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.

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

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