Tony Vargas
Legend
The presentation of CaW/CaS was condescending and slanted, whether the OP consciously intended it to be so or not.This is what I mean when I point out that it's not necessarily the original writer that's the one causing the hostile tone here.
Then perhaps an alternative way of expressing the idea, since CaW/CaS carries those connotations and overtones of incivility conceived in anger & resentment?And there's no reason you can't hold such an opinion, and defend it, while maintaining civility.
Discussions such as this one help me better understand the play experience from multiple points of view, and I don't want them to descend into anger.
Let's try to identify the actual idea, while scrubbing it of anything of that nature:
The theory seems to be that there are exactly two, distinct, mutually incompatible ways to play D&D.
One approaches conflict in an anything-goes manner that views rules, genre conventions, and anything else that stands between the player and victory, as things to be somehow gotten around or leveraged in that pursuit of victory.
The other approaches in-game conflicts in the context of rules & genre conventions, and seeks to remain inside the guidelines implied by each.
If that were true, what are the implications:
What would a game have to do to allow play in first style? Well, it doesn't really have to do much, since the player will act in defiance of anything the game lays down, be it rules, guidelines, themes, or whatever, when doing so is necessary in his view to secure success.
What would a game have to do to allow play in the second style? Well, it also wouldn't need much, it would just have to have clear, functional rules, and be clear on it's intended genre and themes (or lack thereof, leaving them to the GM, as the case may be). That way players wouldn't be left guessing what the 'point' of the game was.
What could a game do to 'force' the first style of play, even on players who prefer the second? A few things: Excessive lethality, for instance, would cause players to focus on victory (and thus survival) over other consideration, because those other considerations can't really be addressed without a character. Unclear or incomplete rules would force the DM to resort to frequent judgement calls, making 'gaming the DM' a needful strategy. On the other extreme, very detailed and inflexible rules could be designed to 'reward system mastery,' again, making effectiveness trump other factors when making decisions.
What could a game do to 'force' the second style of play, even on players who prefer the second? Not much, since players preferring the first style are willing to go outside the rules as presented if need be. About the closest a game could come would be making following the rules and cleaving to genre convention the optimal path to victory in most cases. Which is not so much forcing the second style as disguising the first style as the second.
And, what if there is a continuum between the two? What difference does that make to the theory?
It /would/ imply that the styles are not mutually exclusive, and therefor a game could (perhaps should) support both rather than cater to one or the other.