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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

* 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.

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: