I have been reflecting upon the rejection of One True Way. 

One True Way = Absolute Truth.

If there is to be some basic, minimum semblance of reality in your games; then perhaps there should be a little absolute truth present.  Water is wet, fire is hot, ice is cold, etc.  Otherwise, you might as well abandon all the laws of physics too.

I don't think it matters too much what the game mechanics are.  Select a genre, choose some mechanics, and play the game.  To me the OSR seems to have a style that I happen to like.  Enough rules, but not too many rules.  Enough mechanical complexity, but not too much complexity.

Quote from: Jam The MF on September 01, 2021, 10:42:07 PM
One True Way = Absolute Truth.

If there is to be some basic, minimum semblance of reality in your games; then perhaps there should be a little absolute truth present.  Water is wet, fire is hot, ice is cold, etc.  Otherwise, you might as well abandon all the laws of physics too.

That's semantically cute, but "one true wayism" as typically discussed refers to how the game is played, not the existence of "truths" within the fantasy setting.

Quote from: Zalman on September 03, 2021, 11:08:03 AM

Quote from: Jam The MF on September 01, 2021, 10:42:07 PM
One True Way = Absolute Truth.

If there is to be some basic, minimum semblance of reality in your games; then perhaps there should be a little absolute truth present.  Water is wet, fire is hot, ice is cold, etc.  Otherwise, you might as well abandon all the laws of physics too.

That's semantically cute, but "one true wayism" as typically discussed refers to how the game is played, not the existence of "truths" within the fantasy setting.

I disagree that is how it's typically discussed. I think it's most often invoked as a pejorative.

But even if I grant that one true wayisms is specifically about how the game is played, what does that look like? Are people going around, wagging their fingers about how the One True Way to play, oh, say, AD&D, is playing strictly by the rules while holding no opinion as to what the absolute truth of those rules are? Dictating the how while leaving wiggle room in the what results in more than "one" true way.

Quote from: Lunamancer on September 03, 2021, 10:06:22 PM

Quote from: Zalman on September 03, 2021, 11:08:03 AM

Quote from: Jam The MF on September 01, 2021, 10:42:07 PM
One True Way = Absolute Truth.

If there is to be some basic, minimum semblance of reality in your games; then perhaps there should be a little absolute truth present.  Water is wet, fire is hot, ice is cold, etc.  Otherwise, you might as well abandon all the laws of physics too.

That's semantically cute, but "one true wayism" as typically discussed refers to how the game is played, not the existence of "truths" within the fantasy setting.

I disagree that is how it's typically discussed. I think it's most often invoked as a pejorative.

Because it is intended as a pejorative. It is shorthand for people who believe everyone should play as they do and others are objectively wrong if they don't play that way.

Whether coming from the Left or the Right or Orange or the Blue, it's basically Collectivist thought... that there is a one-size fits all answer fo gaming that everyone should adhere to and if you don't then you don't know what's actually best for you.

And I get the sentiment; the SJW cancel culture demands conformity to their standards and "eye-for-an-eye" feels really good as an answer... except that it's every bit as alienating to those who aren't on the extremes.

And to be clear; there IS a distinction to be made between "I think [way I play] will produce more satisfying results" and "your way sucks and is badwrongfun and does not belong in polite company."

There's nothing wrong with a preference; but a OneTrueWayist is more about tearing down others' preferences than actually selling why theirs are so much better and can't seem to understand that, in the field of entertainment, people can have different preferences. They're basically equivalent to some baseball fanatic telling someone they're unAmerican and a horrible human being if they have no interest in baseball.

Quote from: Lunamancer on September 03, 2021, 10:06:22 PM

Quote from: Zalman on September 03, 2021, 11:08:03 AM
That's semantically cute, but "one true wayism" as typically discussed refers to how the game is played, not the existence of "truths" within the fantasy setting.

I disagree that is how it's typically discussed. I think it's most often invoked as a pejorative.

Oh I agree it is pejorative. It's people telling other people that they're playing "wrong".

There may not be One True Way but there are certainly some true ways and some false ways.

I analogize to diet (as in one's choice of food viewed as a pattern). Diet has an objective component (nutrition) and a subjective component (flavor). There are nutritious diets that are distasteful, and flavorful diets that are not nutritious, as well as flavorless and nutritionless diets, and (best of all) flavorful and nutritious diets. Because we have diversity of human biology, nutritious needs and digestive capacities can favor (objective differences) as can tastes (subjective differences).

Because the choices are complex, cuisines develop to help local groups habituated to similar nutritional needs and flavor tastes be able to eat wisely without having to agonize over each choice. But as such it is impossible to assert that the Mediterranean Diet is the One True Way, because depending on your nutritional needs and subjective tastes, you might do better with Japanese Diet or Paleo Diet or whatnot.

Often it's not clear whether a particular cuisine is good. It can take years to figure it out. Look at the modern American cuisine, which went disastrously wrong in thinking that salt and fat were bad, and carbs and margarine were good, for instance. One of the values of tradition is that you have a long historical track record of effective goodness.

Given the above, one can *truthfully* assert that:
a) Someone who claims to be eating nutritiously and develops scurvy and rickets from lack of Vitamin C and D is wrong; and
b) Someone who claims to be eating a Mediterranean diet, who eats rice noodles, soy sauce, and sushi as his staples, but never olive oil, chickpeas, lamb, or cuimin, is wrong.
c) Someone who is lactose and gluten intolerant who constantly eats wheat and cheese pizza would be served by a change of cuisine.

Just like eating or any other human activity, playing role-playing games can be good for you (for your mind, in this case). It can help you flourish as a person: improve reading skills, learn new things, improve math abilities, improve social skills, develop acting chops, all sorts of things. It can also be bad for you, diminish you, in the same way that inveterate gambling or alcoholism can diminish your flourishing. 

Just like there are a number of known cuisines, RPGs have a number of known methods of play (OSR, Hickman Revolution, Gygaxian Naturalism, New School, whatever labels you wish to apply). Just like new cuisines get developed ("Asian Fusion" "Paleo"), new methods of play are also developed (New School OSR DIY).

When I see people playing in tabletop RPGs where the players are abused by a manipulative and sociopathic gamemaster who enjoys making them miserable, I assert they are playing wrong as in type a of wrong. They are wrong about the psychological nutrition of what they are doing.

When I see people playing in tabletop RPGs where the players are participating in a scripted story-arc where death is never a real possibility and player skill is minimized, and they claim they are playing OSR, I assert they are playing wrong as in type b of wrong. They are wrong about what the tradition entails.

But when I see people playing in tabletop RPGs where the players are participating in a scripted story-arc where death is never a real possibility and player skill is minimized, and they claim they are playing New School, I simply say, "that's not to my taste" and "that doesn't bring the value I want."

There is absolutely nothing wrong with "gatekeeping" OSR play. French chefs gatekeep French cuisine to preserve the traditional methods of cooking for the same reason. There's also nothing wrong with innovating to create California Pizza or whatever, either, except insofar as your innovation might turn out to be flawed or lame.

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 03, 2021, 11:55:56 PM
Because it is intended as a pejorative. It is shorthand for people who believe everyone should play as they do and others are objectively wrong if they don't play that way.

I get that. In fact, I agree with your post 100%. The problem I see here is that anyone invoking this pejorative is themselves telling the other person that they're wrong. And in all fairness, that might actually be the case. Then again, it might not. In my experience, accusations of OneTrueWayisms seem to be far more common than actual OneTrueWayisms. So I'm not a fan of the term at all.

QuoteAnd to be clear; there IS a distinction to be made between "I think [way I play] will produce more satisfying results" and "your way sucks and is badwrongfun and does not belong in polite company."

Absolutely. And that's precisely where the problem point is. People sometimes invoke the term without making that exact distinction. And by sometimes, I mean more often than not when the term is invoked, there has been a failure to make this distinction.

QuoteThere's nothing wrong with a preference; but a OneTrueWayist is more about tearing down others' preferences

I'm cutting your line here because I think this is the crucial part. If someone somehow through divine insight or whathaveyou actually stumbled upon ancient secrets of the universe that revealed the One True Way and they adopt it, run with it, and have the most fun and enjoyable game in the world, nobody's going to have a beef with that (apart from, perhaps, a small number of envious trolls). You can OneTrueWay all you want if it's working for you and you're not tearing others down.

So the real sin here is the tearing others down part. Not the OneTrueWay part. And I have to tell you, tearing others down is unfortunately par for the course in online RPG discussions. Even when nobody is trying to be an asshole.

For example, ask someone why they like 3E over 1E or 2E? "The reverse AC, man. THAC0 made combat so confusing." Great. You just took a jab at my jam. The intent was to do nothing more than express one's own preferences, not to tell anyone else how to play, but gamers seem pretty bad at stating something they like without contrasting it in a way that disparages their less preferred alternative.

This example is a really small thing, but we all know someone somewhere actually is sensitive enough to take offense to something like this. This I think ties in to the OP topic when we look at what options do we have?

1. Get thicker skin.
2. Quit the hobby altogether.
3. Be a relentless whiner that nobody likes.
4. Cancel the offenders.

I've listed these in order from my most preferred strategy to my least preferred. Other people will have different preference rankings in their strategies. Obviously we're not going to hear too much from people who just quit the hobby. We are going to hear a lot from relentless whiners, but if nobody likes them their days are numbered. And I think if we just go around canceling each other, most people aren't going to survive the purge.

That leaves #1 as the most sustainable strategy, and so understandably I think that's where a disproportionate number of the old guard are going to fall. And it can be a fine line between having thick skin and being insensitive. And thick-skinned are also going to have higher tolerance of the insensitive. So there's going to be no shortage of criticisms, many of which are valid, that can be leveled against the old guard culture. There are going to be insensitive jerks among us. But imperfect as the culture is, it's the most sustainable mix of tolerance. It's the one that works.

Effin' neutral clerics man...