D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[AlViking]

I’m not saying anything about 100% impartiality.

I’m saying you think you’re being impartial, but you’re not.

Like others I do the best I can to be impartial while acknowledging that I will never be perfect. It's not a binary thing but you are still stating that it's 100% or you aren't impartial with different words. Which is pushing a logical fallacy as far as I'm concerned.

 

[TwoSix]

I suspect you and I have a vast difference of opinion on exactly how often it's not desirable.

But we always agree on pretty much everything!

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I think I've established that I don't see these rules as forcing PC behavior. For me, they move play along. I have a low threshold for participating in or observing RPed arguments where neither party has a clear end-game and/or is willing to back down from their assumptions, whether it's GM-player or player-player.

That’s a very self-centred position. Many players enjoy conversing in character with NPCs - including myself. Conversation does not have an “end-game”, the pleasure of the conversation is its own end.

So what you are saying is that PCs should be mind controlled to stop them chatting with NPCs.

 

[Campbell]

Well, that makes sense. I disagree with Narrativist thinking on almost every level.

Disagree with as in disagree with its existence? Or as in realize it's not for you but worthy of respect as part of the overall hobby we all share?

 

[Bedrockgames]

I respect your opinion, but I've never seen a rulings based approach here that I actually thought paid for its downsides with its upsides.

That is a subjective thing. If it is not for you, it is not for you. I have players in my own group who are not into rules light for this reason, and I know not to push them to play a rules light system because it isnt' what they want. I have rules light versions of my system, medium and medium-heavy. Part of the reason for that is it gives me options depending on who I am gaming with.

For me, rulings is something that greatly enhances play, and while there are downsides, as there are to every design choice and every style choice, the good outweighs the bad. Some players though need a more consistent and thorough systems and that is also totally fine (I get the attraction as those systems also have an appeal to me)

 

[Micah Sweet]

Disagree with as in disagree with its existence? Or as in realize it's not for you but worthy of respect as part of the overall hobby we all share?

The second one. But I really don't like it.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Disagree with as in disagree with its existence? Or as in realize it's not for you but worthy of respect as part of the overall hobby we all share?

Is it the same hobby? It seems to me at least as conceptually different as Scrabble is to Monopoly.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Is it the same hobby? It seems to me at least as conceptually different as Scrabble is to Monopoly.

Maybe the hobby is "boardgame"?

 

[hawkeyefan]

I see no good reason to cut out all the fun parts of the game in order to discuss the game to your satisfaction.

I'm not asking you to cut them out of your game. How could I even do that?

I'm saying for the sake of discussion, look at them that way. If you do, you may better see where I'm coming from.

If you don't want to do that, so be it... but I'm not trying to change the way you play, I'm just trying to have a discussion.

Let’s be clear: I wasn’t asking you to use language I approve of. I asked what you would prefer I use to refer to your position, so I could describe it accurately in discussion. That’s a straightforward request, not a rhetorical trap. You’ve criticized how others label your approach, so if you want those criticisms taken seriously, you need to offer terminology that actually reflects your position.

You asked me to describe my play after I'd been doing so for pages. And any criticisms I've had about how others describe play I have presented as "this is why I don't describe it that way..." not "It should never be described that way". I don't mind that there are differences of opinion on this stuff. That's fine.

Up until your last few comments, that hadn’t happened. I reviewed our entire thread to double-check this.

The phrase “player-directed as hawkeyefan describes it” works fine for reference.

The “sandbox vs. playground” metaphor you followed it with was a sarcastic framing meant to diminish what I’m doing. You didn’t offer it to clarify. You offered it to score a point. That may feel satisfying in the moment, but it doesn’t move the conversation forward or help anyone else understand the distinction.

In constant, I have not tried to reframe what your points into my terms. I offered collaborative criticism, which you didn't like, as result in the next post, I respected that and asked what you would like me to use.

I know we have a history of pointed debates, but in this thread, I thought we moved past that and were having a productive conversation about our mutual assumptions. But a backhanded metaphor is a setback, and that part’s on you.

I made that comparison to make a point, not to score a point. I'll also point out this was after you accused me of being disingenuous. We have been having a pleasant discussion. If you feel that's over and need to blame me, then feel free.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Is it the same hobby? It seems to me at least as conceptually different as Scrabble is to Monopoly.

But those... those are both boardgames... which would put them in the same hobby...