D&D 5E What's the rush? Has the "here and now" been replaced by the "next level" attitude?

[Celebrim]

Come on Celebrim.

And what?

The passive-aggressive...

Again, what? If anything is passive aggressive, it's taking someone's comment about skinner boxing to be pejoratively comparing people to rats. If it had in any way been a pejorative comparison of people to rats, then it wouldn't have been passive aggressive at all - that clearly aggressive and hostile. Passive aggressive is when you indirectly express hostility. The most common sort at EnWorld is when you intimate that other people are being so insulting that they need to have their position forcibly quelled. Typically this is done by characterizing other peoples arguments as being evil, beyond the pale, insulting, or what have you so that instead of talking with each other about anything, we end up arguing about who is being insulting.

Like well, now.

..., pejorative use of the term as an indictment of a playstyle as shallow and lacking in sophistication is clear and present.

I read the quoted comment and I think that that is a lot of over the top passive aggressive characterization of it. It's certainly no less relevant and no more pejorative than the '20 minutes of fun packed into 4 hours of play' type comments. Both represent in a pithy way serious design concerns for an RPG. There is a danger that your attempts at simulation will create tons of micromanagement relative to play time - in a cRPG for example, organizing packs, transferring items between characters, picking up items, buying and selling items, might end up being a considerable percentage of play time. Likewise, there is a danger that you end up creating a game that is relatively uncompelling outside of the rewards of leveling up and designing your character. Those are real concepts and real problems that I'd like to think we are mature enough to talk about, sympathize with, and explain without people yelling about comparing people to rats.

It was pigeons in the original experiment anyway.

The overt indictment of folks who use xp at any pace determined to be accelerated is simultaneously used to deride people for lack of patience and wanting their cake and wanting it NOW (as children). They don't appreciate the process or the aspect of the past-time that is equal parts artful aesthetic. They only (or at least primarily) are interested in the proportion that is the "conveyer belt of fun (NOW)" part of the leisure activity. Hence, their tastes are immature or unrefined. From there it is a minor bit of (biased) extrapolation or (reckless) correlation to dismiss the system(s) they play or mechanics they prefer.

That isn't assuming motives. It is fundamental. "The Handbook for RPG Warring" is premised upon it. I hope we can dispense with any ignorance of that reality.

Even if I were to accept all that characterization, or even if I thought you could actually attribute it to the post in question, we could equally characterize all the defenses of fast leveling from you "Handbook of RPG Warring" if we are inclined to do so. People who want to level solely are boring micromanagers filling up the game with tedious tasks because they don't actually have the imagination to think up exciting stories. Their DMs are sadists who enjoy making PCs fail and making players bored. Blah blah blah blah blah. I don't even want to bother to keep making the stuff up, or comb back through the thread for all that insinuation, because it's not valuable.

I don't think viewing the thread the lens of your "Handbook for RPG Warring" is very healthy. There are real dangers to both slow or fast pacing. There are advantages and disadvantages to both. It's worthwhile to discuss things like:

What are the advantages and disadvantages of faster or slower pacing?
When should we be using a faster or slower pace?
How does pace of power advancement relate to the pace of story advancement?
Are we letting ourselves be unduly influenced to expect a certain pace of play or a pace of an aspect of play based on what worked elsewhere without consideration to what could work in a different story, format, or style?
Why do we level up at all? Surely a good story doesn't require it. What are we playing for? I advice assuming the answer is probably a long list and not one single thing (see The Forge Fallacy, basically good games can only address a single goal of play).

Instead we are trying to quell whether or not people can bring up the subject of operative conditioning in the context of an RPG.

 

[Manbearcat]

And what?

Unfortunately, you've completely got me wrong. I couldn't possibly care less about moderation or "quelling conversation." I have never, and will never, report a singular post. I'm about competing in "the arena of ideas" (without QC) about as much as you can be. However, I'm also by saying what you mean, meaning what you say and standing by your words.

Yes, in the "the whole world is just one big Skinner Box" sense of the phrase, it is non-pejorative. But how you can possibly say that specifically (within context of the user's other utterances) and generally a statement such as

"danger that the focus of the game"

+

"shifts more towards gaining levels and assorted goodies skinner box style"

+

"instead of playing out the game"

isn't pejorative? Its asserting that (a) the practice is deviant from orthodox. Its asserting that it is (b) "a danger." A danger from what? Something that is deviant to orthodox and toxic to the interests of the hobbyist. An Operant Conditioning Chamber (true to the source material) is about assuaging primal needs and the propensity for automaton behavior to become manifest when the right stimulus is presented and feedback loop is devised. Your average RPG player takes (at least enough) pride in their gameplay such that they feel that their behavior at the table is not simply that of an automaton unconsciously sating a primal need through a seductive feedback loop. Most players consider their * play to be at least as "high-minded" and intellectually stimulating as reading a book. There is nothing high-minded and intellectually stimulating about being unwarily seduced by a basic instinct and the infrastructure that perpetuates that seduction "instead of playing out the game" (which is not *).

How is that even contentious?

 

[Balesir]

The most common sort at EnWorld is when you intimate that other people are being so insulting that they need to have their position forcibly quelled.

I haven't seen anyone's "position" being "quelled" here - only their arguments. And if the argument is insulting, casually derisive or intended as such - as the "Skinner box" line clearly was - then I would say that there is a good reason to quell that specific argument. Let the arguer put their point without being insulting or belittling instead; simples.

There is a danger that your attempts at simulation will create tons of micromanagement relative to play time - in a cRPG for example, organizing packs, transferring items between characters, picking up items, buying and selling items, might end up being a considerable percentage of play time. Likewise, there is a danger that you end up creating a game that is relatively uncompelling outside of the rewards of leveling up and designing your character. Those are real concepts and real problems that I'd like to think we are mature enough to talk about, sympathize with, and explain without people yelling about comparing people to rats.

Except that in the first case excessive micromanagement clearly does take time away from alternative and possibly more enjoyable activities (although just what constitutes "excessive" will be in the eye of the beholder), whereas a focus on levelling up rewards is in no way logically linked to uncompelling elements of the game outside these rewards. In other words, it's perfectly possible to have a dearth of compelling elements in the game while still not having "fast" levelling up (whatever that might be judged to be), while it's also quite possible to have "fast" and rewarding levelling and yet still have compelling game elements besides that.

So the two cases really aren't comparable at all.

 

[MoonSong]

And what?



Again, what? If anything is passive aggressive, it's taking someone's comment about skinner boxing to be pejoratively comparing people to rats. If it had in any way been a pejorative comparison of people to rats, then it wouldn't have been passive aggressive at all - that clearly aggressive and hostile. Passive aggressive is when you indirectly express hostility. The most common sort at EnWorld is when you intimate that other people are being so insulting that they need to have their position forcibly quelled. Typically this is done by characterizing other peoples arguments as being evil, beyond the pale, insulting, or what have you so that instead of talking with each other about anything, we end up arguing about who is being insulting.

Like well, now.



I read the quoted comment and I think that that is a lot of over the top passive aggressive characterization of it. It's certainly no less relevant and no more pejorative than the '20 minutes of fun packed into 4 hours of play' type comments. Both represent in a pithy way serious design concerns for an RPG. There is a danger that your attempts at simulation will create tons of micromanagement relative to play time - in a cRPG for example, organizing packs, transferring items between characters, picking up items, buying and selling items, might end up being a considerable percentage of play time. Likewise, there is a danger that you end up creating a game that is relatively uncompelling outside of the rewards of leveling up and designing your character. Those are real concepts and real problems that I'd like to think we are mature enough to talk about, sympathize with, and explain without people yelling about comparing people to rats.

It was pigeons in the original experiment anyway.



Even if I were to accept all that characterization, or even if I thought you could actually attribute it to the post in question, we could equally characterize all the defenses of fast leveling from you "Handbook of RPG Warring" if we are inclined to do so. People who want to level solely are boring micromanagers filling up the game with tedious tasks because they don't actually have the imagination to think up exciting stories. Their DMs are sadists who enjoy making PCs fail and making players bored. Blah blah blah blah blah. I don't even want to bother to keep making the stuff up, or comb back through the thread for all that insinuation, because it's not valuable.

I don't think viewing the thread the lens of your "Handbook for RPG Warring" is very healthy. There are real dangers to both slow or fast pacing. There are advantages and disadvantages to both. It's worthwhile to discuss things like:

What are the advantages and disadvantages of faster or slower pacing?
When should we be using a faster or slower pace?
How does pace of power advancement relate to the pace of story advancement?
Are we letting ourselves be unduly influenced to expect a certain pace of play or a pace of an aspect of play based on what worked elsewhere without consideration to what could work in a different story, format, or style?
Why do we level up at all? Surely a good story doesn't require it. What are we playing for? I advice assuming the answer is probably a long list and not one single thing (see The Forge Fallacy, basically good games can only address a single goal of play).

Instead we are trying to quell whether or not people can bring up the subject of operative conditioning in the context of an RPG.

Ok, first of all, stop bringing Skinner into the talk. (Of course all of the following is IMO) Skinner's work is an outdated and fundamentally flawed theory that is dehumanizing at its core, harmed forever generations of students and to the date keeps millions of teachers handtied around the world. (So, in short, Skinner can be quite polemic and for some has very negative connotations)

Of course that a too heavy emphasis in leveling up might cause players to forget the actual play, but you know what? DMs and players are the ones making the content, nobody intrudes your session and forces you to stop paying attention to content.

It is obviously important to make those questions you ask, but at some point you gotta stop navelgazing and restart playing. I mean there are differences in playstyle, and diversity can only be good. We shouldn't wastet time with pointless attacks.

 

[Hussar]

If you in the same post define those 40 minutes as the only fun thing that happens...

Wow. Talk about taking things out of context. My original comment was about someone playing 1 hour of challenge in a 4 hour session. It was an off the cuff comment since it seemed so fitting. Granted, to me, that would seem very boring, so, yeah, if you want to spend 75% of your gaming time doing stuff that has no challenge for the characters, more power to you. Not really interested myself.

 

[Hussar]

Sorry but the fact that these people want to rush through levels to get to what they see as "juicy bits" has effected the design of the game and I don't like it.

But, you've yet to show that levelling has actually increased in speed.

 

[Hussar]

Look, I take a pragmatic approach to gaming. I do.

I have about two years to complete any given campaign. How do I know this? Experience. After two years of play, real life is going to step in and step on the neck of any game I've ever participated in. Might be shorter, might be longer, but, two years is about the half life. So, before I start any campaign, I know this to be close enough to true.

I play weekly in three hour sessions. Again, this is true. This is the time I have blocked off out of my schedule which works for me and mine. We cannot go longer and no one wants to go shorter.

In any given year, I'll likely get about 45 sessions. We'll lose ten sessions a year to sicknesses, family stuff, Christmas holidays, national holidays, whatever. Which gives me about 90 sessions max for any given campaign.

Again, all of this is based on experience, so, while there might be exceptions, this is true enough for me. Obviously this won't be true for you.

So, with all of the above, I get about a 270 hour campaign. That's the max amount of time I'm going to get. Anything longer than that is borrowed time, and, honestly, less than that is probably the norm.

There is, however, one last point that I think has been largely ignored in this thread:

I want to play the whole game.

I don't want to play half the game. I never did. I always remember playing AD&D, where we rarely went over about 10th or so level, looking at the other half of the game and thinking, "Wow, what a waste." I want to play in a campaign where we are facing orcs, giants, dragons and demon lords, in the same campaign. And, yup, I probably wouldn't mind killing all of them too. Combat is a part of D&D for me. Not the only part, but, certainly a part. Again, I'm not going to apologise for my preferences.

If I want to play (or DM) the whole game, then I need a certain rate of advancement. in a 3e game, I'm pretty happy wrapping up around 17th level or so. Which, again, gives me about 15 hours/level.

This has nothing to do with "wanting the next shiny" or any other pejorative phrase you want to toss out. It's simply a pragmatic recognition that if I want to play the whole game, then I have to advance the levels at a certain rate.

 

[billd91]

There is, however, one last point that I think has been largely ignored in this thread:

I want to play the whole game.

I don't want to play half the game. I never did. I always remember playing AD&D, where we rarely went over about 10th or so level, looking at the other half of the game and thinking, "Wow, what a waste." I want to play in a campaign where we are facing orcs, giants, dragons and demon lords, in the same campaign. And, yup, I probably wouldn't mind killing all of them too. Combat is a part of D&D for me. Not the only part, but, certainly a part. Again, I'm not going to apologise for my preferences.

I find this a very weird perspective. It's an open-ended role playing game. There is no whle game, no half game. There's just the segments you want and choose to play. If you want to play a game facing orcs, giants, dragons, and demon lords... What stopped you? It took too long for the attention span of your player groups?

 

[Celebrim]

There was a time when you could go to the EnWorld forums and find great ideas and great content.

Now all you can find is an argument.

 

[Campbell]

There was a time when you could go to the EnWorld forums and find great ideas and great content.

Now all you can find is an argument.

This must be one of the two times a day the clock is broken because I actually agree with Celebrim, although I bet the underlying factors in our judgement are different. As of late I feel like the D&D community has separated from the larger RPG community in a particularly painful way - it feels like the emotional dimension of role playing has largely been ignored in our community (to me). It feels like we have become to focused on minutia and how other people are doing it wrong, rather than techniques for improving actual play.

Edit: Something must be particularly wrong because I cannot give Celebrim experience. I'm fairly sure I don't make a habit of agreeing with him.