to put it back up in the hopes I would "fudge" rolls more often for them. As far as empirical evidence, we have 3 dead charcters before I put the screen back and none after. Maybe I'm "lying to feel special", or perhaps you are projecting.

Because it bears repeating:

Quote from: AosYou, sir, are one hell of troll.

Really. We're witnessing a performance for the ages. This thread should be a case study in Troll graduate school.

The argument itself is stupid, really, because it seems clear (to me) that the participants are purposely talking past each other and then claiming to have scored points. James just posts funny pictures and Seanchai is just kinda saying the same thing over and over again. Both are right for the terms they've defined for themselves, anyhow.

My take (and here it is, if anyone cares to read it) is that when you're playing D&D, basically, you're playing an adventure role-playing game. Most people are going to sit down, lay out a goal, and solve challenges. There are a lot of different trappings, but it's mostly going to boil down to that. There's probably going to be a bunch of fights, and a varying amount of non-combat stuff. Depending on the table, there are going to be a certain percentage of sessions without any serious dice-rolling.

Now, Seanchai seems to be saying that the format above is pretty much one large, broad playstyle. Most people, even though they vary to certain degrees, pretty much fall into the above section. Even when they're not playing D&D, most people fall into the above section. Even with variances, stated or otherwise, his belief is that they fall into... the above section.

I kinda agree with that. Even though there are a lot of small variances (mostly  of stuff like DM screens or quantities of the above actions listed two paragraphs up), broadly, changes that have occured in the last few decades really haven't changed D&D that much. People still hang out, role-play, roll dice to determine conflicts, and kill goblins. (er, resolve challanges).

It's totally fine to argue that any change from group to group is a different playstyle, but I think it's fair to ask how critical those differences *are*. Like, does changing a Hobgoblin from a monster stat block (1ed) to a classed NPC or monster stat block (3.xed) to a Brute Type (4ed?) really change the dynamic at the table?

Does not having to rest all day really change the basic playstyle of the table?

That's from game to game, not table to table. I mean, what do you people think? Let's take changes from 1st or AD&D to 3.x as a measuring stick. For people who've played both, did your group playstyle really change?

Quote from: Thanatos02My take (and here it is, if anyone cares to read it) is that when you're playing D&D, basically, you're playing an adventure role-playing game. Most people are going to sit down, lay out a goal, and solve challenges. There are a lot of different trappings, but it's mostly going to boil down to that. There's probably going to be a bunch of fights, and a varying amount of non-combat stuff. Depending on the table, there are going to be a certain percentage of sessions without any serious dice-rolling.

Now, Seanchai seems to be saying that the format above is pretty much one large, broad playstyle. Most people, even though they vary to certain degrees, pretty much fall into the above section. Even when they're not playing D&D, most people fall into the above section. Even with variances, stated or otherwise, his belief is that they fall into... the above section.

I kinda agree with that. Even though there are a lot of small variances (mostly  of stuff like DM screens or quantities of the above actions listed two paragraphs up), broadly, changes that have occured in the last few decades really haven't changed D&D that much. People still hang out, role-play, roll dice to determine conflicts, and kill goblins. (er, resolve challanges).

It's totally fine to argue that any change from group to group is a different playstyle, but I think it's fair to ask how critical those differences *are*. Like, does changing a Hobgoblin from a monster stat block (1ed) to a classed NPC or monster stat block (3.xed) to a Brute Type (4ed?) really change the dynamic at the table?

Does not having to rest all day really change the basic playstyle of the table?

That's from game to game, not table to table. I mean, what do you people think? Let's take changes from 1st or AD&D to 3.x as a measuring stick. For people who've played both, did your group playstyle really change?

Hey, let's be clear - it's McMurray posting the pics, not Skach!

I did not play with the same group.  I have played 1ed, a tiny bit of 2e, and more 3e than 2e (but not as much as 1e).  Yes, it's different.  It might be the rules, it might be the Living Campaign style versus the home game, it might be a thousand different things. But I can honestly say it's different. The 3rd edition I discovered upon returning to gaming was/felt far more high-powered than my old 1st edition.  Mind you, I played the exact same character.  Same basic concept, but ported from AD&D to 3.5 - and int he latter, he was far more powerful at first level than he had been at first level in the former. I might even be able to find that original character sheet...hmmm...

I get the sense that Seanchai is averse to acknowledging the very real difference in play styles because it opens up a can of worms he doesn't want to handle. The goal posts have been shifted all over the place, but it curerntly appears to be:

• Yes, play styles exist.
• No, they are not distinct enough, or widespread enough, to matter.
• Yes, people claim to prefer those very same play styles.
• No, they are wrong/lying to themselves. Their actual play does not match their preference.

I don't want to go back through every post, but IIRC, the first item is really the only one that matters. Because if those play styles do exist - regardless of how distinct they are, how fluid they might be during play, or how accurately reported they as a preference or in actual play - it's fair to then ask if the changes in a given system have the potential to alter how well a play style is supported.

Seanchai appears to be saying that people play BD&D and 3.5 in essentially the same way.  I'm sure we could extrapolate to a high enough degree to say that's true.  If you use the "overcome challenges" verbiage as opposed to "kill goblins," you truly could say that about any time people get together to play any game. When we play Monopoly, aren't we playing the role of a wanna-be real estate tycoon? Aren't we using dice and managing resources to overcome challenges?  Aren't we sitting around with our friends shooting the breeze and snacking while we do it?

If we all played essentially the same way across versions and across systems, there would be only one system and one version.

I trie talking and got "I can't understand basic English words." I tried being a dictionary and got "yeah, but what about the xengal woogies?" So I switched out of "try to discuss" mode and back to "enjoy myself" mode.

My playstyle has changed over the editions. Most notably, the power level we play at has changed. Older editions made it practically impossible to play a 25th level character without starting there. I ran a D&D game that went well past that. Also, the level of fiddling with character details has changed drastically. The advent of feats and prestige classes has given my tinkering side the chance to come out and play.

In both cases there was no change to my preferred play style, but the increased support 3.x gives for high powered games and tinkering made it so that my actions could now match my desires.

Unless, of course, I'm a delusional liar. ;)

(http://www.miraclesalad.com/shared/STFU.jpg)

Seriously, this has to be the most boring and pointless flame war in the history of the RPGsite.

Quote from: Consonant DudeSeriously, this has to be the most boring and pointless flame war in the history of the RPGsite.

Yup.

Quote from: Consonant Dude[-IMG]http://www.miraclesalad.com/shared/STFU.jpg[/IMG-]

You're not trying to start an image war are you? I'll advise you to step slowly back from the keyboard or face my mad

(http://mine.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/128348441586718750capoeiraskills.jpg)

QuoteSeriously, this has to be the most boring and pointless flame war in the history of the RPGsite.

Because it's not a flame war. It's a bunch of people diplomatically (or not) asking "are you really that stupid?" and one guy saying "of course I am, you delusional liars."

Quote from: SeanchaiIf you're talking about just preferences and not actual action, I don't disagree.

(But that is a pretty broad definition.)

My point was actually that they have the preferences and sometimes get to use them in actual play (depending on how much they have to compromise with others).  

Much like my preference for blueberry pie takes a back seat at Christmas when the rest of the family wants cherry or whatever (hence, we end up with pumpkin and apple).  Regardless of whether or not I have a slice of apple at Christmas, my "pie style" is still blueberry ala mode.

Quote from: SeanchaiI like xengal woogie movies. Did I just prove they exist?

That depends on how into the whole existentialism thing you want to get, now doesn't it?

Quote from: SeanchaiBut, again, I don't disagree that people have different preferences, only whether or not they actually put those preferences into play to the degree that there's a meaningful difference between games.  

Just because there isn't a meaningful difference between some games (or even many games) doesn't mean there isn't a meaningful difference between any games.

Quote from: SeanchaiThere are a lot of supposed play styles that could be objectively measured. Saying, "Well, my GM always kills of characters" and "Mine never does," is not an objective measurement, however.

I trust people to remember how much their GM likes to let characters die, myself, but I'll humor you.  How 'bout this?

Playstyle A hates the possibility for instant death.  People playing playstyle A never use "save vs. death" type rolls.

Playstyle B is fine with instant death possibilities.  People playing playstyle B always use "save vs. death" type rolls when appropriate.

Surely these two activities could be easily measured?  Surely people are capable of remembering whether or not they make save vs death rolls?

Clearly the two styles have a meaningful enough distinction - one style makes character death much harder than the other style.

And going back to the original point, some versions of D&D support playstyle A better (3e and especially 4e) while others supported playstyle B better (1e, 2e).

Quote from: SeanchaiI've been to The Atlantic Paranormal Society conferences. Ask and you'll get a sea of hands of people who claim to have seen a ghost. They're earnest. They remember it. A lot of make the same claims. I obviously believe in ghost.

Did I just prove that ghosts exists? Or would you say that the memories and experiences of everyone who claims to have seen a ghost isn't good enough to prove that ghosts exist?

I, personally, think the latter is true.

That's not just a strawman, that's a wicker man that you can trap logic inside and set aflame.

Clearly one instance (remembering how I game every week) is more frequent than the other (one time some guy thought he saw a ghost).  One involves clear perceptions over a long period of time.  The other relies on fleeting perceptions (unless somebody sat down with the ghost and had a chat for 3 hours).  Plus, to see a ghost you have to first believe in ghosts, and the belief will influence the perception.  Furthermore, in stark contrast to the rather mundane act of weekly gaming, ghost spotting would cause levels of high adrenaline - which further clouds perceptions.

Quote from: James McMurrayYou're not trying to start an image war are you? I'll advise you to step slowly back from the keyboard or face my mad

(http://mine.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/128348441586718750capoeiraskills.jpg)



Because it's not a flame war. It's a bunch of people diplomatically (or not) asking "are you really that stupid?" and one guy saying "of course I am, you delusional liars."

I can see that, but how long have you been on the internet, dude? Sean has been around for ages and I've never seen him admit that he was wrong. Not once. And he can go at it for weeks if need be.

Here's the thing.

1-Everybody that's grounded in rationality knows there are, indeed, plenty of different playstyles

2-We aren't on RPG.net.

What this means is that instead of diplomatically going around in passive/agressive circular argument that last for 26 pages trying to win side-points, you can just state bluntly that there are different playstyles and tell any dick who wants to say otherwise that he can just go fuck himself. And then you move on, or at least if you insist on bumping this thread, you make it fun for others.

I mean, that's what most of us do on D&D threads. God knows I think a few people are overreacting to every news. I say so. Sometimes, a guy like Skach will call me an asshole. I call him a delusional asshole as well and we move on. And there's no hard feelings, usually. At least, not on my end.
 
The Capoeira cat kicks some serious ass! :D

Quote from: Consonant DudeI mean, that's what most of us do on D&D threads. God knows I think a few people are overreacting to every news. I say so. Sometimes, a guy like Skach will call me an asshole. I call him a delusional asshole as well and we move on. And there's no hard feelings, usually. At least, not on my end.

Did I do that?  I mean, seriously, did I? I usually remember when I call someone an asshole and I don't recall calling you one. Not that I wouldn't, mind you.  I just like to keep track of who I've called asshole so I can later take cold, cruel revenge! on them....

I came rather late to this portion of the discussion because I wanted to make sure I was not mistaken that someone was saying, seriously, that there were really no different play styles.  After Seanchai and Mr. McMurray left serious mode, I still had some questions to make sure I wasn't missing something in his position.

I'm now convinced that either he's very mistaken and, as you say, not prepared to admit he was wrong, or purposefully trolling, as stated (originally, I think) by Aos. As such, I don't need to call him an asshole - I'll let his own posts do that for me.

(http://mahopa.de/bilder/funny-forum-pictures/no-hope-for-this-thread.jpg)

Quote from: James J SkachDid I do that?  I mean, seriously, did I? I usually remember when I call someone an asshole and I don't recall calling you one. Not that I wouldn't, mind you.  I just like to keep track of who I've called asshole so I can later take cold, cruel revenge! on them....

You take revenge on people because you call them assholes? Get help, my man! :p

It was on this thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=147085&postcount=72). But I was wrong, you called me a numbnuts :flameon:

Quote from: SgtSpaceWizardSo are you seriously saying that I don't remember if I used a GM screen last week or the week before etc?

Are you seriously saying that unlike the rest of humanity, you have infallible perceptions and memory?

Seanchai

This all seems to be much ado about nothing but i tell you

WHEN YOUS TWO FINALLY GET TO FUCKERY YOU WILL CUM SO HARD !

 :eek: :p :o :D

Quote from: Consonant DudeI can see that, but how long have you been on the internet, dude? Sean has been around for ages and I've never seen him admit that he was wrong. Not once.

I have. But since I actually think about my position before I stated it, I generally don't have to reverse course. Moreover, I don't find some guy on the Internet disagreeing to be compelling evidence that I'm wrong. As that's all the evidence that's generally provided...

Seanchai

Quote from: James J SkachI get the sense that Seanchai is averse to acknowledging the very real difference in play styles because it opens up a can of worms he doesn't want to handle.

I didn't bring up play styles because it's not germane to any argument I've made.

But if we did conclusively prove that play styles existed, what then? Their simple existence doesn't support other claims, namely that games support play styles and that 4e is bad wrong fun because it'll supposedly destroy a play style.

Quote from: James J Skach

• Yes, play styles exist.

Not in the sense you mean, no.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiAre you seriously saying that unlike the rest of humanity, you have infallible perceptions and memory?

Seanchai

Yeah. That's exactly what I said... :rolleyes:

Quote from: James J SkachI'm now convinced that either he's very mistaken and, as you say, not prepared to admit he was wrong, or purposefully trolling, as stated (originally, I think) by Aos. As such, I don't need to call him an asshole - I'll let his own posts do that for me.

Ditto what the Skachman said.

Quote from: James J Skachpurposefully trolling, as stated (originally, I think) by Aos.

It amazes me how many IL's I'm not on.

Yes, there are different play styles.  There are always different styles of roleplaying games. (eespecially when a blowdryer is involved....)


Those two need to get a room.


- Ed C.

Quote from: jgantsMy point was actually that they have the preferences and sometimes get to use them in actual play (depending on how much they have to compromise with others).  

And my point is that despite folks' stated preferences, when it comes down to it, they all pretty much play the same way.

Quote from: jgantsThat depends on how into the whole existentialism thing you want to get, now doesn't it?

I'll take that as a no.

Quote from: jgantsJust because there isn't a meaningful difference between some games (or even many games) doesn't mean there isn't a meaningful difference between any games.

Yes, some people roleplay with dead tigers.

Quote from: jgantsSurely these two activities could be easily measured?

Yes, they can be measured. And if you want to prove that there's an objective  

Quote from: jgantsSurely people are capable of remembering whether or not they make save vs death rolls?

Again, no. See your point about belief in ghosts and perception.

Quote from: jgantsClearly one instance (remembering how I game every week) is more frequent than the other (one time some guy thought he saw a ghost).

I'm not talking about one instance of seeing a ghost. I'm talking about belief in ghosts in general and folks who go on weekly or monthly ghost hunts.

On the TAPS side, we have:
Folks who firmly believe they've had multiple encounters with ghost
Beliefs that are based on recollection and perception
No hard evidence

On the play styles side, we have:
Folks who firmly believe they've had multiple encounters with ghost
Beliefs that are based on recollection and perception
No hard evidence

So, again, I put to you, is a large group of people's belief in ghost enough to prove that they exist? What about alien abductions, bigfoot, or the Loch Ness monster?

Quote from: jgantsPlus, to see a ghost you have to first believe in ghosts, and the belief will influence the perception.

Exactly! If you believe in play styles, your perceptions will be influenced and you'll see play styles. You'll remember there being differences at the table that you'll attribute to play styles.

Seanchai

Quote from: Consonant DudeYou take revenge on people because you call them assholes? Get help, my man! :p

It was on this thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=147085&postcount=72). But I was wrong, you called me a numbnuts :flameon:

Oh...numbnuts....no I don't track that. Hell, I call everyone numbnuts, you butt nugget.

Edit: You know, it's interesting you pointed that particular thread (and post out). It's akin to the idea Seanchai has - that is everyone has been playing D&D the same way through all version over all the years. The amazing thing about that post is that you claimed if you weren't playing D&D with the comic book feel, you weren't playing it as written - so I had to go with the numbnuts.

Edit II: Changed "playing it wrong" to "not playing it as written" to be accurate.

I'll call someone an asshole. I don't mind. :)

Who wants it?

Quote from: SeanchaiI didn't bring up play styles because it's not germane to any argument I've made.

No, you disputed the existence of play styles when they were brought up to explain why 4e might not be the right game for some folks.  It's you who are claiming play styles do not exist to refute the assertion that the style of play more easily supported in 4e will be different from previous versions. So the existence of play styles is very important to your position.

Quote from: SeanchaiBut if we did conclusively prove that play styles existed, what then? Their simple existence doesn't support other claims, namely that games support play styles and that 4e is bad wrong fun because it'll supposedly destroy a play style.

Right - see, it means a lot. That's why it's so difficult for you to go beyond the if-they-do-exist-they-are-the-same-as-people-who-use-hamsters- or-play-with-dead-tigers level of acceptance. If they do exist, then it's valid to consider a game with respect to whether or not it adequately supports a play style for a particular individual. In this case, it's Haffrung's contention that D&D 4e is not going to support the kind of play he prefers. In order to combat that, you simply must not let play styles, and peoples' preferences for them, exist. Otherwise you actually have to debate the real issue - in what ways does a specific version of a certain game support, or not support, a given play style.

Quote from: SeanchaiNot in the sense you mean, no.

In what sense, then?

Quote from: AosIt amazes me how many IL's I'm not on.

Why would you be on mine? Are you on my Revenge! list? Did I miss the meetings again? Damn it...

Quote from: James J SkachWhy would you be on mine?

I specialize in pointless commentary.

Quote from: James J SkachOh...numbnuts....no I don't track that. Hell, I call everyone numbnuts, you butt nugget.

Edit: You know, it's interesting you pointed that particular thread (and post out). It's akin to the idea Seanchai has - that is everyone has been playing D&D the same way through all version over all the years. The amazing thing about that post is that you claimed if you weren't playing D&D with the comic book feel, you weren't playing it as written - so I had to go with the numbnuts.

Edit II: Changed "playing it wrong" to "not playing it as written" to be accurate.

Fuck it! This thread was boring anyway so I'm responding to you and making it even more off-topic! :p

James, I doin't find that idea akin to what Seanchai is discussing at all. I think it's interesting that you had to edit your post here. I think both time you read it to mean "playing wrong" when really, I'm just assessing the content of the books.

And the books, the power level, is superheroic in feel. When several characters at first level can already ignore being threaten at point blank by bows and crossbows, that's clearly out of the realm of what I consider to be even "cinematic", much less normal. Once you hit fifth level and up, it seems very superheroic to me. I don't think that aspect has changed much throughout the many editions. It's always been superheroic from where I stand. The fundamentals are the same but the presentation has changed, however.

Anyway, I think it's kind of weird that you disagree with that, but I don't mind. I do think that you overreacted to it, though. It's not offending nor is it a particularly strange assessment.

Quote from: James McMurrayI'll call someone an asshole. I don't mind. :)

Who wants it?

Bring it on, flangeface.

- Q

Quote from: QuireBring it on, flangeface.

- Q

(http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/01/pencil-neck.jpg)

Quote from: AosI specialize in pointless commentary.

I'd like to say I'm here for pointless commentary, but really I'm just stealing the light bulbs and rifling through medicine cabinets.

Oh, and abusing the huge page of smilies.

:chestram: :violent-smiley-078: :shovel: :DRUNKANI: :sleeping: :ferret:

(http://blog.bekahbrunstetter.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/kitten_die.jpg)

Pete wins !

But at what cost?

Quote from: Consonant DudeFuck it! This thread was boring anyway so I'm responding to you and making it even more off-topic! :p

Fuck 'em all, we'll take the thread where we please!

Quote from: Consonant DudeJames, I don't find that idea akin to what Seanchai is discussing at all. I think it's interesting that you had to edit your post here. I think both time you read it to mean "playing wrong" when really, I'm just assessing the content of the books.

Perhaps because my experience was so different, and we played pretty damn close to the rules, there was this disconnect between what you were saying and what I experienced that gave me this "playing wrong" sense.  Ah, well - I corrected it for a reason...

Quote from: Consonant DudeAnd the books, the power level, is superheroic in feel. When several characters at first level can already ignore being threaten at point blank by bows and crossbows, that's clearly out of the realm of what I consider to be even "cinematic", much less normal.

And right here is where we part ways.  I have to ask what game you were playing?  I mean, the first level characters we played (and I would venture a guess Haffrung did as well, given what I've read of his comments) were scared shitless - a single successful shot could kill them - even many of the fighters. And god forbid a spider bites you. There was very little that felt "cinematic" or "superheroic" about the play - until we got out alive, injured and panting, but alive.

Quote from: Consonant DudeOnce you hit fifth level and up, it seems very superheroic to me. I don't think that aspect has changed much throughout the many editions. It's always been superheroic from where I stand. The fundamentals are the same but the presentation has changed, however.

Now this I would agree with to a much greater degree.  Fifth level, when those damn magic users got fireball, a lot of shit changed. But here's the thing - it took forever to get to fifth level (OK, not forever, but it was a long slog). And many characters never made it - yes, even with the rules that allowed raising the dead, it was not like a drive through trip to McDonalds every time you dropped. I think of all the times we had to seriously struggle to try and drag someone out to get healed/raised - only to discover that when we returned, the situation was worse - the "dungeon" wasn't static, after all.

And here's how it all ties back in.  See that up there? That's you playing the same game as I did in very different ways.  At least, I have to assume so if your experience (and I don't doubt your experience) leads you to describe the game as having always been "superheroic" and my experience (and I would ask you to show the same respect for my experience) leads me to describe it as anything but - with the same rules.

And I get that - I could see where you could, depending on preference of group, play it either way.  Haffrung's point, I believe, is that this ability to use the same rule set to play in almost diametrically opposed ways was true of BD&D and AD&D; however, while still present, it has been decreasing in subsequent versions. I don't know if Haffrung feels the same, but I will say that my concern is that this version might finally be the version where support for the non-super-heroic, non-cinematic style falls to a level where it's no longer valuable to those that prefer/lean towards/are most comfortable with that style.

And I don't (nor do most I've seen) have an objective problem with that. For me, it's more melancholy at getting old, finding you're no longer the one marketers worry about (damn kids!), and some slightly more specific concerns over the dreaded network externalities I'll be losing.  But hey, that's life!

Quote from: James J SkachAnd right here is where we part ways.  I have to ask what game you were playing?  I mean, the first level characters we played (and I would venture a guess Haffrung did as well, given what I've read of his comments) were scared shitless - a single successful shot could kill them - even many of the fighters. And god forbid a spider bites you. There was very little that felt "cinematic" or "superheroic" about the play - until we got out alive, injured and panting, but alive.

Just for the record, the last AD&D1e game I played was fairly recently. I was fairly scared for my wizard at first level. But the ranger (HP 17 IIRC) was definitly not. Even the third party member (a cleric) was fairly gutsy. The three of us did some serious damage.

Now, I'm not saying a a group we weren't scared. But that's because we went through serious shit at low level that is heroic if not, dare I say... "mythic".

Maybe it's just semantics because I read your post and don't disagree with what you are saying at all. I go through everything you say you go through, so I definitly respect your experience. My characters also tend to experience stuff that myself (me, not the character) can't imagine I could ever get away with, even at first level. There was stuff our ranger faced... stuff he was garanteed to survive under these rules but that is just plain deadly in real life. That's pretty much all I meant.


BTW, I'm a big fan of 3e, but I never liked the level progression, which starts a bit too high for my taste. In fact, even 1e starts too strong. I was hoping 4e would take a page off Mutants & Masterminds. That they would do something like this:

We at WotC think characters should be very competent when they start. We recommend that you start at 5th level. But our rules allow you to play a character from 1st to 30th level.

And then I would have liked levels to translate roughly like this:

Level 1: The equivalent of an old school commoner/apprentice.
Level 2: slightly less competent than a 1e starting PC
Level 3: Slightly more competent than a  1e starting character
Level 4: In the neighborhood of a 3e starting PC
Level 5: The new cool of 4e

You know, something that would truly allow an entire party of starting characters to hunt a single troublesome wolf and make for tense roleplaying. There's nothing wrong with D&D going more powerful by default. But they just added 10 level to the progression... what would be the harm in using a few of those on the lesser end of the scale? Mutants & Masterminds did it.

Can we now argue on a minor point, for the next 10 pages at least? :D

Quote from: Consonant DudeJust for the record, the last AD&D1e game I played was fairly recently. I was fairly scared for my wizard at first level. But the ranger (HP 17 IIRC) was definitly not. Even the third party member (a cleric) was fairly gutsy. The three of us did some serious damage.

Now, I'm not saying a a group we weren't scared. But that's because we went through serious shit at low level that is heroic if not, dare I say... "mythic".

Maybe it's just semantics because I read your post and don't disagree with what you are saying at all. I go through everything you say you go through, so I definitly respect your experience. My characters also tend to experience stuff that myself (me, not the character) can't imagine I could ever get away with, even at first level. There was stuff our ranger faced... stuff he was garanteed to survive under these rules but that is just plain deadly in real life. That's pretty much all I meant.


BTW, I'm a big fan of 3e, but I never liked the level progression, which starts a bit too high for my taste. In fact, even 1e starts too strong. I was hoping 4e would take a page off Mutants & Masterminds. That they would do something like this:

We at WotC think characters should be very competent when they start. We recommend that you start at 5th level. But our rules allow you to play a character from 1st to 30th level.

And then I would have liked levels to translate roughly like this:

Level 1: The equivalent of an old school commoner/apprentice.
Level 2: slightly less competent than a 1e starting PC
Level 3: Slightly more competent than a  1e starting character
Level 4: In the neighborhood of a 3e starting PC
Level 5: The new cool of 4e

You know, something that would truly allow an entire party of starting characters to hunt a single troublesome wolf and make for tense roleplaying. There's nothing wrong with D&D going more powerful by default. But they just added 10 level to the progression... what would be the harm in using a few of those on the lesser end of the scale? Mutants & Masterminds did it.

Can we now argue on a minor point, for the next 10 pages at least? :D

I am willing to toss of a minor arguement, but I've had my fill for ten page arguements for a long time...

Here is the thing: traditional hero types, even schlub farm boy turned hero types may have been called upon at some point in their heroic career to slay a wolf all by their lonesome. This crap of housecats even being moderately threatening combatants, much less the furry murder machines they currently are, is frankly dumb.  Not only are 1st level 'heroes' too weak, so are the average commoners who aren't 'heroes', if only in comparison to housecats and rats. Small children shouldn't even be that fragile.

And you want to make 1st level heroes even weaker?


Even if you make 5th level the default staring point, just by pointing out that by the rules they could at any point in their adult lives be force to hunt a lone wolf in a huddled frightened pack, a little Leonidas inside them dies, a tiny spark of Beowuld gives a tiny cry of agony before being snuffed out.

Because, god damn it, we want to be Heroes. Even HEROES, in all caps. Not a tiny cog of a single heroic gestalt, surgically fastened at the hip to his team, and dependent upon them for every shred of cool he has.

Quote from: SpikeI am willing to toss of a minor arguement, but I've had my fill for ten page arguements for a long time...

Here is the thing: traditional hero types, even schlub farm boy turned hero types may have been called upon at some point in their heroic career to slay a wolf all by their lonesome. This crap of housecats even being moderately threatening combatants, much less the furry murder machines they currently are, is frankly dumb.  Not only are 1st level 'heroes' too weak, so are the average commoners who aren't 'heroes', if only in comparison to housecats and rats. Small children shouldn't even be that fragile.

And you want to make 1st level heroes even weaker?

Hold on! :p

YOU are talking about 1st level heroes. I'm talking about a more open-ended power scale, which allows me as a DM to more accurately throw challenges at MY starting heroes (depending on what level I see a starting hero at).

Want to play a smart 14 years old learning for his knighthood? 1st level might be appropriate for him under that power scale.

Need militia men that are not trained adequately? 1st or 2nd level.

Veteran militia well trained but not heroes? 2nd or 3rd level.

and so on...

As for the cat argument. This is an age old argument that was always addressed on what front only: that of the character. The problem of the cat is threefold:

1-The 1st level hero
2-The cat himself
3-The whole system (combat, HPs, and so on)

I believe D&D is being refined with each editions, a tweak here and there such as the -10 houserule becoming official and so on.  

In any event, I believe having the heroes start at a higher level takes care of the cat problem and gives you a beautiful assortment of challenges and companions as a starting hero. That damsel in distress that is nonetheless competent? She might be first level now. In 1st edition D&D, she's likely to kick her rescuer's ass on one lucky roll and that's the problem as I see it.

Quote from: SpikeIEven if you make 5th level the default staring point, just by pointing out that by the rules they could at any point in their adult lives be force to hunt a lone wolf in a huddled frightened pack, a little Leonidas inside them dies, a tiny spark of Beowuld gives a tiny cry of agony before being snuffed out.

Because, god damn it, we want to be Heroes. Even HEROES, in all caps. Not a tiny cog of a single heroic gestalt, surgically fastened at the hip to his team, and dependent upon them for every shred of cool he has.

This is purely an illusion thing. A matter of perception. I prefer to get the better of my perception and not see "1" as the absolute required starting point. The four starting levels can be confined to the DMG if need be. It's better than the current half-assed "commoner, noble, expert, warrior" crap, IMO.

As I said, I would really like for a greater range of friends, foes, allies, dependants, threats for my starting heroes. And better optiojns depending on how heroic I want this to be.

Most point systems do it. They offer different starting number of points depending on the genre and setting. M&M was wise enough to do it. D&D needs to wake from the 70s and embrace that tool as well.

If you set them on a numeric path, regardless of where they actually start, they will always project backwards to those earlier days and assume they 'came from there'.

Thus, no matter where the game started every character was once 1st level. And, if at first level, that character was incapable of hunting and slaying a wolf alone, he was weak and pitiful and unheroic and probably had to be rescued by some NPC, possibly even NPCs that even lacked...gasp!... class levels.

No hero could bear the shame. Unless, you know, that was their who deal, being the guy that overcame being a wuss or something. But we don't talk about... Those Guys...  

Point pool systems, with a less clear 'route' are less problematic in this regards. No one really trys to figure out what their guy was like a '1 point'. Since the 'starting level' is more nebulous, they can just chose to assume that their scrawny naked teenager barefoot in the snow was fully capable of slaying the wolf at the door and then they can eat cake and be happy.

Think of the Cake, man!

I was actually saving this for Set's next "4e will destroy the world" rant, but since this is the 3rd time in as many days Spike has ranted about housecats vs. commoners:

(http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/funny-pictures-polarbear-face-palm.jpg)

Quote from: SpikeThink of the Cake, man!

....How long did it take you to bake it?

Did you keep the recipe?

 and what about MacArthur's ParK???

Quote from: James McMurrayI was actually saving this for Set's next "4e will destroy the world" rant, but since this is the 3rd time in as many days Spike has ranted about housecats vs. commoners:

[/IMG]

You are just ashamed to admit your terror of kittens.  

Admit it, James!  Accept your fear, let it flow through you, let it wash over you. You will face your fear and vanquish it. Fear is the little death that brings oblivion, fear is the mind killer....

(http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/382182185_7fe0d6af041.jpg)

Quote from: SpikeBecause, god damn it, we want to be Heroes. Even HEROES, in all caps. Not a tiny cog of a single heroic gestalt, surgically fastened at the hip to his team, and dependent upon them for every shred of cool he has.

Who you callin' we, paleface.

My players don't want to be heroes. I know that sounds like crazy talk these days, or like I'm taking a stance just for the sake of internet arguments (as Seanchai would have us believe). But we honestly do not play to tell heroic stories about guys with destiny who grow up to save the world. We just don't. We play D&D to explore cool places (usually dungeons) from the perspective of cool-looking dudes with axes and magical cloaks.

It occurs to me that one of the reasons my group is out of step with the norm today is we started playing D&D really young. I mean, I was nine years old when I started DMing. We weren't trying to emulate Tolkien heroic fantasy because we hadn't read the books yet. We had read some Conan comics and seen a few Sinbad movies. That was about it for influences. D&D was a genre to us. And D&D, at the time we discovered it, was about exploring an imaginary underworld with Krago of the Mountains and Afton Rengate, pulled straight from the back of B1 with their stats ready to go.

Ultimately, it was about maps, not stories. We loved maps. Treasured and guarded them. Even glancing at the DMs map was grounds for having your PC killed outright, maybe even the player being kicked out the game. If you knew the map beforehand, you had utterly spoiled the game experience as we cherished it - exploration of the labyrinth underworld, and returning to the surface with its riches.

That was it. System mastery? We barely fucking understood what AC was. 30 years later and a couple of my players still couldn't tell you what HP bonus a 16 Con gives you. Our only guide to how to play was the old pastel modules. And when all the module says for an encounter is: 2 ogres with clubs. AC 5, HD 3+1, HP 22, 17. Dmg 1-10, you don't expect to have to know any more than that about your own PC. Personalize the weapons and armour a bit ('my guy has horns on his helmet'), add some assorted magic items, and draw up a character portrait (whatever happened to those?). If you happen to develop some personal traits along the way (always starts looting bodies while the fight is still going on, wears a bearskin), then you're about as richly drawn as you're going to get in our games.

I'm not saying that was ever the most common way to play D&D (though it certainly wasn't uncommon in 1981). But things change. Pop culture changes. Gamers change. Games change.

The first time I picked up a module that had a pre-scripted story (I think it was Rahasia) in about 1986, I knew modules were being designed with different goals in mind than White Plume Mountain. We didn't want to play epic fantasy storytelling. I bought a couple more dungeons, but found them pretty much useless for our game.

We went to strictly homebrew campaigns for about 12 years and lost all contact with the wider RPG world. We were like a Pictcairn Island of D&D. We gradually did away with most of the books and played our game with the To Hit table, the Saving throw table, and the spells from the PHB. Everything else was decided by DM fiat.

Anyway, I digress. My group are like those genomes found in Iceland. They tell the tale of a different era, untouched by outside influences. And believe me, we play a dramatically different style from what I see presumed in 3.x rules and adventures, and described on discussion boards. And if a troll on an RPG discussion board wants to deny that, he can go right ahead. My players will be rolling a save versus poison in the crumbled tunnels beneath the Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan while he plays whichever iteration of D&D turns his crank.

Quote from: James McMurrayI was actually saving this for Set's next "4e will destroy the world" rant, but since this is the 3rd time in as many days Spike has ranted about housecats vs. commoners:

Durrrrrrrrrrrrr, ignore me. Second name Spike, not Sett.

*goes back to his cough syrup*
(http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n90/planegurl/PurpleDrank.jpg)

Quote from: Christmas ApeThis suggests to me we upgraded to the ENWorld-style Coventry ignore lists at some point?

How does that work?

Quote from: ImperatorHow does that work?

Unless quoted, someone on your IL doesn't show up for you, not even as a little "This user is on your ignore list" thing. Really cuts down on the urge to peek.

Quote from: Christmas ApeUnless quoted, someone on your IL doesn't show up for you, not even as a little "This user is on your ignore list" thing. Really cuts down on the urge to peek.

Wow, cool.
 
Also, I would suggest to change the theme of the pics. Given that you are saving them for the next time Sett goes ballistic, I should start using pics of emos, goths and shit like that.

Quote from: ImperatorWow, cool.
 
Also, I would suggest to change the theme of the pics. Given that you are saving them for the next time Sett goes ballistic, I should start using pics of emos, goths and shit like that.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v282/luse/vance.jpg)?

/obvious

Quote from: Christmas Ape(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v282/luse/vance.jpg)?
 
/obvious

You, sir, are a gentleman and a scholar.

Quote from: ImperatorYou, sir, are a gentleman and a scholar.

:bow:

I think I'm with Haffrung here although a bit older and started a bit earlier.  

We wanted to be heroes in the vien of having to struggle to survive and doing heroic deeds where we could very well lose but for our daring and strategy.  Not superheroes where defeat lasts only until the next episode and our largest struggle is against manufactured angst.

We wanted to come up through the trenches, not be some son of a demi-god with a destiny to save/destroy the world, or be descended from a race of ubermen.  Give us no destiny except the ones we make in travelling from adventure to adventure.  More like Conan and Fafrd than Aragon and Elric.   Even though we had read Tolkein, REH, ERB, Arthur, all the Greek myths, saw Sinbad, etc., we wanted a seething, virile world like Hyperborea of dark secrets melded with the races and elegance of Tolkein.  

We wanted the "what if" and the exploration of the world of the GMs creating, we wanted free wheeling high adventure, not a predestined plot line to power.  We came from wargaming where you had the "what if" of what could I have done given the resources of x.  Not the "what if" I was superman how I would rule the world.

I don't know if that gets to the OP of offending someone.

Quote from: SpikeThink of the Cake, man!

There is no cake.

- Q

This thread has taken a turn for the better! I fully credit my intervention for that! And now, I need to pursue my work!

(http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/7293/catsattacknr1.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)

Quote from: SpikeNo hero could bear the shame. Unless, you know, that was their who deal, being the guy that overcame being a wuss or something. But we don't talk about... Those Guys...

Apeshit.

Part of what made being a 9th level Lord so damn cool was knowing you came from there.

It's the same reason Parzifal is a much better character than Galahad.  Parzifal fucks up royally and loses it all, and has to rebuild from ground zero.  Galahad just has everything handed to him.

The more lowly you start, the more of a stud you are when you hit 10th level.

Quote from: James J SkachNo, you disputed the existence of play styles when they were brought up to explain why 4e might not be the right game for some folks.

That's what I said. I didn't bring up play styles. Others did.

Quote from: James J SkachSo the existence of play styles is very important to your position.

Except I was disputing

Quote from: James J SkachIf they do exist, then it's valid to consider a game with respect to whether or not it adequately supports a play style for a particular individual.

You're absolutely correct. But 4e not supporting existing play styles is far from a forgone conclusion.

Which is why I don't need play styles. It's the folks trying to prove that 4e is objectively bad who do.

Quote from: James J SkachIn order to combat that, you simply must not let play styles, and peoples' preferences for them, exist.

Again, you're incorrect. I was combating Haffrung's assertion before and after the play styles debate. For example, play styles were barely touched upon in the original quests thread.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanPete wins !

Yeah. If you're going to embarass yourself by posting pictures of crap in a thread a la TBP, at least post something cool...

Seanchai

Quote from: James J SkachHaffrung's point, I believe, is that this ability to use the same rule set to play in almost diametrically opposed ways was true of BD&D and AD&D; however, while still present, it has been decreasing in subsequent versions.

But one of Haffrung's point was also that no one actually used the OD&D and AD&D rules sets. That being the case...

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiWhich is why I don't need play styles. It's the folks trying to prove that 4e is objectively bad who do.

And who are those people?

Apparently he didn't read the rest of the post, or didn't care to as the context makes his comment a moot point.

Quote from: MeI don't know if Haffrung feels the same, but I will say that my concern is that this version might finally be the version where support for the non-super-heroic, non-cinematic style falls to a level where it's no longer valuable to those that prefer/lean towards/are most comfortable with that style.

And I don't (nor do most I've seen) have an objective problem with that. For me, it's more melancholy at getting old, finding you're no longer the one marketers worry about (damn kids!), and some slightly more specific concerns over the dreaded network externalities I'll be losing. But hey, that's life!

Quote from: HaffrungWho you callin' we, paleface.

*snip a bunch of shit*.

See, you are making some weird assumptions here.

First of all, I never played modules, and I didn't get into D&D any later than you did developmentally. So trying to shape this as some weird map vs. story bullshit doesn't fly with me. I'm not there to tell a story any more than anyone else is. I'm there to be a badass with a sword or what have you.

Secondly: I believe that a grown man in the prime of his youth (that is to say 16-20, 1st level high school student character territory) should be able, PARTICULARLY with weapons and armor be able to face down a single angry wolf.  Hell, I'm confident that when I was 18 you could toss me into a pit naked with a lone angry wolf and I'd come out the winner. Maybe bleeding quite a bit and just as pissed at you as the wolf was at me, but the winner.

So the idea that at any time  ANY TIME in your adult life, particularly if you plan on being an adventurer of some sort, you could not seriously challenge a single wild animal that is half your body weight in a fair fight, much less an unfair fight (you know, having weapons and shit), you need to go back and continue to be food for the morlocks you pansy peice of shit.

Then again, my ancestors tell tales of children killing bears with flintlocks to protect themselves or their siblings.  A bear is quite a bit nastier than a wolf.

CHILDREN.

And you want 'adventurers' to struggle to bring down a wolf in a group?

Not buying it.

Sell that shit to someone else.

Quote from: Old GeezerApeshit.

Part of what made being a 9th level Lord so damn cool was knowing you came from there.

It's the same reason Parzifal is a much better character than Galahad.  Parzifal fucks up royally and loses it all, and has to rebuild from ground zero.  Galahad just has everything handed to him.

The more lowly you start, the more of a stud you are when you hit 10th level.

Agreed.  That's the hero's journey and hits many psychological buttons.  I prefer the modern democratized version where you don't need to be the son of a god or king to be a hero, but the journey is very much the same.  Maybe its just me, but I enjoy more that which I have to struggle to achieve than that which is handed to me.

QuoteThere is no cake.

The cake is a lie.
The cake is a lie.
The cake is a lie.
The cake is a lie.
The cake is a lie.

Quote from: SeanchaiYeah. If you're going to embarass yourself by posting pictures of crap in a thread a la TBP, at least post something cool...

Seanchai

(http://is1.okcupid.com/users/410/202/4102022445444324283/mt156454367.jpg)

So, now that this site has officially jumped over the shark and dove straight down into image macro hell, where's everyone going to post to now?

Quote from: J ArcaneSo, now that this site has officially jumped over the shark and dove straight down into image macro hell, where's everyone going to post to now?

In the snow, in nice yellow letters...

Quote from: J ArcaneSo, now that this site has officially jumped over the shark and dove straight down into image macro hell, where's everyone going to post to now?

Don't worry, it's not the site. Mostly just this thread. Those threads that are having rational discussions which don't require one side to declare half the gaming population unable to remember what kinds of games they played are still trundling along quite well. :)

Or don't believe that a stated preference is possible - to the point of accusing someone of "sell[ing] that shit."

Quote from: SpikeSee, you are making some weird assumptions here.

First of all, I never played modules, and I didn't get into D&D any later than you did developmentally. So trying to shape this as some weird map vs. story bullshit doesn't fly with me. I'm not there to tell a story any more than anyone else is. I'm there to be a badass with a sword or what have you.

Secondly: I believe that a grown man in the prime of his youth (that is to say 16-20, 1st level high school student character territory) should be able, PARTICULARLY with weapons and armor be able to face down a single angry wolf.  Hell, I'm confident that when I was 18 you could toss me into a pit naked with a lone angry wolf and I'd come out the winner. Maybe bleeding quite a bit and just as pissed at you as the wolf was at me, but the winner.

So the idea that at any time  ANY TIME in your adult life, particularly if you plan on being an adventurer of some sort, you could not seriously challenge a single wild animal that is half your body weight in a fair fight, much less an unfair fight (you know, having weapons and shit), you need to go back and continue to be food for the morlocks you pansy peice of shit.

Then again, my ancestors tell tales of children killing bears with flintlocks to protect themselves or their siblings.  A bear is quite a bit nastier than a wolf.

CHILDREN.

And you want 'adventurers' to struggle to bring down a wolf in a group?

Not buying it.

Sell that shit to someone else.

I'm sorry you feel that way Spike. Really, I am. I get what you're saying. And you make a good argument for your style preference. But it's just that - a preference.

I might not be talking about a person, or a group of people, struggling to bring down a wolf (btw, how is it that people get killed by bears?). But even if I were, who are you to say that it's not a valid choice?

I'm more and more convinced that it's not that people all play the same way, it's that everyone assumes everyone else is playing they way they play - or prefers to.

Quote from: James J SkachI might not be talking about a person, or a group of people, struggling to bring down a wolf (btw, how is it that people get killed by bears?).

Do you mean in games or in real life? In games it's because they're statted stronger than people. In real life it's because they're faster than they look, and claws backed with enough muscle that all it takes is one swipe. There's also the tendency for some fight-or-flight mecahnims to get stuck in a "Holy shit! It's a bear! What do I do?" loop.

QuoteI'm more and more convinced that it's not that people all play the same way, it's that everyone assumes everyone else is playing they way they play - or prefers to.

Projection is a powerful tool for self-validation.

Quote from: HaffrungAnd who are those people?

You know that I number you among them, so why are you being circumspect?

Seanchai

Quote from: James McMurrayDon't worry, it's not the site. Mostly just this thread. Those threads that are having rational discussions which don't require one side to declare half the gaming population unable to remember what kinds of games they played are still trundling along quite well. :)

It's not the thread or the site, but maturity level of the people posting pictures.

Let's be honest, repeatedly posting pictures of cats because you think the subject or arguments presented in the thread isn't remotely a mature response. It is, in fact, assinine and childish.

But at least you're honest. We now know this is the level of contribution we can expect from you in the future.

Seanchai

Quote from: James J SkachOr don't believe that a stated preference is possible - to the point of accusing someone of "sell[ing] that shit."

How, in the name of all that is holy, unholy, profane, divine or even Spoon, did I somehow become attached to this 'playstyles' debate in your mind? You've dogged me on it in two forums, James and I, to my mind, never once weighed in at all: for, against, or commenting from the peanut gallery! WTF man?

:confused:

Does my name look too much like someone elses?  Is there another pikachu running around sullying my posting history?  I mean, I KNOW I haven't been sleeping good, but I don't think that mean's I've started coming onto RPGsite late at night and wading into the craptacular slugfest that was the earlier portion of this thread while sleepwalking!

Let it go, man. I don't want to talk about wether or not playstyles exist.  I want to talk about the fact that a grown man in good health, regardless of his life expirences to that point should, or should not, be able to kill a wild animal that weighs some 75 lbs ,if it's well fed, by himself.

Not a 900 lb bear, though the evidence is in that YES it is POSSIBLE (not, by any means likely however) to do so.

The other James pokes fun at my Housecat rant, but seriously: If I want to play at that level I'll find a game about being a mouse, not a game where supposedly I can be a credible threat to a dragon.  

Never mind that somehow both Haffrung and John Morrow seem to think I have some agenda to tell stories ABOUT Conan and not just BE Conan at the table.   So tell me: Who the fuck is spreading all this horseshit about me? I've been posting here long enough and voluminously to not be an absolute stranger.  

Never mind, don't answer that. I'm just going to put my 'gaming stances' into my sig like I'm on some fucking dating site.

"Hi, I'm Spike. I like pretending to kill some shit with big hunks of metal. My preferred polygons are D11's, and I have never played in, or ran, a module adventure. I own the worlds largest dungeon, however, but my players got bored of being strangled to death by darkmantles.  Sometimes, when I GM, I kill players that annoy me. That's right, players. I am currently seeking conversations with other gamers that don't assume that I want a narrative flow out of my game. Pet peeves include being asked my opinion about wether or not Playstyles exist."

That ought to cover it.

Quote from: SeanchaiIt's not the thread or the site, but maturity level of the people posting pictures.

Let's be honest, repeatedly posting pictures of cats because you think the subject or arguments presented in the thread isn't remotely a mature response. It is, in fact, assinine and childish.

But at least you're honest. We now know this is the level of contribution we can expect from you in the future.

Seanchai

You never fail to amuse, although it's getting predictable. Please try to step it up a bit in the future. :D

(http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/e45fqvcdcytc2pulfdgtw2ibswpwlhty.jpg)

Quote from: James J SkachI'm more and more convinced that it's not that people all play the same way, it's that everyone assumes everyone else is playing they way they play - or prefers to.

That could be.

But if that were the case, there'd somehow have to be a disconnect between what people believe and what's objectively real.

Seanchai

Quote from: SpikeThe other James pokes fun at my Housecat rant, but seriously: If I want to play at that level I'll find a game about being a mouse, not a game where supposedly I can be a credible threat to a dragon.  

Maybe BESM (http://www.rpgshop.com/product_info.php?cPath=_1_250&products_id=10847&)?

Quote from: SeanchaiBut if that were the case, there'd somehow have to be a disconnect between what people believe and what's objectively real.

Your posts in this thread are proof of that.

Quote from: James McMurrayYou never fail to amuse...

I wish I could say you were amusing. You're not.

Something else you're not: irritated. If I let some dude on the Internet saying something bad about me get under my skin, I'd be in trouble. Sure, I was bewildered when you posted the first picture - although I obviously didn't agree with your position, you seemed reasonable - but since then, my responses aren't emotional, they're calculating...

Seanchai

Quote from: James McMurrayYour posts in this thread are proof of that.

I refuse to accept any argument from you that doesn't involve kitties.

Seanchai

Permit me to raise the level of discourse.

(http://lolpresident.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/invisiblespliff-705646.jpg)

Oh, I'm sorry. You seem to think I care about how you feel. I'm just here making myself laugh. I'm plenty amusing when viewed from this chair. :D

Now then, enough of the "look how great I am" crap, and back to the delusional rants.

(http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/boredcat-isbored.jpg)

(http://static.flickr.com/53/162929293_871dbb5217.jpg)

(http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/omgwtfknockfirst.jpg)

In before the lock!

Quote from: PeteIn before the lock!

QFT!

Quote from: J ArcaneSo, now that this site has officially jumped over the shark and dove straight down into image macro hell, where's everyone going to post to now?

Show me on the doll where keetoom pictures with captions touched you...

Since I only get the little red X instead of all of the pictures, I have to guess what they are.  

I think the thread is thusly more fun for me...

:)

Quote from: SpikeLet it go, man. I don't want to talk about wether or not playstyles exist.  I want to talk about the fact that a grown man in good health, regardless of his life expirences to that point should, or should not, be able to kill a wild animal that weighs some 75 lbs ,if it's well fed, by himself.

Not a 900 lb bear, though the evidence is in that YES it is POSSIBLE (not, by any means likely however) to do so.

The other James pokes fun at my Housecat rant, but seriously: If I want to play at that level I'll find a game about being a mouse, not a game where supposedly I can be a credible threat to a dragon.

Yeah, I think you missed the point on that point in two respects.

1-The particulars of the situations (somehow, it seems to have turned into a gladiatorial fight between a buttkicking version of you and a 75 pound wolf)

2-The fact you wouldn't have to play such a person. It's just a power scale. It's not just for heroes. It's for everybody. You decide how heroic a starting character should be. But you have room for weaker characters.

Quote from: CallousSince I only get the little red X instead of all of the pictures, I have to guess what they are.  

I think the thread is thusly more fun for me...

:)

That's odd. Are you behind a firewall at work or something similar? The pics are hosted at various humor websites, but they all want you to share the pics (most have cut-and-pastable links) so I don't know what else it might be.

Then again, if you don't like hilarious kittehs, perhaps you shouldn't investigate too deeply. :)

Not all of mine have cats. I'm all avante-garde and shit.

(http://lolpresident.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/invisiblepelvicthrust.jpg)

Edit: Better. Smaller. Improved pidgin.

Quote from: CallousSince I only get the little red X instead of all of the pictures, I have to guess what they are.  

I think the thread is thusly more fun for me...

:)

Without the pictures, a huge chunk of what's left is about everybody playing games the same way and not remembering if they used a DM screen one week ago.

That seems kind of depressing from where I stand :p

Quote from: Christmas ApeNot all of mine have cats. I'm all avante-garde and shit.

(http://lolpresident.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/invisiblepelvicthrust.jpg)

Edit: Better. Smaller. Improved pidgin.

Take a Laugh Point, Christmas Ape...

Quote from: Consonant DudeWithout the pictures, a huge chunk of what's left is about everybody playing games the same way and not remembering if they used a DM screen one week ago.

That seems kind of depressing from where I stand :p

(http://lolthulhu.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/pinkfreud-ftaghnyet.jpg)

Quote from: Consonant DudeYeah, I think you missed the point on that point in two respects.

1-The particulars of the situations (somehow, it seems to have turned into a gladiatorial fight between a buttkicking version of you and a 75 pound wolf)

2-The fact you wouldn't have to play such a person. It's just a power scale. It's not just for heroes. It's for everybody. You decide how heroic a starting character should be. But you have room for weaker characters.

Verily, I am the professional wolf fighter at the local Wolf Haven...

Wanna see my scars?

Its not me, man: Its humanity. Of all of natures creatures that should be feared, the wolf is pretty damn low on the list, barely qualifying in metaphor. I would never suggest a pack of wolves is the same as a lone wolf, but give the choice between wrasslin' a wolf for dinner and doing the same to a wild boar, a bear, a tiger... what have you, the wolf gets added to the plate, buttkicking mythic me or ordinary everyday me who knows who sits where on the 'dangerous' scale. Those other animals? Them I let have whatever dinner is available as long is it ain't me. If it is me, I can only hope that my heroicly fearless demise is somehow worth points in the afterlife vs the guy that dies cowering in the corner.   Maybe I'll get lucky and be like the old dude with the pocketknife who took out the bear (awesome story, and I'm so glad I didn't get it second hand, I'da never believed it that way...).

Wolves aren't feared by farmers and tillers of the soil, they are hated because they kill livestock and MAYBE stray children... if any are around during a really bad winter.  

To bring it back to your earlier post the problem is both the housecat and the 1st level dude. Until your default starting scale can accomodate both without making a mockery of the human species, it is going to seriously violate my suspension of disbelief.  I don't care how heroic your heroic scale is, I still want 'people' to be at least as tough as real people.  I want the ordinary part of the scale to match up with the ordinary, not the 'wet toilet tissue'.

Quote from: SpikeIts not me, man: Its humanity. Of all of natures creatures that should be feared, the wolf is pretty damn low on the list, barely qualifying in metaphor.

At this point it's kinda irrelevant, but I'll still clarify anyway. What I mean is that I didn't picture my wolf quite as a 20th century, Earthly creature. I pictured it as a fantasy one. A more impressive beast and one that would be particularly cunning. It's a scenario I use to run often when I was younger (the 365th variation on Jaws, really) and never got any complaint. The adventure was far from being a straightforward fight, BTW. More of a cat and mouse game and very fun.

As for real life wolves, I think you are shortselling them a bit.  

Quote from: SpikeTo bring it back to your earlier post the problem is both the housecat and the 1st level dude. Until your default starting scale can accomodate both without making a mockery of the human species, it is going to seriously violate my suspension of disbelief.

That was the idea of the scale. An attempt to make heroes more potent and fix the cat problem. IMO, it does go a long way to addressing the problem if the first level character isn't a dungeon-delving hero because it gives you room as DM to have weaker beasties, dependants, etc...

Granted, you have to understand this is a quick suggestion. I didn't spend hours working the scale and the minutia. My problem is that D&D has a nice linear progression (1 level, 2 levels, 3 levels) with which you can smoothly add stuff. For instance, 3 level = 3 Hit Dice. But if you start a hero at first level, then everything less powerful than him has to be compressed in half hit die and tiny fractions.

If a 1st level character is a young, capable adventurer, all of a sudden, you don't have much room to differenciate between a healthy peasant, an old wisewoman, a poodle and a house cat.

I think we both want the same thing: a heroic game. We're just not agreeing on how to achieve this, which is cool :)

Quote from: Consonant DudeAt this point it's kinda irrelevant, but I'll still clarify anyway. What I mean is that I didn't picture my wolf quite as a 20th century, Earthly creature. I pictured it as a fantasy one. A more impressive beast and one that would be particularly cunning. It's a scenario I use to run often when I was younger (the 365th variation on Jaws, really) and never got any complaint. The adventure was far from being a straightforward fight, BTW. More of a cat and mouse game and very fun.

Well, if you are talking DIRE wolves, well, yeah. But really, those are more like bears that run a lot and hit the gym three days a week. :eek:

Quote from: CDAs for real life wolves, I think you are shortselling them a bit.

I didn't bring up 'Wolf Haven' off the top of my head. One nice thing (the only nice thing??) about living in hippie-land (that is the pacific northwest...) is that you get those damn conservationists occasionally doing cool things like running...wolf havens.

Yeah, a wolf is gonna break my arm, or my leg...whatever it gets it's jaws on. Yeah, it's gonna suck. But I am bigger and, like all humans, I cheat.  Now, maybe my 90 lb cousin might be in serious trouble, but then again... she's human, she can cheat too. Then again, shes one of those smart-sickly sorts that make a great cliche'd wizard, so even at first level she'd probably blast it. If this were a game.  

Quote from: CDThat was the idea of the scale. An attempt to make heroes more potent and fix the cat problem. IMO, it does go a long way to addressing the problem if the first level character isn't a dungeon-delving hero because it gives you room as DM to have weaker beasties, dependants, etc...

Granted, you have to understand this is a quick suggestion. I didn't spend hours working the scale and the minutia. My problem is that D&D has a nice linear progression (1 level, 2 levels, 3 levels) with which you can smoothly add stuff. For instance, 3 level = 3 Hit Dice. But if you start a hero at first level, then everything less powerful than him has to be compressed in half hit die and tiny fractions.

If a 1st level character is a young, capable adventurer, all of a sudden, you don't have much room to differenciate between a healthy peasant, an old wisewoman, a poodle and a house cat.

I think we both want the same thing: a heroic game. We're just not agreeing on how to achieve this, which is cool :)

Sure you do: A healthy peasant should be able to pitchfork a wolf. An old wisewoman has a sub-par con and str score but knows better and sends the healthy peasant out to do the pitchforking, and the poodle and the housecat don't do anything like human scale damage unless possessed by demons or something.   One of those 'if it crits you THEN you take a point of damage, otherwise it just stings like a bitch' situations.  That even holds true for grandma.

Now: Given that I have cats at home (emergency rations...) if you wanted to give them, say, a trip attack, I wouldn't object.

Quote from: SpikeHow, in the name of all that is holy, unholy, profane, divine or even Spoon, did I somehow become attached to this 'playstyles' debate in your mind? You've dogged me on it in two forums, James and I, to my mind, never once weighed in at all: for, against, or commenting from the peanut gallery! WTF man?

Dogged you?  C'mon Spike, I mentioned it once in the other thread and put a wink after it as it seemed that you were one the verge of talking about things better suited to this thread.

And, honestly, I didn't "attach you" to the debate.  I'm simply responding to the things you've said here. Though you may not believe it, I'm trying to tell you that the things you are saying could easily be seen (and have been by me) as a dismissal of the way I played the game in early days.

Now you might not like that style, and that's perfectly fine by me. It's fine if you don't want a wolf to be able to challenge a human.  It's fine if you have a problem with a specific anomaly in the cat-versus-human case (one that I agree with, btw – including the trip attack comment which was hilarious due to it's truth). In your game, the wolf is unimportant - cool by me.

But you conflate the problems and, in the process, appear to be writing off a segment of players who preferred to play in a less-than-heroic manner than you. That's how you got "attached;" though, quite honestly, I didn't attach you to the debate about play styles so much as pointing out that you were ignoring the way a bunch of people played. Unless you're saying that the "super heroic"/"cinematic" was the only way people really ever played (similar to Seanchai) – in which case I can only wholeheartedly disagree wth you about that.

Quote from: SpikeLet it go, man. I don't want to talk about wether or not playstyles exist.  I want to talk about the fact that a grown man in good health, regardless of his life expirences to that point should, or should not, be able to kill a wild animal that weighs some 75 lbs ,if it's well fed, by himself.

If I were to guess, I'd agree that the odds are the former would kill the latter. I also know that there are a thousand things that could happen in the mano a canus that could lead to a not-so-friendly result. Allowing for that chance doesn't seem so crazy; but you seem to be offended by the very thought.

Quote from: SpikeNot a 900 lb bear, though the evidence is in that YES it is POSSIBLE (not, by any means likely however) to do so.

The other James pokes fun at my Housecat rant, but seriously: If I want to play at that level I'll find a game about being a mouse, not a game where supposedly I can be a credible threat to a dragon.

Well, IIRC, I didn't bring up the bear. The way I see it:

• Bear has good chance of success.
• Wolf has an outside chance if things go wrong.
• House Cat is just plain silly – and I agree with your assessment.

Quote from: SpikeThe other James pokes fun at my Housecat rant, but seriously: If I want to play at that level I'll find a game about being a mouse, not a game where supposedly I can be a credible threat to a dragon.

But, really, that's just it. I played AD&D, a lot, and I don't remember ever thinking that at 1st level I was supposed to be a credible threat to a dragon. Not at 3rd level either. Hell, at 5th Level, even when the Magic User gets the Fireball, he is not, alone, a credible threat to a Dragon (and before anyone gets nuts about it, I'm talking about an adult dragon, not something just hatched from an egg no more vicious than a house cat).

Could you play it that way? I suppose you could. It would take quite a few magic items and some house ruling – but you could do it. Hell, maybe there's a way to do it without significant changes and we just never sought it out. And I'm not saying you didn't play AD&D, or that anyone else who thinks in the same "super heroic" terms didn't play it, and have fun with it; or that it's not a perfectly valid preference.

Quote from: SpikeNever mind that somehow both Haffrung and John Morrow seem to think I have some agenda to tell stories ABOUT Conan and not just BE Conan at the table.   So tell me: Who the fuck is spreading all this horseshit about me? I've been posting here long enough and voluminously to not be an absolute stranger.

Well, I won't fight their battles. I'm not sure how the Story thing got into your other thread – it's not the concern I had about what you were saying. And I do know you, which is why the path in this thread was quite surprising and why I said "I'm sorry you feel that way."  It really seems you're saying to play a gritty game with death ever-present is not a valid preference - and that surprised me. Now I could be wrong, but I'm not so sure how else to interpret this:

Quote from: SpikeThus, no matter where the game started every character was once 1st level. And, if at first level, that character was incapable of hunting and slaying a wolf alone, he was weak and pitiful and unheroic and probably had to be rescued by some NPC, possibly even NPCs that even lacked...gasp!... class levels.

No hero could bear the shame. Unless, you know, that was their who deal, being the guy that overcame being a wuss or something. But we don't talk about... Those Guys...

Except a hero that somehow barely survived the wolf encounter without NPC intervention and somehow, through perseverance, skill, and a little bit of luck, makes it to 9th Level.

Quote from: SpikeI'm just going to put my 'gaming stances' into my sig like I'm on some fucking dating site.

"Hi, I'm Spike. I like pretending to kill some shit with big hunks of metal. My preferred polygons are D11's, and I have never played in, or ran, a module adventure. I own the worlds largest dungeon, however, but my players got bored of being strangled to death by darkmantles.  Sometimes, when I GM, I kill players that annoy me. That's right, players. I am currently seeking conversations with other gamers that don't assume that I want a narrative flow out of my game. Pet peeves include being asked my opinion about wether or not Playstyles exist."

The only reason I'd need to know what "style" you played is if we were going to play together. Since most of the family I have in the great northwest I don't really interact with, you and I are unlikely to cross paths anytime soon.  After this thread, I'm doubting you would want to even if we were to cross paths...

Quote from: James J SkachI'm more and more convinced that it's not that people all play the same way, it's that everyone assumes everyone else is playing they way they play - or prefers to.

Everyone assumes that everybody else is just like them.  Not just in gaming.

People - full grown adults - get killed by pit bulls from time to time.  Smaller than wolves.

Quote from: Old GeezerPeople - full grown adults - get killed by pit bulls from time to time.  Smaller than wolves.

A college student that I met while living in Japan as part of a role-playing group was terrified of my cats.  He was from Brooklyn and apparently an old woman with a lot of cats passed away and nobody noticed for a while.  Since the cats got hungry and couldn't operate the can opener...

(Of course she was already dead at the time.)

Quote from: SpikeHow, in the name of all that is holy, unholy, profane, divine or even Spoon, did I somehow become attached to this 'playstyles' debate in your mind? You've dogged me on it in two forums, James and I, to my mind, never once weighed in at all: for, against, or commenting from the peanut gallery! WTF man?

I wasn't trying to dog you.  But if you want to understand why you've gotten attached to the "playstyles" debate, it's because you've been tossing out blanket claims that just don't ring true to people who have different ideas of about what RPGs are about than you do.  Once you start making claims about what role-playing games are like or mean to people, you've waded into the style theory pool, whether you know you've done it or not.

Quote from: James McMurrayI'm just here making myself laugh.

Clearly that isn't the case.  

Seanchai

You're right. I forgot about the other people I was making laugh. Sorry bout dat. :D

Quote from: James McMurrayYou're right. I forgot about the other people I was making laugh. Sorry bout dat. :D

I doubt anyone laughed at the pictures. They're just not clever.

And it's clearly not about amusement. Something about my argument made you angry or upset enough to find Photoshop-ped pictures of cats and post them time and time again to the thread.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiI doubt anyone laughed at the pictures. They're just not clever.

And it's clearly not about amusement. Something about my argument made you angry or upset enough to find Photoshop-ped pictures of cats and post them time and time again to the thread.

Seanchai

(http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x105/john_d_corr/Jaccuse.jpg)

Quote from: Christmas Ape(http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x105/john_d_corr/Jaccuse.jpg)

So what upset you about the thread? The idea that play styles don't exist, that humans are fallible, or my refusal to take self-reported differences in play as evidence?

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiSo what upset you about the thread? The idea that play styles don't exist, that humans are fallible, or my refusal to take self-reported differences in play as evidence?

Seanchai

That it's taking away valuable time from boning your sister.

For fuck's sake, man, haven't you figured out I'm just here for my own amusement yet? I don't give a shit what pseudo-insight you want to rub your crotch in public about. Ape does what Ape wants, Ape posts how Ape likes, and Ape games how Ape enjoys gaming.

(http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/9130/lolcatrenderer2aspxtopaqs7.jpg)

Quote from: SeanchaiI doubt anyone laughed at the pictures. They're just not clever.

And it's clearly not about amusement. Something about my argument made you angry or upset enough to find Photoshop-ped pictures of cats and post them time and time again to the thread.

Seanchai

If anyone wanted proof that you weren't actually reading the thread, just reposting your opinion hoping against hope that someone will fall for it, there it is. Several people have laughed at them, and posted about it in the thread.

Unless they were delusional liars who only thought it had amused them. :)

Besides, I find photoshopped cats because they're funny. I post them in the thread because they're funny. I laugh at you because you're funny. Ain't life a hoot? :D

This just in, satellite imagery from Seanchai's mom's basement:

(http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/lolcats-funny-picture-lalalalala.jpg)

Funny. I always pictured him as fatter. :haw:

Quote from: Christmas ApeThat it's taking away valuable time from boning your sister.

For fuck's sake, man, haven't you figured out I'm just here for my own amusement yet? I don't give a shit what pseudo-insight you want to rub your crotch in public about. Ape does what Ape wants, Ape posts how Ape likes, and Ape games how Ape enjoys gaming.

(http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/invishighfive.jpg)

This meme sucks.
Don´t know where it came from, don´t want to know.

But it´s lame.

Oi.

(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w312/ardiskaya/drink.jpg)

Quote from: SettembriniThis meme sucks.
Don´t know where it came from, don´t want to know.

But it´s lame.

You're not doing it right. I think what you meant to say was

(http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/robinamused.jpg)

Y'all can't stop Caturday. It's like AIDS and Ebola holding hands while the common cold gives them a ride. It goes where it wants.

Bend over and take it like a man.



Christ, am I drunk?

Quote from: Christmas ApeY'all can't stop Caturday. It's like AIDS and Ebola holding hands while the common cold gives them a ride. It goes where it wants.

Bend over and take it like a man.



Christ, am I drunk?

REPORTED!

Quote from: Christmas ApeY'all can't stop Caturday. It's like AIDS and Ebola holding hands while the common cold gives them a ride. It goes where it wants.

Bend over and take it like a man.



Christ, am I drunk?

Like it take you being drunk to have you bend over and take it like....oh wait...this isn't a private message...

Quote from: James J SkachLike it take you being drunk to have you bend over and take it like....oh wait...this isn't a private message...

DOUBLEPLUS REPORTED, FTW!!

Excuse me, but I think you gentlemen are lost. This (http://forum.rpg.net/forumdisplay.php?f=4) is the place you're looking for.

Quote from: droogExcuse me, but I think you gentlemen are lost. This (http://forum.rpg.net/forumdisplay.php?f=4) is the place you're looking for.

Looks like someone could use some positive vibes...

Quote from: droogExcuse me, but I think you gentlemen are lost. This (http://forum.rpg.net/forumdisplay.php?f=4) is the place you're looking for.

(http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa312/windinthewires__/lolcat.jpg)

Mango tea, anybody?

Quote from: Christmas ApeY'all can't stop Caturday. It's like AIDS and Ebola holding hands while the common cold gives them a ride. It goes where it wants.

Bend over and take it like a man.

(http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/hey-hey-hey-jus-wha-u-plan-on-doin-bak-der.jpg)

This thread has improved quite a bit.

-

Quote from: James McMurrayUnless they were delusional liars who only thought it had amused them.

It's commentary like this that convinces me the thread upsets rather than amuses you. Schemas, stated versus revealed preferences, et al., are hardly new. Many people discuss and research them. But you turn simple statements of fact about the way in which our minds work into attacks on people, then attack your strawmen. There's something the thread that makes you go to all that work.

Seanchai

Quote from: Christmas ApeFor fuck's sake, man, haven't you figured out I'm just here for my own amusement yet?

But what's amusing about it? You don't seem amused. Your response doesn't seem like an amused response. While I wouldn't act on it, I am genuinely curious as to what's caused your nerd rage.

Seanchai

You.  And I'm not convinced it's "rage" as such.

(http://img61.imageshack.us/img61/226/cat24jy.jpg)

!i!

Quote from: SeanchaiBut what's amusing about it?

Your pseudo-analytical quackery in both responses to me?

QuoteYou don't seem amused. Your response doesn't seem like an amused response.

Well, you've proven yourself pretty obtuse so far in this thread, so I'm not shocked you're missing the point.

QuoteWhile I wouldn't act on it, I am genuinely curious as to what's caused your 'nerd rage'/open mockery of the idea I have anything to say of value.

Seanchai

Well, now that that's tidied up, is it any clearer?

I don't engage seriously with people telling me all cats are female, all dogs are male, and they mate together to produce mixed litters either.

And Ian, you're doing it wrong. Caturday was yesterday.

Welcome to Bunday.
(http://diveintomark.org/public/2006/07/you-make-bunny-cry.jpg)

(http://mine.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/YouvebeenOVE128423045189146250.jpg)

I never thought Seanchai could get this.

Quote from: SeanchaiIt's commentary like this that convinces me the thread upsets rather than amuses you. Schemas, stated versus revealed preferences, et al., are hardly new. Many people discuss and research them. But you turn simple statements of fact about the way in which our minds work into attacks on people, then attack your strawmen. There's something the thread that makes you go to all that work.

Seanchai

I guess it's lucky for me that your belief structure does not define my reality. :)

I'm not doubting the existence of schemas, the fallibility of the human race, or the possibility of a disconnect between memory and experience. Where you fall off the deep end is when you claim that the 1000s of reported play experiences are all mistaken, except the ones that play like you do. "Everyone is just like me, and if they say they aren't they're mistaken" is a joke and will be laughed at. Anyone who repeatedly claims it is likewise a joke and will be laughed at.

Now then, did somebody say Bunday?

(http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/attack.jpg)

Quote from: Christmas ApeAnd Ian, you're doing it wrong. Caturday was yesterday.

I am filled with shame.  However, I think I can meet you halfway.

(http://lolbunniez.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/kma.jpg)

And it's strangely à propos to the thread.

!i!

Quote from: Christmas ApeI don't engage seriously with people telling me all cats are female, all dogs are male, and they mate together to produce mixed litters either.

But you do engage with them. Thus you must get something out of your interaction. Since you could make fun of them without interacting with them or could choose not to react at all, but you spend time and effort instead. I can only imagine there are easier ways to amuse yourself, so that leaves something else.

What is that something else? Anger? Frustration?

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiWhat is that something else? Anger? Frustration?

Plainly he hates his father and wants to possess his mother.

(http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f204/hedonisticpleasureseeker/animals/guineapigs.jpg)

Honestly, this is embarrassing.  Stop trying to needle people with half-baked, amateur psychology.  Nobody's pointing out that your passive-aggressive posts are an outgrowth of your adult enueresis.

!i!

Quote from: James McMurrayWhere you fall off the deep end is when you claim that the 1000s of reported play experiences are all mistaken, except the ones that play like you do.

Except there aren't thousands of reported play experiences. In a thread that's become about differences between play styles, you've only got a handful of such reports.

But let's say you could get 5,000 codified, organized reports. Let's also say that WotC is fairly close with it's assesment of there being 4,500,000 RPG players out there. That would be .001 percent of players reporting a difference in play styles.

Let's make another supposition, however. Let's suppose that instead of just asking, "Do you play differently than others?," we came up with a definition of play style, defined the various attributes that could separate one play style from another, then, instead of asking people if they were different, got them to report back on the attributes of their play. We could collate those reports to see who was using what attributes.

I'm betting when we stop asking the de facto question, "Are you special?" and focus on the attributes of play instead, the majority of the 5,000 self-reporting folks will end up basically playing the same way.

I'd also bet that if you could do this with the estimated 4,500,000 players, there wouldn't be a discussion about play styles because it would be decidedly clear that people basically play the same way.

Seanchai

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaStop trying to needle people with half-baked, amateur psychology.

Dude, stop searching for your next picture and buy yourself a clue.

Seanchai

Oh, dear.  What is this?  Anger?  Frustration?

Or maybe you really are a professional psychologist who's using his training and experience totally irresponsibly.

Boo-hoo.

!i!

Quote from: SeanchaiExcept there aren't thousands of reported play experiences. In a thread that's become about differences between play styles, you've only got a handful of such reports.

Add me as another one that thinks there are differences.

Although I'll agree that 80%+ of folks share enough in common (overlap in Robin Laws ot WOTC playstyle categories) to be said to play "the same."  
And that most common type is a combination of tactician/role-player/power gamer.  

QuoteBut let's say you could get 5,000 codified, organized reports. Let's also say that WotC is fairly close with it's assesment of there being 4,500,000 RPG players out there. That would be .001 percent of players reporting a difference in play styles.

Let's make another supposition, however. Let's suppose that instead of just asking, "Do you play differently than others?," we came up with a definition of play style, defined the various attributes that could separate one play style from another, then, instead of asking people if they were different, got them to report back on the attributes of their play. We could collate those reports to see who was using what attributes.

I'm betting when we stop asking the de facto question, "Are you special?" and focus on the attributes of play instead, the majority of the 5,000 self-reporting folks will end up basically playing the same way.

I'd also bet that if you could do this with the estimated 4,500,000 players, there wouldn't be a discussion about play styles because it would be decidedly clear that people basically play the same way.

Seanchai

You do know WOTC did this already with the largest practical sample size they could get.

Quote from: SeanchaiExcept there aren't thousands of reported play experiences. In a thread that's become about differences between play styles, you've only got a handful of such reports.

Are you claiming that the only times anyone has reported on their play experiences are in this thread?

QuoteBut let's say you could get 5,000 codified, organized reports. Let's also say that WotC is fairly close with it's assesment of there being 4,500,000 RPG players out there. That would be .001 percent of players reporting a difference in play styles.

So you're admitting that different playstyles exist?

QuoteLet's make another supposition, however. Let's suppose that instead of just asking, "Do you play differently than others?," we came up with a definition of play style, defined the various attributes that could separate one play style from another, then, instead of asking people if they were different, got them to report back on the attributes of their play. We could collate those reports to see who was using what attributes.

People have tried, in this very thread, but their attempts didn't match your preconceptions, so you ignored or denied their validity. Your turn.

QuoteI'm betting when we stop asking the de facto question, "Are you special?" and focus on the attributes of play instead, the majority of the 5,000 self-reporting folks will end up basically playing the same way.

I don't know about you, but I've never performed an "are you special" survey.

QuoteI'd also bet that if you could do this with the estimated 4,500,000 players, there wouldn't be a discussion about play styles because it would be decidedly clear that people basically play the same way.

Are your estimates of everyone else's play styles as reliable as your estimates of peoples' enjoyment of humorous cat pictures? Projection failed you pretty hard in that instance.

Quote from: XantherYou do know WOTC did this already with the largest practical sample size they could get.

Did they publish (or at least spend an article talking about) the results? If so, linky?

Quote from: SeanchaiBut you do engage with them. Thus you must get something out of your interaction. Since you could make fun of them without interacting with them or could choose not to react at all, but you spend time and effort instead. I can only imagine there are easier ways to amuse yourself, so that leaves something else.

What is that something else? Anger? Frustration?

Seanchai

Not really.

But please, embarrass yourself a little more.

(http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/ttokalli/kaatis/fail.jpg)

Quote from: James McMurrayDid they publish (or at least spend an article talking about) the results? If so, linky?

First thing i was able to google up was posted at TBP...

http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/wotcdemo.html (http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/wotcdemo.html)

An interesting sample of data from WOTC research...

QuoteWhen asked to describe a variety of past game experiences, the market
provided the following data:
Question: Result

Used detailed tables & charts:     76%
Included Miniatures:               56%
Used "rules light" system:         58%
Diceless:                          33%
Combat Oriented:                   86% (*)
Live Action:                       49%
House Rules:                       80%
(*) Looked at in reverse, this interesting answer tells us that 14% of the
gamers who play an RPG >have never played< a combat oriented RPG.

Only a small portion of that survey seems to be about RPGs, but there you go.

What are you doing, Ape? You're breaking the meme.

Next time try one of these:

(http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/fail.jpg)

(http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/128347587844687500fail.jpg)

(http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/funny-picture-cat-fail.jpg)

Sorry I didn't have any bunny ones handy.

Quote from: James McMurraySo you're admitting that different playstyles exist?

We've already covered this ground. Instead of discussing it, you chose to post pictures of cats.

Quote from: James McMurrayPeople have tried, in this very thread...

No, they pretty much said, "I play differently that other people do." Not only was there no unifying definition of what a play style is, but certainly no master list of attributes being cataloged.

Quote from: James McMurray...their attempts didn't match your preconceptions, so you ignored or denied their validity.

And you're different how again? Your idea that play styles exist is not based on any kind of objective proof. It's based solely on your perceptions and recollections. You're saying I cannot be right, but you're not in a position to prove that's the case.

Seanchai

Quote from: Christmas ApeNot really.

Truly. Something's driving you. Your continued posting of pictures doesn't have an air of amusement about it, it has an air of desperation. When I consider what might cause me to behave in the same way, I can only conclude it's something big and deep rooted. Again, I won't bother fixing whatever it is, but I am curious as to what it is...

Seanchai

Also there's some data about player types with a colorful chart here...

http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/gaming/BreakdownOfRPGPlayers.html (http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/gaming/BreakdownOfRPGPlayers.html)

Basically it breaks down players into thinkers, power gamers, storytellers, and character actors.

Quote from: SeanchaiTruly. Something's driving you. Your continued posting of pictures doesn't have an air of amusement about it, it has an air of desperation. When I consider what might cause me to behave in the same way, I can only conclude it's something big and deep rooted. Again, I won't bother fixing whatever it is, but I am curious as to what it is...

Seanchai

Let me help you, sparkles.

You're like a nest full of retarded bees. I jab the nest with a lolcat and a giant fucking swarm of stupid pours out, shits its pants, and asks me for a juice box. I wet myself laughing, you play Dr. Fraud, and everybody wins except the starving African kids.

(http://www.deepjiveinterests.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/lolcat1.jpg)

Quote from: SeanchaiNo, they pretty much said, "I play differently that other people do." Not only was there no unifying definition of what a play style is, but certainly no master list of attributes being cataloged.

We must be reading different internets. You see "I play differently" and I see "death should ha[[en often vs. death should never happen," "intercharacter relations should be rolled vs. intercharacter relations should be roleplayed," "I play superheroes vs. I only want to play the underdog," etc.

If you honestly have never seen such blatantly different play styles discussed, feel free to browse around here (http://www.kenzerco.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?s=&f=37&page=1&pp=20&sort=lastpost&order=desc&daysprune=-1). It's the "Face Off" forum at the Kenzer and Co. boards. It has about 150 threads discussing different playstyles.

And now, because I just gotsta. . .

(http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/moomanbrimley1.jpg)

Quote from: SgtSpaceWizardAlso there's some data about player types with a colorful chart here...

http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/gaming/BreakdownOfRPGPlayers.html (http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/gaming/BreakdownOfRPGPlayers.html)

Basically it breaks down players into thinkers, power gamers, storytellers, and character actors.

Thanks for that (and the previous post as well). Interesting stuff!

I like dogs better.

Are there no loldogs?

Quote from: Pierce InverarityI like dogs better.

Are there no loldogs?

(http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/loldog-funny-pictures-you-got-it-babe.jpg)

(http://lolpuppy.com/cute-puppy/carriedaway.gif)

I stand corrected.

It's time, Frodo.

Quote from: SgtSpaceWizardFirst thing i was able to google up was posted at TBP...

http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/wotcdemo.html (http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/wotcdemo.html)

An interesting sample of data from WOTC research...



Only a small portion of that survey seems to be about RPGs, but there you go.

Thanks SgtSpaceWizard, that's the stuff/survey I'm referring to.  

At least to me, from looking at the questions, I don't take "storyteller" to mean player narrative control but rather a desire to have the adventures make a cool story (either by the strung together actions or pre-planned plots) and a willingness to accept some "railroading" if the story you can tell afterwards is cool.

Quote from: SgtSpaceWizardAlso there's some data about player types with a colorful chart here...

http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/gaming/BreakdownOfRPGPlayers.html (http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/gaming/BreakdownOfRPGPlayers.html)

Basically it breaks down players into thinkers, power gamers, storytellers, and character actors.

Validating the article written by the late Glenn Blacow in 1980. (http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/theory/models/blacow.html)

Quote from: Old GeezerValidating the article written by the late Glenn Blacow in 1980. (http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/theory/models/blacow.html)

Ah, good link. I notice Greg Costikyan is mentioned as writing an article for DW along the same lines (elaborating on Blacow's article I presume). I know the first place I saw someone attempt to categorise players in such a fashion was in the Price of Freedom rules, a Costikyan designed game.

In any case, it seems the OP has not seen any of this WOTC research data for one reason or another.

Sorry to interrupt the cat and bunny pics. As you were.   :D

Quote from: Old GeezerValidating the article written by the late Glenn Blacow in 1980. (http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/theory/models/blacow.html)

There is also a an article on role-playing theory terminology here (http://www.rpg.net/oracle/essays/vocabulary.html) written by Phil Masters for Interactive Fantasy in the mid-90s.  Sprinkled throughout are terms for various play styles (many used by Aaron Allston) that were apparently based on discussions in the Alarums & Excursions APA.

Quote from: Christmas ApeYou're like a nest full of retarded bees.

Personal attacks. In a thread you say amuses you. Clearly, clearly, something is upsetting you. Won't you please just tell us what it is so we can help you?

Seanchai

Quote from: James McMurrayIf you honestly have never seen such blatantly different play styles discussed, feel free to browse around here (http://www.kenzerco.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?s=&f=37&page=1&pp=20&sort=lastpost&order=desc&daysprune=-1).

Let me guess, it's all self-reported, right?

Two things: People will state their behavior is different than it actually is, particularly if there are social ramifications or negatives attached to their actual behavior.

Also, a number of people believing something is true doesn't make it so. Millions believing in ghosts isn't objective proof that they exists, it's only proof that people believe they exist.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiLet me guess, it's all self-reported, right?

Two things: People will state their behavior is different than it actually is, particularly if there are social ramifications or negatives attached to their actual behavior.

Also, a number of people believing something is true doesn't make it so. Millions believing in ghosts isn't objective proof that they exists, it's only proof that people believe they exist.

Seanchai

So just to be clear, you only believe that things exist after exhaustive scientific studies by third party observers?  That must make life very difficult.

(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1398/1245250894_52b9fd1edf.jpg)

Quote from: SeanchaiLet me guess, it's all self-reported, right?

Is this any worse evidence than your conclusions drawn from what?  Your own self-reported experience or observations of a limited number of games?   Do not the other thread posters observations of games they palyed in count for as much?

QuoteTwo things: People will state their behavior is different than it actually is, particularly if there are social ramifications or negatives attached to their actual behavior.

The same applies to the description of others behaivor by third party observers.   What are these negative social ramifications you speak of in a survey of RPG likes?  It's not like you are asking them to admit to illegal or morally reprehenisble behaivor.  Rather its just asking what do you like in an RPG.  I can't see a reasonable basis to believe people would be anything but honest on this one unless what they like borders on the perverse.

In addition, you are skewing the original poll which was  focused on what you like or want (important to you , not important to you, etc.) than how you actually played.  So the whole interpretation of actual events problem does not exist in this data.  

Are you saying in the case of RPGs people are particularily prone to not know what they really want so as to make this data worthless?  All such self reporting data has cautions that come with it but it does not make it worthless data especially when a statistically significant enough answers are garnered.  Or, again, in a situation where you are asking people what they like and there is no moral, legal, or economic reason for them to lie or molify there responses.

QuoteAlso, a number of people believing something is true doesn't make it so. Millions believing in ghosts isn't objective proof that they exists, it's only proof that people believe they exist. Seanchai

No it doesn't, but neither does your belief on the playstyle debate supported by the same level or less of evidence counter the belief in playstyle preferences held by others.    

The believers in ghost analogy is also inapplicable here (besides using the word belief).  This is not a poll about object reality but what people like and don't like in a game.  Those who like X in a game could reasonably be said to prefer a different play style than those who hate X in a game.   If I hate role-playing for example, a game where the GM want's me to role-play tipping the stable boy before I mount my horse is going to be something I don't like.  There is nothing delusional in that or requiring objective proof.  It's what I like and I know it, end of story.

Not that I'm that extreme, most are not, most probably prefer a mix; but that doesn't mean there is no such thing as different preferences in playstyle.

That was the whole point of the WotC poll, to find out what most people wanted and give it to them.  Something TSR never seemed to care about.

Quote from: SeanchaiLet me guess, it's all self-reported, right?

Two things: People will state their behavior is different than it actually is, particularly if there are social ramifications or negatives attached to their actual behavior.

Interesting. so what you're saying is that if someone reports something different from what you believe in, they're lying. How very religious of you.

QuoteAlso, a number of people believing something is true doesn't make it so. Millions believing in ghosts isn't objective proof that they exists, it's only proof that people believe they exist.

Seanchai

We're not talking about beliefs. We're talking about reported play experiences firmly rooted in the real world. No ghosts and boogeymen involved.

Quote from: jgantsSo just to be clear, you only believe that things exist after exhaustive scientific studies by third party observers?  That must make life very difficult.

"I've been to The Atlantic Paranormal Society conferences. Ask and you'll get a sea of hands of people who claim to have seen a ghost. They're earnest. They remember it. A lot of make the same claims. I obviously believe in ghost."

Just to be clear, what I believe is that my belief in ghost - and the belief of quite a number of other people - does not constitute proof.

Seanchai

Quote from: James McMurrayInteresting. so what you're saying is that if someone reports something different from what you believe in, they're lying. How very religious of you.

No, that's your strawman.

Quote from: James McMurrayWe're not talking about beliefs.

Sure we are. You're forwarding a number of people's experiences as true without having witnessed them yourself. Moreover, what people believe and what people believe about themselves color their perceptions and recollection of events. It's true in general and it's true when it comes to how people play RPGs.

Quote from: James McMurrayWe're talking about reported play experiences firmly rooted in the real world. No ghosts and boogeymen involved.

The people who investigate hauntings would say that they're experiences are firmly-rooted in the real world as well. They'll tell you that, beyond a doubt, they have repeatedly seen ghosts or experienced paranormal activity.

You're saying that when a number of people report something, it has to be true. So, again, how about ghost? Miracles? Alien abductions, bigfoot, psychic abilities, and the Loch Ness Monster?

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiPersonal attacks. In a thread you say amuses you. Clearly, clearly, something is upsetting you. Won't you please just tell us what it is so we can help you?

Seanchai

(http://9.content.collegehumor.com/d1/ch6/f/2/collegehumor.c19b4cff958788788b2040e2a6a81e2d.jpg)

Quote from: XantherThe same applies to the description of others behaivor by third party observers.  

Of course. But a third party observer would hopefully be trained to weed out his or her preconceptions, etc., and, as a non-participant, wouldn't be subject to some of the pressures the participants are.

Quote from: XantherWhat are these negative social ramifications you speak of in a survey of RPG likes?

Not in a survey per se, but more in terms of stated versus revealed preferences.

A good example of what I'm talking would be ROLL-playing versus ROLE-playing. People start to talk about how they game and some dumbass will pop up with a comment about how their group ROLE-plays instead of ROLL-plays.

Quote from: XantherIn addition, you are skewing the original poll which was  focused on what you like or want (important to you , not important to you, etc.) than how you actually played.  So the whole interpretation of actual events problem does not exist in this data.  

To what poll are you refering?  

Quote from: XantherAre you saying in the case of RPGs people are particularily prone to not know what they really want so as to make this data worthless?

I'm not interested in preferences at all. I don't disagree that people have different stated preferences.

Quote from: XantherThis is not a poll about object reality but what people like and don't like in a game.

Again, what poll are you refering to? The discussion is about whether or not play styles exist. There hasn't been a poll that I'm aware of, just people reporting their behavior in this thread and pointing to the reports of behavior elsewhere...

Seanchai

Quote from: Christmas Ape(http://9.content.collegehumor.com/d1/ch6/f/2/collegehumor.c19b4cff958788788b2040e2a6a81e2d.jpg)

And now you're speechless, afraid your words will betray your inner emotions. Please, Ape, open up to us. We're all in this together.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiNo, that's your strawman.

You said

QuotePeople will state their behavior is different than it actually is, particularly if there are social ramifications or negatives attached to their actual behavior.

If that's not saying that people are either a) not telling the truth, or b) delusional, what is it saying?

QuoteThe people who investigate hauntings would say that they're experiences are firmly-rooted in the real world as well. They'll tell you that, beyond a doubt, they have repeatedly seen ghosts or experienced paranormal activity.

Sorry, your need to use the word "paranormal" pretty much negates any claims of "the real world."

QuoteYou're saying that when a number of people report something, it has to be true.

No. That's your strawman.

Quote from: SeanchaiTo what poll are you refering?  

Yet more proof you're not actually reading the thread. :D

Inaccurate self-image is hardly a difficult or controversial concept.  It's fascinating to me how determined some people are to disbelieve it's existence though.

Clearly you people need to get out more.  Start hanging around in bars a little more often or something.  Get in a few fights with a guy who thinks he's way tougher than he actually is, bang a cute chick who's convinced she's ugly, and point and laugh at a few wannabe gangstas.  

fuck people, it's not that difficult a concept to grasp for anyone who doesn't live in their mother's basement.

We're not talking about inaccurate self image, we're talking about "what did I do last Friday?" Most gamers can be trusted to know whether they played 20th level epic badasses or 1st level "make 8 characters and hope one survives". Likewise they'll know if their last character's death was permanent or just need a resurrection band-aid. Or any of the other playstyle differences that have been pointed to in this thread.

Saying "every first person report is useless because we can't trust gamers to know what they did last weekend" smacks of having gotten over your head in an internet debate and being too afraid to admit it. Well, that or just being a retard.

Quote from: J ArcaneInaccurate self-image is hardly a difficult or controversial concept.  It's fascinating to me how determined some people are to disbelieve it's existence though.

Clearly you people need to get out more.  Start hanging around in bars a little more often or something.  Get in a few fights with a guy who thinks he's way tougher than he actually is, bang a cute chick who's convinced she's ugly, and point and laugh at a few wannabe gangstas.  

fuck people, it's not that difficult a concept to grasp for anyone who doesn't live in their mother's basement.

I suppose your self-image as a "man of the world" telling all the nerds on the gaming forum to get a life is an entirely accurate one? :haw:

I brought up playing with a GM screen or not as a an objective possiblity of differing playstyles and it was compared to chasing the Loch Ness Monster or some such nonsense. That's not a particularly difficult concept to grasp either. Do you not believe that some groups play with miniatures and some don't without a neutral party telling you so (one of the differences between groups according to WOTC data)? I mean seriously, WTF?

Honestly, if people are lying about the way they play RPGs to impress some nerds they don't know then they aren't thinking big enough. At least make up some lies that make you seem cool. Like stories about getting in bar fights and having sex with girls. Sound familiar?

Dude, I once got in a bar fight while having sex with a girl! No wait, two girls! And they were sexy!

(http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/chek-out-mah-guns-pyow-pyow.jpg)

"Red Leader, Red Leader, this is Red Eight.  Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, repeat, Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over?"

Quote from: James McMurrayDude, I once got in a bar fight while having sex with a girl! No wait, two girls! And they were sexy!

who are you, koltar?

Quote from: beeberwho are you, koltar?

Nope. We used real world physics instead of GURPs to resolve the fight.

Quote from: James McMurrayNope. We used real world physics instead of GURPs to resolve the fight.

But...

But...


GURPS is teh moast.realistic.Game.Evah!

Quote from: Old Geezer"Red Leader, Red Leader, this is Red Eight.  Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, repeat, Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over?"

Word, QFT and all that jazz.

Quote from: James McMurrayNope. We used real world physics instead of GURPs to resolve the fight.

Okay, smarty-pants, but which system did you use to resolve the sex?

!i!

Mah harblls.

I remember this one chick had the nicest

(http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/invisiblebreasts1.jpg)

Quote from: Seanchai...Again, what poll are you refering to? The discussion is about whether or not play styles exist. There hasn't been a poll that I'm aware of, just people reporting their behavior in this thread and pointing to the reports of behavior elsewhere...

Seanchai

The poll/survey/study whatever you wish to call it that WotC conducted to find out what people liked and wanted in RPGs.  Specifically with the goal of giving it to them in D&D 3rd edition.

It may be a simple different use of terms when I say playstyle and you say playstyle.  

Simply put, I have met people who do not like to role-play as that term is described in the cited threads, that is interacting with the setting in character and/or ways that are other than just kill it an take its stuff.  I've met others who despise combat and prefer to talk to the barkeep about the harvest.  

I'm not saying that I've found these extremes (to me) to be common but they exist.  And I would say these two people prefer different styles of play, and hence that there are different playstyles as I would define it.  They are not misreporting what they like or have failed to be exposed to the other (nor have others not tried to mellow or convert them) it's just what they like.  I really don't see how you can argue with that.

I'll go to another extreme, which again I'm not saying is common, but folks certainly exist in each camp.   Compare the element of chance vs. diceless no element of chance games.   Some would prefer that there be no dice, that the system is about bidding and spending points.  Others will hate this lack of an element of chance.  Sure they may want to be able to influence the odds, but they still want to roll dice and hope for a greater success and avoidance of failure.  I would call these preferences also differences in playstyle.  Again pure preference, how can you tell one of these people that how they like to play (dice or non-dice) is basically the same as the other?

Look, it's really very simple. No need to argue with Seanchai, but since a few of you are still taking him seriously, here's the way to put it.

Do people exaggerate their differences on the Internet? Is it possible that when I say I'm a grognardist and you say you're a narrationist, we'll find that we really play the same way when we sit down at a table together? Yes. Just like when I think of an expensive car and Richard Branson thinks of a cheap car, we might both be thinking of a Mercedes-Benz E-class.

But, is it possible that I can go from one game+group that I enjoy, to another game+group that I don't enjoy--even though the people in the second group are enjoying themselves? Absolutely, even if I otherwise like the people in the second group. It doesn't matter if "playstyles" are well-defined, fixed categories or not: fact is that not everyone enjoys the same style of gaming.

Quote from: Elliot WilenLook, it's really very simple. No need to argue with Seanchai, but since a few of you are still taking him seriously, here's the way to put it.

Do people exaggerate their differences on the Internet? Is it possible that when I say I'm a grognardist and you say you're a narrationist, we'll find that we really play the same way when we sit down at a table together? Yes. Just like when I think of an expensive car and Richard Branson thinks of a cheap car, we might both be thinking of a Mercedes-Benz E-class.

But, is it possible that I can go from one game+group that I enjoy, to another game+group that I don't enjoy--even though the people in the second group are enjoying themselves? Absolutely, even if I otherwise like the people in the second group. It doesn't matter if "playstyles" are well-defined, fixed categories or not: fact is that not everyone enjoys the same style of gaming.

I look at it this way.  I cut my teeth gaming in the Vampire years, and listened to, and played with, a lot of people who went on about "roleplaying over rollplaying" and so on and so on.  I was even one of them.

And you know what?  In all frankness we were still pretty much just getting together to kill shit for fun.  Fuck, I even played quite a few of what were, in retrospect, nothing more than dungeon crawls with different flavor text and the occasional maudlin playacting.

In fact, the vast majority of my games and groups throughout the years have largely played out pretty much the same way.  The flavor text changes, but it's still pretty much "Gang of motley characters gets together for filmsily explained reasons to go out into the wilds of Mirkwood/Altair 6/Brooklyn after dark to engage in mindless to-the-death combat with various nasties in the name of gaining ever more power/loot/saving the world."  

People talk a lot of shit about liking this or that, especially on message boards, but of all the groups I've played with, I've yet to find one that played so different that I couldn't sit down, and provided there were no social issues involved with the other players, be reasonably assured to have a good time.

Of course, I'm actually looking for fun, as opposed to validating my own imagined ideological stances too, so that probably helps a lot.  I'll try anything so long as I have fun doing it, and there's little connecting the ones I have or have not had fun at.

Quote from: J ArcanePeople talk a lot of shit about liking this or that, especially on message boards, but of all the groups I've played with, I've yet to find one that played so different that I couldn't sit down, and provided there were no social issues involved with the other players, be reasonably assured to have a good time.

It's not that hard to find examples of people talking about not having fun or having an argument over what essentially boils down to a style clash.  You can find an interesting discussion of a particular style clash incident that seemed to lead to quite a bit of animosity between two people here:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.frp.advocacy/msg/a15baa6c0e33b031?dmode=source

You'll also find examples in the complaints about railroaded games (some people actually like or even expect them, and Ken Rolston once described his adventure writing philosophy to me as the "greased rail adventure").

Quote from: J ArcaneIn fact, the vast majority of my games and groups throughout the years have largely played out pretty much the same way.  The flavor text changes, but it's still pretty much "Gang of motley characters gets together for filmsily explained reasons to go out into the wilds of Mirkwood/Altair 6/Brooklyn after dark to engage in mindless to-the-death combat with various nasties in the name of gaining ever more power/loot/saving the world."

J, believe it or not, given this you'd have hated playing in my longest running group. Our PCs needed a plausible IC reason merely to get out of bed. This may be to do with the fact that we all started gaming at the late age of 17 or 18.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityJ, believe it or not, given this you'd have hated playing in my longest running group. Our PCs needed a plausible IC reason merely to get out of bed. This may be to do with the fact that we all started gaming at the late age of 17 or 18.

Yes.  For some groups, "It's what my character would do," is the expected ideal.  For other groups, they hate that style of play because it leads to sub-optimal character choices or ruins the story that someone expects or is trying to tell.

Quote from: John MorrowYes.  For some groups, "It's what my character would do," is the expected ideal.  For other groups, they hate that style of play because it leads to sub-optimal character choices or ruins the story that someone expects or is trying to tell.

There's that ideology I was talking about.

Quote from: J ArcaneThere's that ideology I was talking about.

One man's ideology is another man's play style...

Quote from: John Morrowthe "greased rail adventure".

Oh, you dated her too?

Quote from: James McMurrayIf that's not saying that people are either a) not telling the truth, or b) delusional, what is it saying?

"Not telling the truth" implies it's a conscious decision on their part. That's usually not the case. "Delusional" implies that there is something wrong with the people doing this and, again, that's usually not the case.

These are labels you've attached to a very real, normal behavior so can avoid having to deal with it.

Quote from: James McMurraySorry, your need to use the word "paranormal" pretty much negates any claims of "the real world."

So you believe these paranormal investigators were investigating in Oz?

Quote from: James McMurrayNo. That's your strawman.

No, it's the foundation of your argument: "Look at the reports I have. We can't all be wrong."

Seanchai

Quote from: XantherIt may be a simple different use of terms when I say playstyle and you say playstyle.

Shrug. Attempts to clarify the use of the term have resulted in circular definitions and the idea that a play style is anything that affects play. Neither are useful, and, if pressed, would no doubt result in proponents rapidly withdrawing from them.

Seanchai

Quote from: James McMurrayWe're not talking about inaccurate self image, we're talking about "what did I do last Friday?" Most gamers can be trusted to know whether they played 20th level epic badasses or 1st level "make 8 characters and hope one survives". Likewise they'll know if their last character's death was permanent or just need a resurrection band-aid. Or any of the other playstyle differences that have been pointed to in this thread.

And if you ask a paranormal investigator what he did last Friday night, he'll tell you he saw a ghost.

Quote from: James McMurraySaying "every first person report is useless because we can't trust gamers to know what they did last weekend" smacks of having gotten over your head in an internet debate and being too afraid to admit it. Well, that or just being a retard.

No more so than saying, "Any activity we remember is real if enough of us believe we remember it clearly," then chickening out when it comes to other activities that many folks claim to remember clearly but that you don't personally believe in.

Seanchai

Quote from: James J SkachOne man's ideology is another man's play style...

Now the term includes ideologies as well? In all seriousness, maybe we'd get further by talking about what a play style isn't...

Seanchai

Quote from: James J SkachOne man's ideology is another man's play style...

Dude, read closer.  Look at the dichotomy he set up there.  His whole post is nothing more than the old "roleplaying vs. rollplaying" bollocks with a nicer coat of paint and less bad punning.

Quote from: J ArcaneIn fact, the vast majority of my games and groups throughout the years have largely played out pretty much the same way.  The flavor text changes, but it's still pretty much "Gang of motley characters gets together for filmsily explained reasons to go out into the wilds of Mirkwood/Altair 6/Brooklyn after dark to engage in mindless to-the-death combat with various nasties in the name of gaining ever more power/loot/saving the world."  

I'm sorry. Is there anything I can do to help?

Unless of course you're having fun, then by all means enjoy your playstyle. :)

Quote from: Seanchai"Not telling the truth" implies it's a conscious decision on their part. That's usually not the case. "Delusional" implies that there is something wrong with the people doing this and, again, that's usually not the case.

You've done a good job of explaining what your statement didn't mean. Mind telling us what it does mean?

QuoteSo you believe these paranormal investigators were investigating in Oz?

Nope. I believe there is more objectively verifiable (i.e. my eyeballs) proof for different playstyles than there are for ghosts.

QuoteNo, it's the foundation of your argument: "Look at the reports I have. We can't all be wrong."

As opposed to "look at all those playstyles, at least half of them have to be wrong." Interesting choice of debate styles. Or do you not believe those exist either? :)

Quote from: SeanchaiShrug. Attempts to clarify the use of the term have resulted in circular definitions and the idea that a play style is anything that affects play. Neither are useful, and, if pressed, would no doubt result in proponents rapidly withdrawing from them.

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.

Quote from: SeanchaiAnd if you ask a paranormal investigator what he did last Friday night, he'll tell you he saw a ghost.

And 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. I 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..

QuoteNo more so than saying, "Any activity we remember is real if enough of us believe we remember it clearly," then chickening out when it comes to other activities that many folks claim to remember clearly but that you don't personally believe in.

Who said that?

QuoteI'm sorry. Is there anything I can do to help?

I 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".

People like to go on about "playstyles" on message boards largely because for some reason, it gives them some kind of fucked up ego boost.  How the fuck the way you play a game makes you better than anyone else I'll never understand, and think it's a pretty pathetic source to look to for self-validation, but once it starts, the difference have a tendency to get mroe and more dramatically stated, until eventualyl you end up with loony cockwits like Settembrini.

Also, the fact that it's illustrative of the kind of bullshit nonsense that's passed for your side of the argument for this whole thread really, but I guess when you're on the "right" side of the TBP-style dogpile, no one cares to call you on blatant fallacies, deliberate mischaracterization, self-aggrandizement, and a whole lot of other mean words for things that people do in message board arguments that are stupid.

Quote from: J ArcaneDude, read closer.  Look at the dichotomy he set up there.  His whole post is nothing more than the old "roleplaying vs. rollplaying" bollocks with a nicer coat of paint and less bad punning.

Dude, I did.  It's actually a trichotomy:

Quote from: John MorrowYes.  For some groups, "It's what my character would do," is the expected ideal.

Immersion

Quote from: John MorrowFor other groups, they hate that style of play because it leads to sub-optimal character choices

Gamers

Quote from: John Morrowor ruins the story that someone expects or is trying to tell.

Story Builders.

There are people who roll- and role- play in all of those, to a greater or lesser extent, for sure. But they are there if you know where to look.

So really, if we combine John's Three with your Two, we're up to, what, 6 permutations, yes?

Can someone look at those six (for discussion purposes) and say "Ya know, really they are all playing the same way," and be right?  Sure, I'd say you could certainly look at it from 50,000 feet and say that. If you're at 500 feet, it might not be so easy to do. Altitude makes a difference in the observation and, therefore, conclusion.

I'm fine with a disagreement on that level (no pun intended).

Still missing the point.  The fallacy was in setting them up as opposed at all.  They aren't, which is why "RvR" is bollocks, and why his post is bollocks.

Quote from: J ArcanePeople like to go on about "playstyles" on message boards largely because for some reason, it gives them some kind of fucked up ego boost.  How the fuck the way you play a game makes you better than anyone else I'll never understand, and think it's a pretty pathetic source to look to for self-validation, but once it starts, the difference have a tendency to get mroe and more dramatically stated, until eventualyl you end up with loony cockwits like Settembrini.

Wait, are you saying that people who claim there are different play styles are either implying or explicitly saying that one is better/best?  I've yet to see that in this 400 post trollstraviganza.  Can you point it out? I certainly will admit to being wrong and absolutely agree that if the intent is to somehow prove One True Way - those people are..well..I don't agree with them.

I think, perhaps, you're misinterpreting something, or inferring motives that are not present. Again, if you can point it out, I'll admit to missing it...

Quote from: J ArcaneStill missing the point.  The fallacy was in setting them up as opposed at all.  They aren't, which is why "RvR" is bollocks, and why his post is bollocks.

Can you please, really, explain why?  You see no difference in play styles between people who loose themselves in character and make decision as if they were that character, and, say, people who are intent on creating a great story and so make decisions based on what would achieve that goal?

EDIT: and to be clear, I'm not trying to be argumentative about it, though I can see how this post might come off that way. I'm really curious as to why would wouldn't see those as different play styles.

Quote from: James J SkachSure, I'd say you could certainly look at it from 50,000 feet and say that. If you're at 500 feet, it might not be so easy to do. Altitude makes a difference in the observation and, therefore, conclusion.

Where it matters is around the table (1" above the ground as it were).

Quote from: James J SkachWait, are you saying that people who claim there are different play styles are either implying or explicitly saying that one is better/best?  I've yet to see that in this 400 post trollstraviganza.  Can you point it out? I certainly will admit to being wrong and absolutely agree that if the intent is to somehow prove One True Way - those people are..well..I don't agree with them.

I think, perhaps, you're misinterpreting something, or inferring motives that are not present. Again, if you can point it out, I'll admit to missing it...

I'm speaking mostly in generalities, as it's a common effect in such discussion, but come on, someone just "apologized" to me for daring play the way I and a rather substantial majority of the gaming population plays.  If that's not condescending shittery then I don't know what is.  

QuoteCan you please, really, explain why? You see no difference in play styles between people who loose themselves in character and make decision as if they were that character, and, say, people who are intent on creating a great story and so make decisions based on what would achieve that goal?

EDIT: and to be clear, I'm not trying to be argumentative about it, though I can see how this post might come off that way. I'm really curious as to why would wouldn't see those as different play styles.

Because 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.

You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake.

Quote from: J ArcaneThere's that ideology I was talking about.

You can call it whatever you want but it happens in actual groups and games, causes games to be not fun for people, and causes groups to implode.  Maybe you've never experienced it, but that doesn't mean that nobody has.

Quote from: Elliot WilenWhere it matters is around the table (1" above the ground as it were).

I'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...

Just because I'm overdue this week:

Housecats. Say it with me.

House.

Cats.


Oh, and Wolf Wrestling. Yeah. That too.



Focus, people.

Quote from: J ArcaneDude, read closer.  Look at the dichotomy he set up there.  His whole post is nothing more than the old "roleplaying vs. rollplaying" bollocks with a nicer coat of paint and less bad punning.

There is a reason why that dichotomy appears again and again, even among people who have never been deeply involved in a theory discussion before.  At a very basic level, it's because it's a dichotomy that people actually experience.  In fact, it's a dichotomy found in the very name of the hobby which is "role-playing" + "game".  And that you can do one without the other or one at the expense o the other represents the core of the problem that some people and groups have.

Quote from: J ArcaneI'm speaking mostly in generalities, as it's a common effect in such discussion, but come on, someone just "apologized" to me for daring play the way I and a rather substantial majority of the gaming population plays.  If that's not condescending shittery then I don't know what is.

Yeah - I can see that.  Except that he does, in the next line, say unless you're having fun - then go to it. You're probably right that a substantial majority plays the way you describe.  However, the fact is that by saying that, you essentially admit there are other play styles. I haven't said anything about the size of those groups. And while Jimmy might think his way is best (it isn't) and believe he's in the majority (I doubt it), that does not negate the fact that he plays in a manner different than yours.

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.

The first two I'll agree with.  I think you're reading the influence of those into Mr. Morrow's post and it's incorrect to do so. We'll have to agree to disagree on that.

Quote from: J ArcaneReal 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.

The 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.

Quote from: J ArcanePeople like to go on about "playstyles" on message boards largely because for some reason, it gives them some kind of fucked up ego boost.  How the fuck the way you play a game makes you better than anyone else I'll never understand, and think it's a pretty pathetic source to look to for self-validation, but once it starts, the difference have a tendency to get mroe and more dramatically stated, until eventualyl you end up with loony cockwits like Settembrini.

Yet people who go on about the underlying psychological motivations of people that they've never do that because it gives them some kind of ego boost?  And delving these imagined underlying psychological motivations isn't use to put people down?

That's a mighty nasty case of projection you've got going there.  If I'm the one with ego problems, why are you the one ranting up a storm like someone just insulted your favorite stuffed animal?

Quote from: J ArcaneAlso, the fact that it's illustrative of the kind of bullshit nonsense that's passed for your side of the argument for this whole thread really, but I guess when you're on the "right" side of the TBP-style dogpile, no one cares to call you on blatant fallacies, deliberate mischaracterization, self-aggrandizement, and a whole lot of other mean words for things that people do in message board arguments that are stupid.

Just calling something a "blatant fallacy", a "deliberate mischaracterization", "self-aggrandizement", or "stupid" doesn't mean it is.  Anyone can assert anything that they want but that doesn't make it so.  

Do you really believe that all of the people who report having bad experiences because their priorities or focus differed from one or more of the other people at the table are simply making it all up?

Quote from: J ArcaneI'm speaking mostly in generalities, as it's a common effect in such discussion, but come on, someone just "apologized" to me for daring play the way I and a rather substantial majority of the gaming population plays.  If that's not condescending shittery then I don't know what is.

So is your problem the idea that there are different styles of play or the subjective and judgmental way in which play style differences are often discussed?  

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.

Yes, they can often take place in the game game and with the same players.  But they also often don't and that can produce unpleasant experiences for both sides, especially if they think their tastes make sense and the tastes that are spoiling their fun don't.  Then we get into the nickel psychiatric analysis of "real" motives that you seem so fond of.  Telling other people why they think the way they do always helps keep a discussion civil. :rolleyes:

And if you haven't noticed, I'm the one advocating moderation of style and compromise in other threads here rather than the idea that games should be designed to cater to one pure style at the expense of others.  And I've had more than a few people criticize me for suggestion compromise as a solution to style clash problems.

Quote from: J ArcaneReal 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.

Real play, based on the real problems that people actually report having experienced, is not so fluid and flexible that it can automatically absorb all style differences.  And those real world problems that people have that cause them to throw players out, leave groups, or abandon the hobby all together happen, too, even if you personally don't have that problem.

In the debates over healthcare, people talk about how awful the American healthcare system is, but do you know what?  I don't have a problem with it, nor does anyone I know, including a friend who had no insurance through a heart attack, kidney failure, and diabetes.  Does that mean that there aren't any problems with the American healthcare system or that people who report experiencing problems are just making it up or that their problems are all their own fault?

Quote from: J ArcaneYou are not a beautiful and unique snowflake.

Nor is every person interchangeable with every other person.  Now that we've gotten the extremes out of the way, can we stop ignoring the middle?

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. :D

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.

(http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/dognolaughingmatter-mark.jpg)

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

(http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/theharbls-1.jpg)

(http://www.jonmetzler.com/blog/wp-content/Fonzie_jumps_the_shark.PNG)
Aaaaaayyyy!

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

(http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/funny-pictures-upside-down-bird.jpg)

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

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.

Quote from: SgtSpaceWizardHere are a couple of case studies of groups I have observed in my day for you to consider then.

They're case studies? Who conducted them? What was the study about?

Quote from: SgtSpaceWizardWith all other factors being equal, some people would rather play in one group over the other.

You haven't demonstrated that all factors are equal. You've listed some differences between the groups, but not all of them. Moreover, you haven't demonstrated that people choice between the two groups was in anyway related to the factors you list.

I can do the same thing. At the local theatre, there's a 12:20 pm. showing of I Am Legend and a 12:30 p.m. of The Golden Compass. Everyone who chose to see The Golden Compass did so because the difference in time was meaningful to them.

Did I prove anything?

Of course, people might have chosen based on subject matter, ratings, the preferences of their companions, the age of their companions, etc..

Quote from: SgtSpaceWizardThe differences are meaningful to the people who buy miniatures and combat maps.

If that's the case, what's silly about my question about an official WotC painted minis play style? People buy and use unpainted minis. People buy and use minis from companies other than WotC. People buy and use official WotC painted minis. If the mere presence at the table means something is meaningful, it sounds like we're going to have a lotta little play styles...

Quote from: SgtSpaceWizardThe 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.

You haven't shown an effect. You've said there are two groups and that they use different things.

Quote from: SgtSpaceWizardHowever, people have real preferences in gaming as surely as they have preferred foods.

I don't remotely disagree that people have preferences in gaming. That said, I believe people play basically the same way.  

Quote from: SgtSpaceWizardThat 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.

Sure it's relevant. It demonstrates that no matter what people tell you about their play online, it may well not actually be remotely as described.

Quote from: SgtSpaceWizardI leave the choice of a thoughtful refutation or a flip dismissal up to you, whichever is your preference.

If I recall, I'm not the one posting pictures of cats in the thread, nor did I say you must be autistic or an asshole for holding the views that you do. I'm not the one who needs to be reminded about being flip.

Seanchai

Quote from: HaffrungNothing you or anyone else says in this thread is going to make any difference to him.

Sorry, again, some dude saying something on the Internet doesn't meet my standard of proof. If it meets yours, well, I know some swell guys in Nigeria who just need a little financial help...

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchainor did I say you must be autistic or an asshole for holding the views that you do.

That assessment had nothing to do with your views and everything to do with your presentation of them.

Quote from: SeanchaiYou've listed some differences between the groups, but not all of them. Moreover, you haven't demonstrated that people choice between the two groups was in anyway related to the factors you list.

Why the people chose one group over another is not the point. Nor is it relevant to conjure a grocery list of what percentage of people playing wore hats. The point is these two groups play differently enough to say they have different playstyles. A point which you have danced around and avoided entirely, yet you still declare playstyles to be a myth. That's a shame if you had hoped to convince anyone of the relevance of your position.

Quote from: SeanchaiSorry, again, some dude saying something on the Internet doesn't meet my standard of proof.

Then one wonders what you can possibly get out of participation on an internet forum, apart from the joy of arguing with the rest of the gaming community. Hmmm, never mind, I think I figured it out.

Quote from: HaffrungNothing you or anyone else says in this thread is going to make any difference to him.

I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and try to be reasonable. Next time I will just post funny cat pics...:D

Oh well, I'm off to prep for some gaming tonight! Pulp style M&M, good stuff.

Honestly this thread is like a Jane Austen novel except with less pussy. I'm surprised that Elliot Willen and droog have not descended on this thread like a couple of Spartan's on a gay pride parade.

I kinda of agree with Seanchai....although the exact nature of what I'm agreeing with eludes me - Seanchai correct me if I'm misrepresenting your position.

(I'm not a theory person so I may be way off here) I think the problem here is that when it comes down to it all, there's really not much variety when it comes to actual play ....or rather what happens around the gaming table when observed broadly falls into two categories – the thespy stuff and the action stuff....both are pretty fluid concepts and gamers/games flow between the two.

Now of course style of play (minis, immersion, narrative control, etc) which serves as a basis for commonality is extremely important for differentiation purposes and communication but what actually is obsevered around the gaming table regardless of style IME/IMO falls into the above broadly defined categories.

The problem (it's not really a problem, but at this time I don't have a better term) I think started when theory/systems attempted to impose a mechanical structure on styles of play which resulted in the misconception that styles of play are rigidly defined and defines what happens around the gaming table when in fact, regardless of style what happens around the gaming table....what has always happened around gaming tables is either a preference for the action or thespy stuff or a combination of both (which is normally the case)

So, there's really not much variation to what is observed, but it's unproductive not to acknowledge the existence of the various styles of play as identification markers

Regards,
David R

QuoteI'm surprised that Elliot Willen and droog have not descended on this thread like a couple of Spartan's on a gay pride parade.

I just marvel at the heat being generated. Truly, D&D is a fetish rather than a game.

Quote from: droogTruly, D&D is a fetish rather than a game.

Isn't this a line from the 4E ad campaign?

Regards,
David R

Quote from: droogI just marvel at the heat being generated. Truly, D&D is a fetish rather than a game.

Wordy McWord. Frankly, I am amazed at all this. I expected an hysteric reaction from the usual gang, Pundit head first, but this surpasses me. And I couldn't agree more with JongWK: why don't you all wait for the fucking game to come out and play it before crying like school girls? For fuck's sake. There are a lot of people around playing older versions of D&D just because they didn't like the 3E, and the world's still turning around.

Whenever a new edition of D&D comes out the hysteria start, and doomsayers bloom like fucking fungus in a rotten corpse, predicting the doomfall of the RPG hobby and the end of the American Dream and whatnot. And each and every time they are wrong.

I am going to make a über accurate prediction: the game will come out. Some people will like it and play it. Some people will hate it. Some people that hated it will change their mind after trying it. Some other people that were psyched about it will feel disappointed in the end. Many people will complain on the art, and how Erol Otus had the biggest dick around. And the sun will keep rising and setting, and people will keep playing RPGs. And then the fucktards will have to keep looking for things to whine about like little bitches.

Luckily for them, Internet will keep them fed.

Quote from: ImperatorWordy McWord. Frankly, I am amazed at all this. I expected an hysteric reaction from the usual gang, Pundit head first, but this surpasses me. And I couldn't agree more with JongWK: why don't you all wait for the fucking game to come out and play it before crying like school girls?

As someone who's pro-4e, I find a lot of value in these discussions.  First, its just plain interesting to find out how people play and perceive the game.  Second, for D&D's sake, I take a page from Oscar Wilde and tritely point out that its better to be talked about poorly than not talked about at all.  Third, I feel that the designers that be still keep an eye on the online diaspora and may make design adjustments accordingly.  I see Mearls on the who's online list from time to time reading these kind of 4e threads.  Whether its idle curiosity or note taking, I imagine that there's some influence going on.

I don't like reading the accusations of whining that either side throws at one another.  But passions just run high and the internet just seems to be a nice lightning rod for them.

Quote from: SgtSpaceWizardThat assessment had nothing to do with your views and everything to do with your presentation of them.

Regardless, I'm not the party being flip or sarcastic...

Quote from: SgtSpaceWizardThe point is these two groups play differently enough to say they have different playstyles. A point which you have danced around and avoided entirely, yet you still declare playstyles to be a myth.

Pot. Kettle. Black. Seriously, dude. Talk about dancing around questions.

You say - even just above - that we know there are play styles because groups, the equipment, activities, etc., are not 100% alike. I've then asked about the percentage needed to be different for it to a play style.

So what is that percentage? If two groups are exactly alike - cloned members and all - save that one uses official WotC minis and one just uses random dice and coins, is that a play style?

If not, why not?

And if you're answer is that the example above isn't meaningful, don't you then have to demonstrate every difference you say create a separate play style is meaningful?

Obviously, the people, circumstances, games, the equipment, et al., varies from game to game. But so what. They all play basically the same way.

You say that having a GM screen or not changes the style of play. Based on my experience, it doesn't. I've been in groups that use both, used both myself, heard countless stories about actual play, etc., I disagree - with or without the screen, people play basically the same way.

Quote from: SgtSpaceWizardThen one wonders what you can possibly get out of participation on an internet forum, apart from the joy of arguing with the rest of the gaming community. Hmmm, never mind, I think I figured it out.

About deciding whether to respond thoughtfully or flippantly...

But, seriously, I get out of it what you get out of it. I mean, you're doing exactly what I am.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiI've then asked about the percentage needed to be different for it to a play style.

I technique is relevant to discussion of play styles if the use of that technique improves the game for some players but damages or ruins the game for other players.  One group is playing with a different play style than another group if one group is using techniques that the members of that group enjoy but those same techniques damage or ruin the game for members of another group.

For example, if the GM in one group runs railroaded adventures and their players enjoy playing that way, members of a group with a different play style might find the railroading unenjoyable or unbearable.

Please note that there are people who are very flexible in what they enjoy so they may encounter very few techniques that will damage or ruin a game for them at which point that player or group of players like that don't have a strong or obvious style.  This type of player shows up in the WotC marketing survey as about 11% of players, so they exist but may not be all that common.  There are techniques that are generally friendly or neutral to all play styles or only slightly unenjoyable for people with a different play style, thus those techniques can often be used with a mixed group or in different groups with different play styles.  Many GMs with mixed play style groups not only select moderate techniques that work well with multiple styles but also toggle between techniques that might favor one style or be detrimental to another, thus giving everyone what they want in exchange for tolerating some techniques that they might not like.  Finally, some people are more sensitive to techniques from other styles than others or might be more tolerant of techniques that they don't really like.

So in practice, play style is really a problem when a group or GM frequently uses techniques that are detrimental to the enjoyment of one or more players in a group with a different style of play than the GM or others in the group.  It's also a problem when players are picky about the techniques that they enjoy during the game.  And it's primarily a problem of extreme techniques designed to enhance just one style of play, not more general techniques.  And the way one avoids play style problems (and many groups simply do this naturally) is through moderation, compromise, and playing with others who have similar tastes.

Quote from: ImperatorWordy McWord. Frankly, I am amazed at all this. I expected an hysteric reaction from the usual gang, Pundit head first, but this surpasses me. And I couldn't agree more with JongWK: why don't you all wait for the fucking game to come out and play it before crying like school girls? For fuck's sake. There are a lot of people around playing older versions of D&D just because they didn't like the 3E, and the world's still turning around.

Whenever a new edition of D&D comes out the hysteria start, and doomsayers bloom like fucking fungus in a rotten corpse, predicting the doomfall of the RPG hobby and the end of the American Dream and whatnot. And each and every time they are wrong.

I am going to make a über accurate prediction: the game will come out. Some people will like it and play it. Some people will hate it. Some people that hated it will change their mind after trying it. Some other people that were psyched about it will feel disappointed in the end. Many people will complain on the art, and how Erol Otus had the biggest dick around. And the sun will keep rising and setting, and people will keep playing RPGs. And then the fucktards will have to keep looking for things to whine about like little bitches.

Luckily for them, Internet will keep them fed.

Yup, 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.

Those are the saddest wastes of space of all.

RPGPundit

Quote from: SeanchaiYou say - even just above - that we know there are play styles because groups, the equipment, activities, etc., are not 100% alike. I've then asked about the percentage needed to be different for it to a play style.

So what is that percentage? If two groups are exactly alike - cloned members and all - save that one uses official WotC minis and one just uses random dice and coins, is that a play style?

If not, why not?

I don't know what percentage of difference is nessessary to declare a distinct playstyle. I think some differences are bigger than others though. I'm not sure the example you mention has a big enough effect on play, though undoubtedly it has the potential to effect play (dice being used as minis accidentaly being picked up and rolled and not being put back in the right spot for example.).

Quote from: SeanchaiAnd if you're answer is that the example above isn't meaningful, don't you then have to demonstrate every difference you say create a separate play style is meaningful?

If it were my goal to catalogue all the possible playstyles then probably so. All I was trying to do was point out some obvious differences you can see on the gaming table and showing how this seemed to affect the play of two different groups. I'm certainly not trying to create a list of playstyles or a "theory". But I think when you say things like...

Quote from: SeanchaiObviously, the people, circumstances, games, the equipment, et al., varies from game to game. But so what. They all play basically the same way.

...that you are painting with too broad a brush. I know my experiences with table top play with groups of old-school wargamers were different from playing the same game with boffer LARPers for example.There was a difference in the approach to play in ways besides the thespy vs action divide that was mentioned. I listed only the most obvious differences that were directly related to GM screens and miniatures. It was not meant to be comprehensive. Nevertheless, I think sufficiant difference was demonstrated.

Quote from: SeanchaiYou say that having a GM screen or not changes the style of play. Based on my experience, it doesn't. I've been in groups that use both, used both myself, heard countless stories about actual play, etc., I disagree - with or without the screen, people play basically the same way.

Well this is the first time you have addressed this point directly rather than bringing up the fallability of the human mind or something. Maybe 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.  

It 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.

Quote from: droogTruly, D&D is a fetish rather than a game.

Remember, your safe word is "Nilbog"... ;)

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.

Those are the saddest wastes of space of all.

RPGPundit

Which is still leagues above and better than becoming a whiney little bitch on a topic on which you have the most spare rumours, and which also happens to have a relevance to your gaming of exactly zero.

You and me happen to agree on our favourite D&D iteration, if I am not mistaken (is the RC, isn't it?). So, NO new iteration of D&D is going to satisfy you, as long it is not going to be a rehash of the RC that we love so dearly. And that's fucking cool, because right now, the types of D&D games that you can play is going to increase. You can go OD&D, RC, AD&D 1 or 2, 3E, 3.5 or even 4th. And it's great.

Dude, you make a lot of sense when you talk about gaming and have some actual info on the topic at hand, not some half baked rumors and experts which only serve to trigger your online paranoia. You have interesting things to say about gaming when you are not spewing "oh-woe-is-me-gaming-is-doomed" bullshit, because that bullshit is as old as the fucking hobby. I've been playing D&D since fucking 1985, and have been hearing that crap since then. And you know what? IT WAS UTTER BULLSHIT.

So, is totally cool to discuss an excerpt of the game posted by WotC and tell us if you like it or not and why. Going Nostradamus each fucking time a new info is posted is frankly tiresome, probably inaccurate and really below your capability. Don't like an aggro mechanic? Cool! I don't like the idea, too! Tell us why! But stop the whiney shit.

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."

(http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/2241/facepalm2ic7copyrl2.jpg)

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.

(http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/cat441.jpg)

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. :D

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

(http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/funny-pictures-8-lives-cat.jpg)

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

Quote from: QuireA fin on a dolphin as opposed to an arm on a human doesn't matter: they are both mammals.

Is that right, Sean?

No. I think you've got the basic idea, but I find the example to be a bad one.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiNo. I think you've got the basic idea, but I find the example to be a bad one.

I thought you wouldn't like the example. Here's another one that won't sit comfortably with you.

It doesn't matter what kind of food I'm sticking in my mouth, I'm still eating.

One more: as long as I'm physically exerting myself, it's exercise. To clarify, if I compete against someone else doing the same thing, it's a sport.

- Q

Aw, tits. Let me not be so gunshy.

Sean, you're using warped logic to deny subcategories in a category, and it's very very silly.

I don't know WHY you're doing it, but you are. Stop being childish.

- Q

Quote from: QuireAw, tits. Let me not be so gunshy.

Sean, you're using warped logic to deny subcategories in a category, and it's very very silly.

I don't know WHY you're doing it, but you are. Stop being childish.

- Q

But Quire, you're forgetting about motive. We know people have all sorts of reasons for lying about what food they like and how they like to eat meals, or who feel they're special because they play frizbee and not basketball. Most people are fucking idiots and liars, so we can't take any stated preference, or assertions that frizbee is different from basketball at face value.

Quote from: HaffrungBut Quire, you're forgetting about motive. We know people have all sorts of reasons for lying about what food they like and how they like to eat meals, or who feel they're special because they play frizbee and not basketball. Most people are fucking idiots and liars, so we can't take any stated preference, or assertions that frizbee is different from basketball at face value.

So that justifies telling other people what they really feel and like because, well, obviously I know what another person really likes better than they do, right? :insane:

Quote from: HaffrungBut Quire, you're forgetting about motive. We know people have all sorts of reasons for lying about what food they like and how they like to eat meals, or who feel they're special because they play frizbee and not basketball. Most people are fucking idiots and liars, so we can't take any stated preference, or assertions that frizbee is different from basketball at face value.

Forgive me, I don't know what your point is. I'm not disputing fallibility. (I'm also not as convinced as some others that it's that much of an issue, but there you go. I don't think 'most people' are 'fucking idiots and liars', eg, but I think a lot of them are.)

Even if one considers that most stated preferences or experiences are filtered through the announcer, that does not negate variation. The choices and options exist independently of the observations (quantum observations aside, heh).

To suggest that fallibility proves homogeneity is ridiculous, and that's what Sean has been doing.

- Q

Haffrung was being sarcastic, parroting Seanchai's stance to make his point.

Quote from: James McMurrayHaffrung was being sarcastic, parroting Seanchai's stance to make his point.

Ah, now that does make sense! Thanks James, and sorry Haff!

I blame the head cold.

- Q

Quote from: QuireSean, you're using warped logic to deny subcategories in a category, and it's very very silly.

Not at all. That's your side's doing.

I asked for a definition of "play style" and was told that a play style was anything that affected play. I then ask, "Doesn't that create a whole lot of silly play styles"?

Response: "No, the difference or effect has to be meaningful."

Seanchai

Quote from: QuireTo suggest that fallibility proves homogeneity is ridiculous, and that's what Sean has been doing.

No, I've suggested fallibility is the reason self-reported ancedotes about behavior aren't proof of anything. If you're going to argue in the thread, especially at this late stage, at least read it before you wade in.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiNo, I've suggested fallibility is the reason self-reported ancedotes about behavior aren't proof of anything. If you're going to argue in the thread, especially at this late stage, at least read it before you wade in.

Sorry Sean, but I have read the thread, and all that you have done is repeatedly stated that because you don't believe anyone knows anything, the only person who is right is you.

I put it to you, sir, that you are full of shit.

- Q

Quote from: SeanchaiNot at all. That's your side's doing.

Absolute bollocks. And I'm not going to re-dissect your ridiculous arguments to prove the obvious.

In short: stop dancing around and grow up.

- Q

MUST. STOP. FEEDING. TROLL.

(http://lolcat.com/pics/threadlovercat.jpg)

Quote from: QuireSorry Sean, but I have read the thread, and all that you have done is repeatedly stated that because you don't believe anyone knows anything, the only person who is right is you.

Try again then.

I was told I had to believe that play styles existed. When I said, based on my experiences, etc., that I didn't, I was told the proof that play styles were factual was that many people reported differences in play. Hence the bit about the fallibility of perception and memory.

Seanchai

Quote from: QuireMUST. STOP. FEEDING. TROLL.

C'mon, if anyone is a troll, it's you. Short, repeated messages with little or no content save that designed to provoke. Challenges to back up assertions are met with, "I'm not going to bother." A failure to read the material before posting.

At least Ape and McMurray put some effort into it...

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiC'mon, if anyone is a troll, it's you.

I must confess that you had beaten me before I even joined the discussion. Annoyed by your lack of argument, eventually I had to try and point out the flaws in your stance.

You say that playstyles (or play-styles) are non-existent, and that everyone plays role-playing games in the same way. Even common sense contradicts this, since everyone who plays with different groups finds new ways of playing, all the time.

This can be as direct as a game that is akin to a complex boardgame, where miniatures are used, all actions finely resolved, and XP toted up at the end of each session. A game where the motivations of characters are more-or-less ignored - it's like Diablo at a table: plough through the enemies, accumulate treasure and XP, power up, etc, and have fun while you're doing it. Rarely in such games are there any repercussions to a character's action. A different style of play might be a more narrative or character driven game, where the backgrounds of characters are important, where it matters what you do and what the fallout is. Whole games might pass without combat, or treasure, or XP.

If different playstyles don't exist, then why are there different games? Why does Pundit rage against the swine? Why do same games have Fate Points and others are diceless? It doesn't make any sense to suggest that all these games are played in the same way. They aren't! Anyone who has played even  D&D and RuneQuest knows that it works very differently from game to game.

Your argument against this simple fact has been that everyone is wrong, and that you can't trust what people say. Despite bearing some element of truth (rarely do two accounts of an event match entirely, and human beings ARE fallible), I've tried to show you arguments that contradict your assumption in a very basic way.

Sean, you resort to low tactics, usually while accusing any contradictory opinions as being the same. It's a poor argument. You evidently feel strongly that you are right, but I'm sorry, everything you are saying really looks to me like:

Sean: I don't believe there are potatoes and parsnips. There are only vegetables.

Anyone Else: But I've SEEN potatoes! I've seen parsnips! They _are_ different! There are countless reports of people citing the differences between potatoes and parsnips!

Sean: People are fallible. They are wrong. There are no potatoes or parsnips, there are only vegetables.

Your reaction to me telling you how I see your argument is: you're kind of getting it, but your example is a poor one.

My reaction to that is: why is what you are saying any different to my analogy?

Why do RuneQuest and HeroQuest exist?

Why do D&D and Sorcerer exist?

You seem to be saying: none of the differences matter. At the end of the day, all of us just sit in a group and play. You really might as well suggest that all games are the same. It doesn't make any sense.

And when you are presented with a counter-argument, you become supercilious and dismissive. And it winds people up, or at least makes them resort to dismissive shit back at ya.

You've never explained what you really mean. Not once. And suggesting that I haven't read the thread - or have read it but am too dumb to get your point - doesn't clarify your position at all. It really does just make you look like an arrogant ass.

And all you do, over and over, is sneer and snipe. You'll probably do the same again to this post. It won't make any difference, though, because that is what you've done all through the thread.

I hope I've gone a long way towards explaining to you how different games and groups play differently. I'm happy to talk that through some more, but I will not (and sorry Sean but attacking the 'will not' wins you not one jot of credibility) dance around and feint and parry at semantics.

You have taken a very silly stance: that of denying subcategories within a category, only supported by refusing to accept reported experience as evidence.

It makes no sense whatsoever. You might as well sit on a mountaintop in your underpants yelling HAHAHAHA I KNOW EVERYTHING AND YOU ARE ALL MORONS.

Sean, that's how I see it. And, I can be wrong! I've often been wrong. It's called being human. But I've much rather see you discuss something than come up with warped logic to defend a position that...well, even if I am wrong, it feels like you're saying it doesn't matter if it's a meteor or an earthquake, it's all nature!

- Q

Quote from: QuireYou say that playstyles (or play-styles) are non-existent, and that everyone plays role-playing games in the same way. Even common sense contradicts this, since everyone who plays with different groups finds new ways of playing, all the time.

Except I didn't say that. I said everyone plays basically the same way.

Of course there are differences. I've played in groups with no female members, one female member, and three female members. Clearly, there are differences.

But is that a play style?

Some say, yes, it is, that anything with affects play is a play style. I find that to be silly, as it means there are billions and billions of play styles.

Some say the difference has to be meaningful. Which is all well and good until you try and determine what's meaninful and what isn't. And if you can't differentiate between the two, particularly when they're supposed to help define a third thing, the difference may as well not exist.

Quote from: QuireIf different playstyles don't exist, then why are there different games?...Anyone who has played even  D&D and RuneQuest knows that it works very differently from game to game.

I thought play styles existed independent of individual games. If a play style is just another way of saying different rules sets have different rules in them, well, sure, they're different. But I could have sworn play styles were much more general than that.

Quote from: QuireWhy does Pundit rage against the swine?

Because he wants to make a name for himself, to point out some dreaded menace we must all fall in line behind him to fight.

Quote from: QuireAnd all you do, over and over, is sneer and snipe.

Sneer and snipe? Pardon, but out of the participants of this thread, I've been the civil one. Even despite the nastiness of the others, yourself included. If you want to get into how people are discussing the issue, fine, I can cast stones. How about you?

Quote from: QuireI hope I've gone a long way towards explaining to you how different games and groups play differently.

No, you've done the same thing everyone else has done: Told me that they're different.

Again, I've been playing for decades, with a number of different people, and in a number of different circumstances. It's led me to believe that people basically play the same way.

It's going to take more than some dude on the Internet telling me that, oh, yeah, play styles exist for me to change my mind.

Seanchai

Can somebody define 'playstyles' for the purposes of this thread – please?

Quote from: droogCan somebody define 'playstyles' for the purposes of this thread – please?

I tried to, but nobody cared...oh well, we did get some nice pussy pics out of it.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: droogCan somebody define 'playstyles' for the purposes of this thread – please?

The English language defintions of the words seem to be working just fine for all but one person (not including you).

Quote from: James McMurrayThe English language definitions of the words seem to be working just fine for all but one person (not including you).

Seanchai isn't an idiot. He has a point, which is that everybody plays in much the same way. I think there's a lot to be said for that view, having slipped into many games with strangers. The opposition has (collectively) a point as well, which is that specific table behaviour and house rules can change the feel of a game quite drastically. This is also perfectly reasonable.

I cannot find 'playstyle' in my dictionary (Concise Oxford), and I'm inclined to think that it actually has no precise definition in English. At this point it's sorely in want of one.

Quote from: droogSeanchai isn't an idiot.

But he is being, purposefully, quite difficult.

QuoteHe has a point, which is that everybody plays in much the same way. I think there's a lot to be said for that view, having slipped into many games with strangers.

By way of analogy, we all speak the same language, whether we enjoy speaking with one another or not.

QuoteThe opposition has (collectively) a point as well, which is that specific table behaviour and house rules can change the feel of a game quite drastically. This is also perfectly reasonable.

Furthering the analogy, many of us speak different dialects of the same language, and some of us find the others' dialects confusing or distasteful.

!i!

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaBut he is being, purposefully, quite difficult.

No, he simply doesn't find the "proof" you've offered to be more compelling than his first hand experiences.

Seanchai

And...there you go again.

Perhaps "stubborn" is a more appropriate word than "difficult", though I think the latter still applies.

!i!

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaAnd...there you go again.

Shrug. Since I'm pretty darn sure it's not empirical data which has convinced you that play styles exist, we're in the same boat.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaPerhaps "stubborn" is a more appropriate word than "difficult", though I think the latter still applies.

Well, stubborn I am.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiShrug. Since I'm pretty darn sure it's not empirical data which has convinced you that play styles exist, we're in the same boat.

If by empirical you mean "derived from or guided by experience" then it's most definitely empirical. However, since you seem to have dictionary issues, I doubt that's what you meant.

Quote from: droogI cannot find 'playstyle' in my dictionary (Concise Oxford), and I'm inclined to think that it actually has no precise definition in English. At this point it's sorely in want of one.

I said definitions of words.

I doubt I could find a definition of musical styles that would satisfy the objective criteria Seanchai is looking for. And yet, the existence of musical styles is almost universally recognized (though no doubt we could find a pedantic prick on a music discussion board who denies their existence).

Look:

Everybody – "Playstyles exist."
Seanchai – "No they don't!"

It's perfectly obvious that defining this jargon term 'playstyle' will make the debate impossible. Right now it's possible to agree with both sides depending on what the fuck they actually mean.

Seanchai is saying that the 'Professional Wrestlers' of WWF fame are, in fact, Atheletes.

I think.

Yeah, a definition of Playstyle would... well maybe not IMPROVE this thread as it would be quite challenging to find a thread the equal of this one, but certainly make rational discourse... possible.

Ha Ha. Suckers.