D&D 5E Geniuses with 5 Int

[Guest 6801328]

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that your voice wasn't allowed to tell your preferences, here, or that Maxperson regularly attended your session as a Fun Cop to stop you from playing your way.

There is no reduction of possible concepts or play opportunities overall. There's a disagreement between camps, with some not in either and agreeing with points on both sides. Don't mistake the fact that you can't immediately convince those arguing against you to change to your opinion with some malicious intent to stifle your ability to play your way.

This is a little disingenuous. Six and I aren't trying to Fun Cop your game, either, and yet here you are debating.

Dannyalcatraz pulled a similar stunt earlier, asking something to the effect of "why do you care what strangers on the internet think?"

My answer is that it's good sport, of course.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Of course there is. If I show up to the game, and Maxperson was the DM, he wouldn't let me play a concept like Eloelle. I'm just arguing for keeping options open. I'm a firm believer in trying to discard your inherent preferences and open yourself to trying to play as many ways as possible. Ideally, you should be able to play OD&D, Dungeon World, FATE, and Fiasco with equal facility, because you understand the different playstyles and approaches necessary to play each game. And if you can enliven your game by playing D&D in a more Dungeon World style, so much the better!

Sorry, but your argument is that if you join a game, there's a general limitation in playstyles because you can't do whatever you want in the game you joined? I don't follow. If I join a game, its because I've taken the time to understand how that table plays and think that I can play there. If it's not to my tastes, I would never think to complain that those people are holding me down and denying me my playstyle. That's an argument of entitlement that I don't think you should be granted. You, and I, do not have the right to expect our preferred playstyle to be accommodated by others. Thinking so is even more oppressive toward that table's playstyle than yours -- after all, a group of more people than just you has already gotten together and decided how they'd like to play. Why should you be able to ignore their collective will, again?

And is the snarky rejoinder strictly necessary? You're more of a formal argument posing grind it out poster.

I defy boxes.

 

[TwoSix]

Dannyalcatraz pulled a similar stunt earlier, asking something to the effect of "why do you care what strangers on the internet think?"

My answer is that it's good sport, of course.

Invigorating!

Yea, I don't care what anyone one poster thinks, personally. But there are always way more lurkers than posters, and I like to keep the idea that "immersion" isn't the end-all and be-all of roleplaying alive in threads where it's being denigrated.

Plus, character concepts that stretch the definition of stats have always been a favorite of mine. One thing I like about Pathfinder, for example, is the number of concepts they have that transform the utility of various stats.

 

[Ovinomancer]

This is a little disingenuous. Six and I aren't trying to Fun Cop your game, either, and yet here you are debating.

It's not disingenuous on account that I've not even gotten close to suggesting that you or Six are Fun Copping my games. Clearly, you aren't and can't. I also can't see how my posting here is somehow reliant on thinking you're Fun Copping me? Help with that causal chain?

Dannyalcatraz pulled a similar stunt earlier, asking something to the effect of "why do you care what strangers on the internet think?"

My answer is that it's good sport, of course.

What I said wasn't similar, though. It was directly in response to Six's comment about his frustration that people here are somehow reducing playstyle choice. If I had made a comment questioning why Six was posting here to begin with, you'd have some rhetorical grounds. Seeing as how I was responding to a direct statement about how Six feels this conversation is limiting playstyle choice, I chose to respond by pointing out the ridiculousness of that claim -- nothing here is limiting playstyle choice, and that includes Six's most recent complaint about not finding a home at Max's table.

 

[TwoSix]

Sorry, but your argument is that if you join a game, there's a general limitation in playstyles because you can't do whatever you want in the game you joined? I don't follow. If I join a game, its because I've taken the time to understand how that table plays and think that I can play there. If it's not to my tastes, I would never think to complain that those people are holding me down and denying me my playstyle. That's an argument of entitlement that I don't think you should be granted. You, and I, do not have the right to expect our preferred playstyle to be accommodated by others. Thinking so is even more oppressive toward that table's playstyle than yours -- after all, a group of more people than just you has already gotten together and decided how they'd like to play. Why should you be able to ignore their collective will, again?

Of course not, and I'm the first one that's happy to accommodate whatever the agreed playstyle is of a new table. It doesn't change the fact that if the table's agreed upon playstyle was broader, more playstyles would be open overall, as that table adds to the sum of all available games within the community at large. The fact that people aren't required to change doesn't change the fact that more opportunities open if they are willing to change.

The arc of the roleplaying universe is long, but it bends towards diversity.

I defy boxes.

There's quite a large group of people that say that.

 

[TwoSix]

What I said wasn't similar, though. It was directly in response to Six's comment about his frustration that people here are somehow reducing playstyle choice. If I had made a comment questioning why Six was posting here to begin with, you'd have some rhetorical grounds. Seeing as how I was responding to a direct statement about how Six feels this conversation is limiting playstyle choice, I chose to respond by pointing out the ridiculousness of that claim -- nothing here is limiting playstyle choice, and that includes Six's most recent complaint about not finding a home at Max's table.

I don't think anyone is limiting playstyle choice. I just think they're not trying to broaden it. The math works out similarly, but the meaning is quite different.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I don't think anyone is limiting playstyle choice. I just think they're not trying to broaden it. The math works out similarly, but the meaning is quite different.

Begging the question, though, why is having more people agree with your playstyle choices an effective why to improve and/or broaden the game? You don't agree with Max's playstyle choices, so aren't you equally guilty of not acting to broaden the game?

Again, I'm in the middle, here -- I've played both ways and don't have an issue with heavy player authorship in general. The games I'm running right now, though, is somewhere in the middle, where players have broad authorship ability so long as there's a minimum fidelity to the setting tropes and mechanics involved. LOL wouldn't fit well in my current game, but would have done wonderfully in the game I ran before this one. I drift. And, as a player, there's very few playstyles that I can't get into, even if I prefer some of them. I like to stretch on occasion.

But, at the end of the day, the table determines the playstyle, and, if you're joining, you need to make sure that you understand that you're not being denied by those people, you're voluntarily agreeing to play in their style when you sit down. Arguments that this limits how broad the game is are silly -- that's you putting your preference ahead of others. The game can have quite a healthy broadness of playstyle without you demanding that every table be accommodating of every playstyle at all times or become part of the problem. That's a soft tyranny of entitlement.

 

[Guest 6801328]

It's not disingenuous on account that I've not even gotten close to suggesting that you or Six are Fun Copping my games. Clearly, you aren't and can't. I also can't see how my posting here is somehow reliant on thinking you're Fun Copping me? Help with that causal chain?

What I said wasn't similar, though. It was directly in response to Six's comment about his frustration that people here are somehow reducing playstyle choice. If I had made a comment questioning why Six was posting here to begin with, you'd have some rhetorical grounds. Seeing as how I was responding to a direct statement about how Six feels this conversation is limiting playstyle choice, I chose to respond by pointing out the ridiculousness of that claim -- nothing here is limiting playstyle choice, and that includes Six's most recent complaint about not finding a home at Max's table.

Oh...sorry. I must have missed the part where Six said that. If he did say that then I retract my accusation.

 

[TwoSix]

But, at the end of the day, the table determines the playstyle, and, if you're joining, you need to make sure that you understand that you're not being denied by those people, you're voluntarily agreeing to play in their style when you sit down. Arguments that this limits how broad the game is are silly -- that's you putting your preference ahead of others. The game can have quite a healthy broadness of playstyle without you demanding that every table be accommodating of every playstyle at all times or become part of the problem. That's a soft tyranny of entitlement.

It's pizza analogy time! (One of my favorite times!)

Say I'm a guy who likes every kind of pizza topping, but my personal favorite happens to be pepperoni. I agree to play with a group of people that includes several vegetarians. Now, I'll happily eat their vegetarian pizza, because I like those toppings, and spending time with the group is far more important than the type of pizza I'm eating. That doesn't change the fact that if those vegetarians were actually omnivores, maybe we could get pizza with pepperoni once in a while. I'm happy to constrain my eating variety for the sake of other's preference, but that doesn't change that their restrictions have constrained me. If everyone eats everything, than you can order anything.

It's a little bit of a stretch because many vegetarians feel that their vegetarianism has a lot of moral weight that vastly outweighs issues of "I want to eat a variety of pizza," but some posters feel playstyle differences carry enough weight that they'll refuse to play games that feature alternate playstyles. There are plenty of playstyle vegetarians around.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Arguments that this limits how broad the game is are silly -- that's you putting your preference ahead of others. The game can have quite a healthy broadness of playstyle without you demanding that every table be accommodating of every playstyle at all times or become part of the problem. That's a soft tyranny of entitlement.

I can agree with you in the context of this particular debate/topic. There are other hotly debated topics that do have the potential to impact us, though, in the sense that if ideas become official then those of us who play Adventurer's League may be stuck playing alongside them (or, conversely, we can't play the way we like in the absence of official rules). So we have an interest in evangelizing our positions in the hopes that more voices will influence the Powers that Be.

And then in other cases it's fun to argue in the same way that it was once fun to use a magnifying glass on ants.