D&D General Supposing D&D is gamist, what does that mean?

[FrogReaver]

Well, they don't even know what the mechanics actually was, so how did they make that determination besides just blind rejection, binning, and labelling it as not serious?

Maybe because you all told us what the mechanic could accomplish?

 

[FrogReaver]

I mean, if this is defendable, then there's all kinds of things that I could say about you, your play, the games you like, etc, that require nothing more than an offhand statement you've made that I've imagined the rest of for myself and made a judgement on. Like, say, your games are nothing more than playing Mother-May-I because you have the GM having to approve PC actions. I mean, that's silly, but here we are, with about the same level of imagination. Do you feel that me just saying that what you play is just Mother-May-I would be something you'd not feel I was being demeaning or insulting about?

This has been done repeatedly in the past. But when it's done it was mostly done from a more objective sounding point of view and that did make it demeaning and insulting.

But your opinion that my games are mother may I isn't insulting in itself - it's only when you go a step beyond and insinuate that they are objectively so that it becomes a problem.

 

[FrogReaver]

I appreciate the attempt to look like you're being magnanimous in taking what I say as what I mean and for dropping the argument you put forwards. It's a really favor you've done me?

Why do you constantly talk like this?

 

[FrogReaver]

Oh, man, this is ironic. I mean, I could actually go through and point out where you're taking things out of the full context, attempted to recontextualize them, and then build a different narrative, but I think I'll stick to the much easier point -- if you afforded this thinking to my posts as well, then your complaints are as groundless as you say mine are. That's a nice heaping of special pleading.

Again, why do you constantly talk like this?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well, they don't even know what the mechanics actually was, so how did they make that determination besides just blind rejection, binning, and labelling it as not serious?

I mean, if this is defendable, then there's all kinds of things that I could say about you, your play, the games you like, etc, that require nothing more than an offhand statement you've made that I've imagined the rest of for myself and made a judgement on. Like, say, your games are nothing more than playing Mother-May-I because you have the GM having to approve PC actions. I mean, that's silly, but here we are, with about the same level of imagination. Do you feel that me just saying that what you play is just Mother-May-I would be something you'd not feel I was being demeaning or insulting about?

I would certainly disagree, but you're still allowed to hold that opinion, and I would do my best to not get hostile in my response. Granted, I might fail. None of us are perfect.

 

[FrogReaver]

What, seriously? You get special treatment that others do not? And what's this crap about "sides."

What are you talking about? I made the point that D&D players often tend to view other games like BitD through the set of principles they play D&D with and that this isn't fair toward those other games like BitD. Based on what you've previously said, you should be supportive of this position.

 

[Ovinomancer]

This has been done repeatedly in the past. But when it's done it was mostly done from a more objective sounding point of view and that did make it demeaning and insulting.

Oh, so tit-for-tat and all that stuff about it not being actually insulting is out the window because it's just fair retaliation.

But your opinion that my games are mother may I isn't insulting in itself - it's only when you go a step beyond and insinuate that they are objectively so that it becomes a problem.

Again, I challenge you to start a thread making that assertion about D&D and see how far you get with everyone agreeing it's not bad if you don't objectively say it's bad.

I mean, come on, man, you're like a font of special pleading.

What are you talking about? I made the point that D&D players often tend to view other games like BitD through the set of principles they play D&D with and that this isn't fair toward those other games like BitD. Based on what you've previously said, you should be supportive of this position.

Fair enough, I misread that one. My bad.

However, it's funny that you say this, but then do not ever respond to anyone actually doing it to say that this shouldn't be done, instead you mention it in a post where you're chastising others for daring to find that doing so warrants pushback.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I would certainly disagree, but you're still allowed to hold that opinion, and I would do my best to not get hostile in my response. Granted, I might fail. None of us are perfect.

Hmm, let's define hostile. I've pointed out the issues I have, and invited opportunities to address them. I've also provided additional resources to help. So far, you've pushed back as hard against me as I did against Rheaz. Do you feel you're being hostile?

 

[FrogReaver]

Oh, so tit-for-tat and all that stuff about it not being actually insulting is out the window because it's just fair retaliation.

No, absolutely not!

Again, I challenge you to start a thread making that assertion about D&D and see how far you get with everyone agreeing it's not bad if you don't objectively say it's bad.

I mean, come on, man, you're like a font of special pleading.

#1 I don't take that position, so I won't be opening up a thread for it. It's a decent thought experiment though.

#2 I don't know how one could start a thread on that topic that isn't going to come across as a broad claim about D&D play as opposed to just my opinion of how it plays to me.

You may have a point here but I'm afraid that it's mostly going to come down to not getting the tone of the post right. Until I see or think of an example that does my opinion is that any offense taken would likely be legitimate. IMO it really depends on how the message is specifically worded.

#3 Just because others do something doesn't make it okay for one to do the same

Fair enough, I misread that one. My bad.

Thank you.

However, it's funny that you say this, but then do not ever respond to anyone actually doing it to say that this shouldn't be done, instead you mention it in a post where you're chastising others for daring to find that doing so warrants pushback.

That's valid enough. For what it's worth, I don't expect the D&D player with no experience with other games to even begin to be able to realize they are applying D&D principles to games that don't share them. I just don't think they have the knowledge to really understand what that means until it's really explained to them. So IMO, chastising them for not knowing what they don't know isn't a very helpful admonishment. Which is why I directed it more toward those that should know and be able to recognize when that's happening.

 

[RhaezDaevan]

The 3rd reason - 'saying a game, and the people playing it are not serious'. The Looney Tunes examples. This one I agree is offensive, but it also shows the poster isn't flat out rejecting such mechanics which is an excellent starting point. The next place I would have taken that would have been heist films as they are notorious for flashbacks showing their prep at the moment it matters. To me such mechanics also work great for heist games which would be a fairly serious genre and would be a logical place to push back against the only non-serious games opinion.

To clarify, I never said the game or the people playing it were not serious. That's a certain someone adding extra words to what I stated. And I'll concede the point that retroactively having a small hand held tool is not enough to ruin the whole experience for me. What I would find cartoonish is a player declaring they had a previously unestablished large or bulky item when their previous activities would have been hampered or even prevented had we all known they had it on them.

For example if a player character scaled a cliff side then squeezed through some vents to enter a room, then noticed they needed a ladder to reach the security cameras. It would bother me for the player to declare they had a ladder on them the whole time. Or maybe the gm proposes a compromise in a situation like that? "You couldn't have had a ladder, but maybe collapsible stilts?"

Having not read the rules myself, maybe this is already accounted for. Guilty by ignorance perhaps?