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.