TheRPGSite

Pardon the misleading title, I'm in a bit manipulative mood lately. ;)

Anyway, the question is the result of Spinachcat's (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=893367&postcount=25) observation. Seeing how he not only recognized, but embraced the idea of running games in a certain style, molding them according to his wishes, I began to wonder.

See, there's no mystery, nothing groundbreaking in the fact that people often become what they do - that over time their job influences the way they think, act and make choices. The extent is another matter, but it is not unreasonable to expect that veterans sacrifice - consciously or not - a bit of their free will and allow for their job and skill to influence their choices, even if there's no direct connection between that certain situation and their job.

For example, there's this saying that "a warrior stays a warrior even if he leaves the dojo" and it is true. If you're any good, what you do becomes your second nature. A MD might focus his attention on random stranger's health, a car mechanic might tell in details what car almost hit him, but he wouldn't remember who was the driver, a hobbyist MMA fighter might be bolder in his daily job and so on and so forth.

RPGs shouldn't be any different, but rather than talk on the RPGs' place in our daily life (interesting topic on its own), I'd rather hear your opinion regarding the influence of RPGs you play mostly on your overall gaming experience.

Bonus point:

Spoiler

"1st time imprint". I'm not sure how things are now, because I moved into a bit different territory in my field of work, but a few years ago it was assumed that first a few sexual encounters (sometimes even the very first one) were enough to convince human's brain that the way it was done was the proper, default way.

People who studied this field presented different opinions regarding the topic - some said that it was more about circumstances (your first time was "in public" -> there's a possibility you're gonna like a gangbang or join swingers' club), others that it was more about the partner (...and since then I like it rough), some insisted on a middle ground and some called it a lunacy and total bollocks.

Funnily enough, (or not, some cases were really disturbing) that the person knew there was something wrong with the way it was done, wasn't considered "important" - the brain still assumed that those certain circumstances or some aspects of first partner(s) had to be present to achieve total fulfillment.

Yeah, borderline fetishism.

Anyway, the idea of "imprint" wasn't unknown and some people used it to explain things. I think it's possible to implement it to RPG hobby, but take it with a grain of salt.

With that in mind, tell me whether you think...

• ...it's possible to develop a meta-style and run games in a bit similar fashion no matter what system or setting? If so, is it a common thing?
• ...the choice of RPGs "made you" the GM/player you are, or...
• ...you selected to run/play those certain games because of who you are.
• Your very first RPG (or the first one you played extensively) somehow shaped your style? That you left it behind and switched to something different isn't important here, it's about the style and "imprint".

Of course, I understand that in certain cases the selection might have been impossible (around here people play WoD only and that's about it), but this doesn't invalidate the question - it is possible to know a game you've never had the chance to play, and still assume it's the game you'd love to play.

So. Thoughts, opinions?

1: Yes. I suspect more than a few DMs have a certain style that they play and that doesnt change from system to system or setting to setting. Example they may have a more comedic tone, even when running Call of Cthulhu or Dark Sun. I tend to run most games in the same generally serious, but occasionally light hearted tone unless the setting really demands a shift. For example when I was writing an GMing Red Shetland which was very comedy and pun based, I got into that mindset easily. Maybe a little too easily. aheh.

2: Yes again. Seems from various accounts I've heard and others have passed on that the first game or the first favorite game a person GMs can shape their outlooks and playstyle. Just as players styles and outlooks can be shaped by their first DMs. BX D&D was my real first as a DM and its very open and rough setting and rules and the simple but very on the point instructions on DMing really shaped for me the idea of on the fly DMing and not bogging down. And as a player got me used to the ideas of more average, or worse characters and very harsh environs and character death.

3: Not sure what this one means so guessing here. Seems often yes. Alot of DMs I meet are DMs because they like it. For some it interests them more than playing. Ive been oft told I am very good at DMing. So must be doing something right. Others though have stated that they became the DM because no one else wanted too and they were the only one willing to read through or take a try. Some found after that they liked it. Others would really rather play. Local DM is running 3e for a group. Hed rather be playing. But unfortunately the group are heavy smokers and thats too rough on my breathing. Otherwise I'd give it a go. May still yet.

4: Yes. See 2 above. That followed through with Gamma World, Star Frontiers and AD&D, which to one degree or another had similar tones or built on that initial ideal.

Quote from: Omega;8935461-2-4. Yes

Thanks.

It might take more than a simple thread to determine the truth, (hell, of course it wouldn't be enough) but there's the probability that once we step on a certain path, we're embarking on a linear adventure with the illusion of choice. Now that would be funny to learn, that it's not only probable, but in fact pre-determined to reach for [game X] after a certain sessions of [game Y] (well, perhaps something more vague, like "the majority of people is predetermined to select horror after being fed up with fantasy", or something), that there's some underlying pattern to what we play and how, and that what we take for a conscious choice is just "playing the role". ;)

Quote from: Omega;8935463: Not sure what this one means so guessing here.

You guessed right, but just for the sake of clarity:

People can't agree whether (also to what extent, and is is a general thing, or a subjective thing) we are shaped by what we do, OR we tend to choose activities, hobbies, jobs and whatnot according to what we already are (traits of our characters, our strengths, weaknesses etc) in which case, selected things only strengthen our character.

In context of RPGs?

Lat's say you prefer d20-level of crunch and not much narrativism. You know, enough to get the story going, but it's the field of battle where you excel and you prefer it that way.

The question is whether it's like that, because you were modeled that way by your former RPG experience (perhaps by those 1st a few sessions - all some variation of D&D), OR it's in your character to calculate, think in terms of a strategy and therefore you select d20 based games, or at least focus the majority of your attention on the combat aspect of any games you play.

Either way produces interesting results and side effects.

#1
I do this pretty explicitly. Enough experience with RPGs, I found a few things that generally aren't handled 100% satisfactory. And actually dissatisfaction seemed pretty widespread. Initiative systems, for example, was something I observed GMs house-ruling a lot. In D&D (at least prior to 3E, not sure about nowadays), literally every GM I played with handled this differently. If house-ruling is less common it's only because every RPG now has very proscribed methods for timing out actions that are very different from one another. Which still indicates everyone's out to build a better mousetrap because it's still not something that's handled in a satisfactory way.

So, I spent some time to think about the problem, what issues specifically I felt weren't addressed well. How one system solves one set of problems but then creates another, that sort of thing. And I was able to create a procedure that solves all the problems and works within the rules of any RPG that isn't overly heavy-handed in this area. So, I take it with me no matter which RPG I run. Those where the rules aren't compatible with my procedure I simply don't run, regarding them as unplayable. I have portable procedures also for "social encounters," running chase scenes, handling the in-game economy, and perpetuating a dynamic world.


#2
Not sure how you mean. I've definitely picked up ideas from different RPGs. And of course when I began playing RPGs in general, it's a paradigm shift from other types of games in terms of how to look at a game and what a game can be. After playing RPGs for many years, the Lejendary Adventure RPG got me to see RPGs in a whole new way. I find I pick up new games a lot more quickly now, and as GM I have better focus on the details that actually matter and I don't sweat the rest of it, making me more effective in that capacity as well.

It's also given me a perspective that's apparently unique. I see so-called "modern games" as just re-hashes of the old ways, mixing and matching elements and somehow thinking any of it is new and different. It's kind of like the jaded view of sitcoms often attributed to Andy Warhol, where if you're going to basically do the same thing over and over again, you may as well just literally do the same thing over and over again. At least that way, you eventually get good at it. RPGs are like that. If I want to explore new ideas, I don't need a whole new set of rules. I need to learn how to better use the ones I've got. In some games, yeah, the rules are overbearing beyond reason when trying to do something new. They undercut you at every turn. Again, I simply regard those games as unplayable.


#3
Not really. Like a lot of people, I've collected a number of RPGs over the years. A few have gotten a lot of play. A few have gotten zero play. The rest have been played a few times, perhaps even a lot during a certain phase. But it's not just me at the table. The games I select to have to generate enough interest to get a group to give it a try and if it's going to get any mileage, it has to be something the group wants to come back to again and again.


#4
Well, the first game I played extensively was D&D. There are only about 40 million different ways people actually played it. So it's not like there is a definite play style you can latch onto there. And actually, the reason I stopped playing D&D is felt 3E lacked backwards compatibility and was just a completely foreign game to me. I figured if I'm going to learn a whole new game, I may as well choose one that better fits how my tastes have matured over the years. I still occasionally run some old-school D&D, but aside from giving 3E an honest chance, I haven't played anything post-AD&D.

Some might observe that as my being stuck with the version of D&D that was first imprinted, but that wouldn't be correct either. I started on red box, moved onto a mish-mash of OD&D and AD&D (1E and 2E) then to AD&D 2E, then back to OD&D, then settled on the nuances of AD&D being my favorite--which prior to that, I had never played it to the exclusion of other versions.

It's probably more accurate to say what shaped my style is what the games weren't doing. There were things that worked about the games and things that didn't work. Pretty reasonable, right? So I didn't want to toss out the whole thing, because I still wanted the working parts to continue working. So I figured solutions to the things that weren't working in a way that didn't fundamentally change everything else. Everything else is what everyone else who played the game was doing. Even though it's part of how I played, no one would characterize that as being part of my "style." It's always characterized by what I was doing different. And what I was doing different, again, was shaped by what the games weren't doing.

I think players imprinting on their first game's playstyle is a real thing, yes. I'm very glad I introduced my son to D&D via Mentzer Classic and not (say) 3e, the simple systems seem to encourage use of the imagination and exploration of the game-world, whereas 3e & 4e encourage an internal focus on the character 'build'. 5e is somewhere in between.

I hate to use Edwards' 'brain damage' term :D but I do think 3e & 4e have had a deleterious effect on some players & GMs. Maybe not as bad as 1990s style Railroading, though you still see that a bit with published adventures. But I remember stuff like a 4e GM being unable to describe the external appearance of an evil temple we had just escaped after fighting through for several sessions - she had been so dedicated to the Encounters, she never gave thought to the environment in which they were set.

Quote from: JesterRaiin;893554Thanks.

It might take more than a simple thread to determine the truth,

The only truth is...

Varies wildly from one table to the next. And varies in degree and tyle just as wildly.

But from past research done personally it seems that the early experiences often shape later outlooks for good or ill. Also prior gaming experiences before finding RPGs can effect that too. Some grow from there. Some have a hard time changing.

I'd love to say that the type of RPG can impact heavily. But the reality is that different people can and will read the exact same rules and come to diametrically opposed playstyles.

The variance is just too massive to quantify.

Quote from: JesterRaiin;893532So. Thoughts, opinions?

The OP hypothesis is false. The premise of an "imprint" is the same as engrams, the basis of Dianetics and Scientology, which is about as scientific as phrenology. As far as we know, memory is based upon repetitive activities, from which experiential "gut reactions", OCD, and such could be compared to a well worn path. This is why most training and education is based upon repetition.

However:

1....it's possible to develop a meta-style and run games in a bit similar fashion no matter what system or setting?

Yes.

1a. If so, is it a common thing?

Unknown.

2. ...the choice of RPGs "made you" the GM/player you are, or...

No.

3. ...you selected to run/play those certain games because of who you are?

No.

4. Your very first RPG (or the first one you played extensively) somehow shaped your style?

No.

I will add, before I played RPG's, I came from war games, thus I used to joke, the first RPG I played was Squad Leader, if you have played it, you would get it. I have always kept the tactical and strategic eye to the game, precisely because I still play war games, for example a Soviet campaign I made was selected as a campaign challenge recently, even though a Polish friend who is a historian, pointed out some incorrect things in a briefing - he was right, it was my fault for not reading the wiki better. I am still happy that 10+ years later, people are playing things I have created. So of course these sort of things have an effect on my RPG gaming.

In the beginning, we played D&D and Traveller, both with a more "gitty", meaning simulationist feel. You were normal people thrown into the extraordinary situations of the games. If you wanted to be a big damn hero, then be one, but it wasn't automatic, and not in the rules. Video games in the beginning were sort of like this as well, they just got faster and faster until you died, you played to see how far you could get. Which in the end is sort of still the way I play RPG's, just to survive, and wander around and do stuff while interacting with the setting.

Quote from: JesterRaiin;893532Pardon the misleading title, I'm in a bit manipulative mood lately. ;)

Anyway, the question is the result of Spinachcat's (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=893367&postcount=25) observation. Seeing how he not only recognized, but embraced the idea of running games in a certain style, molding them according to his wishes, I began to wonder.

See, there's no mystery, nothing groundbreaking in the fact that people often become what they do - that over time their job influences the way they think, act and make choices. The extent is another matter, but it is not unreasonable to expect that veterans sacrifice - consciously or not - a bit of their free will and allow for their job and skill to influence their choices, even if there's no direct connection between that certain situation and their job.

For example, there's this saying that "a warrior stays a warrior even if he leaves the dojo" and it is true. If you're any good, what you do becomes your second nature. A MD might focus his attention on random stranger's health, a car mechanic might tell in details what car almost hit him, but he wouldn't remember who was the driver, a hobbyist MMA fighter might be bolder in his daily job and so on and so forth.

RPGs shouldn't be any different, but rather than talk on the RPGs' place in our daily life (interesting topic on its own), I'd rather hear your opinion regarding the influence of RPGs you play mostly on your overall gaming experience.

Bonus point:

Spoiler

"1st time imprint". I'm not sure how things are now, because I moved into a bit different territory in my field of work, but a few years ago it was assumed that first a few sexual encounters (sometimes even the very first one) were enough to convince human's brain that the way it was done was the proper, default way.

People who studied this field presented different opinions regarding the topic - some said that it was more about circumstances (your first time was "in public" -> there's a possibility you're gonna like a gangbang or join swingers' club), others that it was more about the partner (...and since then I like it rough), some insisted on a middle ground and some called it a lunacy and total bollocks.

Funnily enough, (or not, some cases were really disturbing) that the person knew there was something wrong with the way it was done, wasn't considered "important" - the brain still assumed that those certain circumstances or some aspects of first partner(s) had to be present to achieve total fulfillment.

Yeah, borderline fetishism.

Anyway, the idea of "imprint" wasn't unknown and some people used it to explain things. I think it's possible to implement it to RPG hobby, but take it with a grain of salt.

With that in mind, tell me whether you think...

• ...it's possible to develop a meta-style and run games in a bit similar fashion no matter what system or setting? If so, is it a common thing?
• ...the choice of RPGs "made you" the GM/player you are, or...
• ...you selected to run/play those certain games because of who you are.
• Your very first RPG (or the first one you played extensively) somehow shaped your style? That you left it behind and switched to something different isn't important here, it's about the style and "imprint".

Of course, I understand that in certain cases the selection might have been impossible (around here people play WoD only and that's about it), but this doesn't invalidate the question - it is possible to know a game you've never had the chance to play, and still assume it's the game you'd love to play.

So. Thoughts, opinions?

This completely ignores the possibility of people trying new things out of a desire to explore or that once they have tried the new thing, they then decide whether they like it or not.

My first game was AD&D, so when I tried Traveller I should have hated it by your logic. Finding that I liked Traveller - I should have liked Space Opera and Star Frontiers and FASA Star Trek, but I didn't. The next SFRPG that I liked was Mekton, and I don't like Battletech (but I should since I like Mekton according to your logic).

Pretty much what Jeff said.

It's fairer to say my imagination imprinted on the games I played and ran.  Always seeking rules that worked best.  Started with OD&D/AD&D and played all the early ones. All had their faults and benefits, some more than others.  None perfect for me, but after years of experience have likely found the one that fits just in the last 6 years.

Quote from: S'mon;893567I hate to use Edwards' 'brain damage' term :D but I do think 3e & 4e have had a deleterious effect on some players & GMs. Maybe not as bad as 1990s style Railroading, though you still see that a bit with published adventures.

But I remember stuff like a 4e GM being unable to describe the external appearance of an evil temple we had just escaped after fighting through for several sessions - she had been so dedicated to the Encounters, she never gave thought to the environment in which they were set.

1: I think 3 and 4e and railroads and World of Darkness, etc merely brought out or collected styles that were allready there and gave them a firmer platform to stand on. THEN new players learned any good or bad habits from that.

2: Was this a new or old DM? If new then that might have been all they ever knew and who knows if she accepted or rejected that 4e style eventually.

x: Which brings up my variance point. Sometimes the first few games can instill in a player the exact opposite. Or an intense aversion to a style due to negative first impressions. Usually from the player side. But sometimes from the DM side

Quote from: Omega;8938762: Was this a new or old DM? If new then that might have been all they ever knew and who knows if she accepted or rejected that 4e style eventually.

She was a new GM AFAIK.

Quote from: JesterRaiin;893532See, there's no mystery, nothing groundbreaking in the fact that people often become what they do - that over time their job influences the way they think, act and make choices. The extent is another matter, but it is not unreasonable to expect that veterans sacrifice - consciously or not - a bit of their free will and allow for their job and skill to influence their choices, even if there's no direct connection between that certain situation and their job.

"Excellency is a matter of habit" is older than steam by a few centuries (Aristotle to Hero of Alexandria :p). Thus what your habits are, determine what you're going to excel at.
It's why I like the kind of models for skills that I like;).

QuoteFor example, there's this saying that "a warrior stays a warrior even if he leaves the dojo" and it is true. If you're any good, what you do becomes your second nature. A MD might focus his attention on random stranger's health, a car mechanic might tell in details what car almost hit him, but he wouldn't remember who was the driver, a hobbyist MMA fighter might be bolder in his daily job and so on and so forth.

Also why I tend to develop skillsets and personalities in conjunction:).

It's possible to develop a meta-style and run games in a bit similar fashion no matter what system or setting.
I think it is common enough, because IMO most people are lucky to be good at running in one style, let alone several - unless they tried consciously to learn, that is. Also, I've seen Referees making choices that wouldn't be optimal in the system they were running, but said choices would be exactly how you run, say, 3e. And you've read my mention of "players spoiled by D&D" already:D!
The choice of RPGs made me the GM/player I am, no doubt. Every game teaches you different lessons. Sometimes they can even clash, and the new ones have a hard time getting roots.
But it's also true that I selected to run/play those certain games because of who I am and how I believe things should be working. In my case, when I described how things should work IMO, while we were preparing to play our first session, one of the guys told me he's heard of another game that works like that. Game was GURPS, and I was running that a few months later:D!
Did my very first RPG, and/or the first one I played extensively, somehow shape your style? Yes...and no, unless we account for "you don't do it like that, unless you want your GMing to suck like that guy".
Then again, I've been roleplaying long before seeing a dedicated RPG. I was just doing that freeform, or with different systems, mostly cribbed from gamebook (like "Way of the Tiger"). You can argue there was some imprint from that.
Then again, I made sure to master differing Refereeing/GMing styles, just because I like to be broadly developed. But the style I still like the most is, arguably, more closely resmbling "Way of the Tiger" than by any subsequent RPG.

Quote from: S'mon;893567I think players imprinting on their first game's playstyle is a real thing, yes. I'm very glad I introduced my son to D&D via Mentzer Classic and not (say) 3e, the simple systems seem to encourage use of the imagination and exploration of the game-world, whereas 3e & 4e encourage an internal focus on the character 'build'. 5e is somewhere in between.

I hate to use Edwards' 'brain damage' term :D but I do think 3e & 4e have had a deleterious effect on some players & GMs. Maybe not as bad as 1990s style Railroading, though you still see that a bit with published adventures. But I remember stuff like a 4e GM being unable to describe the external appearance of an evil temple we had just escaped after fighting through for several sessions - she had been so dedicated to the Encounters, she never gave thought to the environment in which they were set.

I'm considering to start using Ron Edwards' term, for precisely the reasons you described. Although I'd point out that this goes even for players of older editions that are only interested in the means to kill people.
I mean, the GM's mistake is understandable if she had been struggling with the content the system required her to put inside (and you mentioned she was a new GM, so we can assume both to be true with high degree of probability). But if her encounters were all about killing stuff, that would have been the worse option.

Quote from: dragoner;893783This is why most training and education is based upon repetition.

Actually, a lot of training and education, and all brainwashing, is based on much more limited repetitions under emotionally charged circumstances. And it is quite often rather successful at changing how people behave under similar circumstances. OTOH, training based on repetitions often fails to be reproduced under highly emotional circumstances. See: NLP, skills deteriorating under the effects of adrenaline:).
The first session might well be quite successful at that, if the players were emotionally upset (in a good or in a bad way, depending on whether you want them to associate a certain style with a good or a bad thing;)).

Quote from: AsenRG;894096I'm considering to start using Ron Edwards' term, for precisely the reasons you described. Although I'd point out that this goes even for players of older editions that are only interested in the means to kill people.
I mean, the GM's mistake is understandable if she had been struggling with the content the system required her to put inside (and you mentioned she was a new GM, so we can assume both to be true with high degree of probability). But if her encounters were all about killing stuff, that would have been the worse option.

She was a technically highly competent GM, in terms of running 4e combat encounters. But with 4e as her model she didn't give a lot of thought to exploration, or non-linear play. IME GMs who started with 4e tend to run linear strings of combat encounter 'packets'.

Players of older editions raised on eg 1e AD&D competition modules may well be focused on killing everything encountered, especially any attractive female prisoners (they're bound to be dopplegangers/wolfweres/succubi) but at least they're trained to explore the environment, too - possibly to the extent of pixelbitching where no stone goes unturned. Players of 1990s games may wait passively for the train to take them down the plot railroad.

#1...it's possible to develop a meta-style and run games in a bit similar fashion no matter what system or setting? If so, is it a common thing?

I see quite a bit of that around. GM picks up a new system, gives it cursory read and runs it like any other game, simply substituting the new system's core dice mechanic for combat and perception rules and missing out on the fine detail. Which can be a shame because sometimes the fine detail, the little twist on initiative or on how XP is calculated is designed with the rest of the design for a very specific purpose, but it's not the end of the world.

#2    ...the choice of RPGs "made you" the GM/player you are, or...

Not so much.

#3    ...you selected to run/play those certain games because of who you are.

Pretty much this.

#4    Your very first RPG (or the first one you played extensively) somehow shaped your style? That you left it behind and switched to something different isn't important here, it's about the style and "imprint".

The first game I played extensively was Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, Shadows over Bogenhaven specifically. I loved it because I was new to the whole experience of roleplaying but neither the style of the system or the tone and aesthetics of the setting left much of an impression.

The second game I played extensively, right after most Shadows Over Bogenhaven's bloody conclusion was WEG D6 Star Wars. That just clicked. I understood how the system worked, I instinctively approved about what the system and setting were trying to achieve. The game just seemed to priorities the things I was interested in and gloss over the things I didn't really care for.

To this day most of the games I like share many feature of D6 Star Wars, from the level of complexity and granularity, to the light tone and general not sweating over the small stuff, even down to the page count (1st edition).

Is that imprinting or simply finding a suitable match and sticking with it?

Quote from: S'mon;894105She was a technically highly competent GM, in terms of running 4e combat encounters. But with 4e as her model she didn't give a lot of thought to exploration, or non-linear play. IME GMs who started with 4e tend to run linear strings of combat encounter 'packets'.

Players of older editions raised on eg 1e AD&D competition modules may well be focused on killing everything encountered, especially any attractive female prisoners (they're bound to be dopplegangers/wolfweres/succubi) but at least they're trained to explore the environment, too - possibly to the extent of pixelbitching where no stone goes unturned. Players of 1990s games may wait passively for the train to take them down the plot railroad.

That was my point. I didn't doubt her skills as a 4e GM, but a new GM might simply not have the ability to produce more content than the system already requires.

I can't speak for competition modules, but the rest of your generlisations seem mostly spot-on.

Quote from: AsenRG;894096Actually, a lot of training and education, and all brainwashing, is based on much more limited repetitions under emotionally charged circumstances. And it is quite often rather successful at changing how people behave under similar circumstances. OTOH, training based on repetitions often fails to be reproduced under highly emotional circumstances. See: NLP, skills deteriorating under the effects of adrenaline:).
The first session might well be quite successful at that, if the players were emotionally upset (in a good or in a bad way, depending on whether you want them to associate a certain style with a good or a bad thing;)).

You could dress up as a leather nun and beat the players about the head and shoulders with a yardstick for every misstep. This would leave and imprint the first or 100th game they had played. Generally you don't want to bring up brainwashing to prove your point, BF Skinner might agree with your point, but he's been discredited for about a generation now. It would be interesting to learn where you found this out about brainwashing, however. PTSD also erodes cognitive function under stress as well, I can't see how that would be proof that education or training is bad due to repetition. You read the chapter, do the homework and take a test, that is repetition, current philosophy says socialization works as well, thus group study and activities.

To be clear, I am talking here about TTRPG's and not Russian Roulette ala The Deer Hunter, and I think that is important for a variety of reasons. One, and primary, the group you play with will have a bigger effect than anything else, two, this is supposed to a relaxing pastime.

Quote from: AsenRG;894096I'm considering to start using Ron Edwards' term, for precisely the reasons you described.

Troll troll troll your boat.:rolleyes:

My role-playing life began with Vampire, D&D and Shadowrun, all run in the kind of railroadish "GM brings pre-made story for the players" that was more or less the norm in the 90s. For a time I've found that awesome, but then it became repetitive and boring, and I almost abandoned the hobby for good.

Fast forward a bunch of years, the indie scene gets strong, I try a couple games and find the experience pretty different from what I've had in the past, in a positive way. Games like Burning Wheel and Heroquest makes me revisit the hobby looking for entries similar in style, which results in my discovery of Pendragon, Everway, Unknown Armies and Over the Edge. I get happy and back to the hobby. Then comes a new generation of games like Marvel Heroic, Apocalypse World, One Ring, Blades in the Dark, D&D 5e, etc. and I'm hooked like I was 12 years old again.

I think what I want to say is: sometimes your first games and experience do not inform your favorite style of play. I can't stand playing Shadowrun and Vampire nowadays, even if it was my first "love" in the hobby. :D