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

[TwoSix]

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.

Yes, because there’s nothing self-centered about making me listen to your stakeless conversation with an NPC, lol.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

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

Monopoly is not a board game but a procedural generator for arguments with my friends and family, like Settlers of Catan. It's Thanksgiving dinner without the turkey.

 

[TwoSix]

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

“I can smell evil; it’s like a sixth sense.

Actually, that would be one of the five…”

 

[Old Fezziwig]

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.

1) Holy cats, self-centered? I stated a preference, just like you have here. I'm not saying anyone shouldn't play like that, just that I don't enjoy it.

2) That's not what I'm saying. I would appreciate your not putting words in my mouth.

 

[hawkeyefan]

1) Holy cats, self-centered? I stated a preference, just like you have here. I'm not saying anyone shouldn't play like that, just that I don't enjoy it.

2) That's not what I'm saying. I would appreciate your not putting words in my mouth.

Yeah, that's not something I generally want to see in play, either. At least, not for very long. A little color here and there is one thing... a long scene that accomplishes nothing for the game? It's not worth the table time to me.

And I actually enjoy watching others roleplay when I'm not in a scene... but when there's something at stake. Some kind of conflict. Watching two players have the equivalent of small talk in character? Yeah, that's not something I want to watch.

 

[Thomas Shey]

That is a subjective thing. If it is not for you, it is not for you.

Very much not. I think there's intrinsic problems with it, but that doesn't mean everyone sees it that way or would be likely to run into them.

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.

Sound approach.

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)

I can understand the attraction of the improv element of that sort of thing; I just don't see it as having a consistent enough a value to make up for the loss of consistency in expectation.

 

[Umbran]

Heck, Micah, I know you hate that style of play and don’t want to engage with it, but you still at least know who he is and his position in the industry.

Guess what? I had to go look up what he was known for. I don't know the names of comic artists or film directors most of the time either.

It is possible to like games, and know tons about them and how they are played, without giving a hoot about the names of designers.

If you are going to be "suspicious" of people for not knowing names of people they've never spoken to, that's sounds like a problem for you, not for anyone else.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

A

The exception in my mind is figuring out what techniques work the best with your creative goals. That can be a good topic for discussion.

That said, these conversations often get derailed by a few recurring issues:

• Emotional overinvestment in one's preferred style
• Reframing everything in one's own terminology instead of trying to understand and use others’ terms in context
• Failing to acknowledge that different creative goals can lead to different, yet valid, sets of techniques
• Ignoring that the same technique can serve different purposes depending on context and emphasis
• Making false equivalences between approaches that serve fundamentally different ends
• Assuming bad faith instead of starting from a place of charitable interpretation

For example, in Vincent Baker’s post, we find this:



This doesn’t advance the core discussion about the role of character sheets. It frames anyone who disagrees as a conservative defending broken old traditions, suggesting they’re blinded to what he sees as the real issue. That’s not just a viewpoint; it’s a rhetorical strategy that shuts down debate.

But if you strip that framing away, his actual point about character sheets supporting his creative goals is coherent and internally consistent.

Is it a better way? No. It’s a way. It may suit the games he designs, but it’s not the only way to approach character sheets, even when it comes to his creative priorities.

And I find the terms on which you want to limit the discussion to be as ideological and limited (and limiting) as you attribute Baker's or @pemerton 's of being. It doesn't seem like a terribly useful basis for discussion. This is largely why I find it best to hew as close as possible to discussion of actual play and concrete process of play. We can at least explore that.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah, that's not something I generally want to see in play, either. At least, not for very long. A little color here and there is one thing... a long scene that accomplishes nothing for the game? It's not worth the table time to me.

And I actually enjoy watching others roleplay when I'm not in a scene... but when there's something at stake. Some kind of conflict. Watching two players have the equivalent of small talk in character? Yeah, that's not something I want to watch.

Is the possibility of humor sufficient stakes? Because I've seen a lot of in-character discussions where that appears to be the goal.

 

[The Firebird]

Yeah, that's not something I generally want to see in play, either. At least, not for very long. A little color here and there is one thing... a long scene that accomplishes nothing for the game? It's not worth the table time to me.

And I actually enjoy watching others roleplay when I'm not in a scene... but when there's something at stake. Some kind of conflict. Watching two players have the equivalent of small talk in character? Yeah, that's not something I want to watch.

This gets back to why I don't like the term color. It artificially divides gameplay into "important" and "unimportant" prior to it hitting the table. But it can be hard to know what is going to be important until it has played out. Maybe the conversation develops the characters in a new or unexpected way. Maybe it helps flesh them out to see how they react when their beliefs aren't being tested. Maybe it makes it feel more meaningful when they are tested later--because we've spent so much time with them as they are.