Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Iosue" data-source="post: 5987627" data-attributes="member: 6680772">I'm going to have to disagree.&nbsp; In the first example, the player fails to do the cool thing he wanted to do, and in the end must resort to just &quot;I attack.&quot;&nbsp; In the second example, the player does what he wants to do.&nbsp; This was intentional, yes?&nbsp; If you're demonstrating a failure of one system and the success of another, that's not exactly &quot;neutral&quot; is it?&nbsp; Nor do I see in the first example any of what I consider the strong points of the first style, or the weaknesses of the second style.Then we have &quot;Mother-may-I&quot;, which we both agree is demeaning and insulting.&nbsp; And here you have the whole style of play put into that context including &quot;Mother may I?&quot; and &quot;Yes, you may&quot; at each point.&nbsp; You don't see how that's condescending?&nbsp; How it could sound condescending, even if you don't mean it that way?Look, my intention is not to single you out here.&nbsp; As you said to Scylla, I'm addressing ideas here, not people.&nbsp; Your post, particularly with the examples of play, simply exemplified that absolutely infuriating condescension and dismissal.&nbsp; I play 4e and it drives me up the wall when I see &quot;MMORPG&quot;, &quot;tactical skirmish game&quot;, &quot;not D&amp;D&quot; and so on.&nbsp; But I also enjoy TSR-era D&amp;D, so it's even more frustrating when fellow 4e fans, who know what it's like to have their whole game put down based on somebody's bad experiences and/or prejudices, go ahead and casually drop &quot;mother-may-I&quot;, like it isn't exactly like &quot;tactical skirmish game&quot; or &quot;MMORPG&quot;.&nbsp; Even worse, since at least those reflect actual influences on 4e, whereas &quot;Mother-may-I&quot; is the exact opposite of the style of play being attempted.I think I was pretty clear.&nbsp; Just as you hate having your considered criticisms and preferences summed up as &quot;bad GM&quot;, I hate having one of my favorite playstyles, which requires a number of different not-simple factors, summed up as &quot;mother-may-I&quot;.It must be discussed?&nbsp; Why?&nbsp; I have no doubt that you've seen exchanges just like that.&nbsp; But as is often pointed out, the plural of anecdote is not data.&nbsp; I, myself, swear to God, had this kind of experience:DM: Okay, so this is a skill challenge.&nbsp; You can use Diplomacy to do X, Athletics to do Y, Intimidate to do Z, etc.&nbsp; You need five successes.Me, playing a Knight trained in Diplomacy: I have a 9 in Diplomacy, so I'll do X.Other Players: No, no.&nbsp; Serena (party NPC) is a Bard, leave Diplomacy to her.Me: Uhh, okay.&nbsp; I guess I'll do Y.(We go around the table, rolling our best applicable skills.)I don't think the above example says a damn thing about 4e, or games with tight, comprehensive rules.&nbsp; As far as I'm concerned, my group was misusing the system.&nbsp; So if you bring me stories of DMs and players not on the same page, of DMs arbitrarily denying players reasonable actions or not relying information, or of players asking DMs if they can do each and every thing, instead of utilizing their agency, I'm just going to chalk that up to not best utilizing the system.&nbsp; Just as I would for groups where people just stare at their character sheets and never move past their powers, just stating their powers and skills instead of adding character and flavor.&nbsp; If that's how a group likes to play, more power to them.&nbsp; (I still play and have a good time with the group mentioned above.)&nbsp; But if they're not having fun, I'm not going to chalk that up to the game.With 5e on the New Horizon, it behooves us all to have good discussions on the strengths and weaknesses of different styles, the rules they promote.&nbsp; But we're not going to have good discussions when one side says, &quot;tactical skirmish game&quot; and another says, &quot;Mother May I?&quot;It's not about blame.&nbsp; Don't take this personal.&nbsp; It's the term I have an issue with, not you.No, the best possible thing would be for D&amp;D to be what it historically has been: a game for adults that children love to play.Let me put it this way.&nbsp; We're all gamers here.&nbsp; I'm sure any number of us has in the past year got together with fellow adults and played an RPG, a video game, a board game, even some sports.&nbsp; I'd be surprised if there was even one person who got together with fellow adults to play a rousing game of &quot;Mother May I&quot;.&nbsp; It's not pejorative -- it simply is a kids game; a game kids play that adults don't, unless they are playing with kids.&nbsp; I'm not the one intentionally using that game to demean a playstyle.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Iosue, post: 5987627, member: 6680772"] I'm going to have to disagree. In the first example, the player fails to do the cool thing he wanted to do, and in the end must resort to just "I attack." In the second example, the player does what he wants to do. This was intentional, yes? If you're demonstrating a failure of one system and the success of another, that's not exactly "neutral" is it? Nor do I see in the first example any of what I consider the strong points of the first style, or the weaknesses of the second style. Then we have "Mother-may-I", which we both agree is demeaning and insulting. And here you have the whole style of play put into that context including "Mother may I?" and "Yes, you may" at each point. You don't see how that's condescending? How it could [i]sound[/i] condescending, even if you don't mean it that way? Look, my intention is not to single you out here. As you said to Scylla, I'm addressing ideas here, not people. Your post, particularly with the examples of play, simply exemplified that absolutely infuriating condescension and dismissal. I play 4e and it drives me up the wall when I see "MMORPG", "tactical skirmish game", "not D&D" and so on. But I also enjoy TSR-era D&D, so it's even more frustrating when fellow 4e fans, who know what it's like to have their whole game put down based on somebody's bad experiences and/or prejudices, go ahead and casually drop "mother-may-I", like it isn't exactly like "tactical skirmish game" or "MMORPG". Even worse, since at least those reflect actual influences on 4e, whereas "Mother-may-I" is the [i]exact opposite[/i] of the style of play being attempted. I think I was pretty clear. Just as you hate having your considered criticisms and preferences summed up as "bad GM", I hate having one of my favorite playstyles, which requires a number of different not-simple factors, summed up as "mother-may-I". It must be discussed? Why? I have no doubt that you've seen exchanges just like that. But as is often pointed out, the plural of anecdote is not data. I, myself, swear to God, had this kind of experience: DM: Okay, so this is a skill challenge. You can use Diplomacy to do X, Athletics to do Y, Intimidate to do Z, etc. You need five successes. Me, playing a Knight trained in Diplomacy: I have a 9 in Diplomacy, so I'll do X. Other Players: No, no. Serena (party NPC) is a Bard, leave Diplomacy to her. Me: Uhh, okay. I guess I'll do Y. (We go around the table, rolling our best applicable skills.) I don't think the above example says a damn thing about 4e, or games with tight, comprehensive rules. As far as I'm concerned, my group was misusing the system. So if you bring me stories of DMs and players not on the same page, of DMs arbitrarily denying players reasonable actions or not relying information, or of players asking DMs if they can do each and every thing, instead of utilizing their agency, I'm just going to chalk that up to not best utilizing the system. Just as I would for groups where people just stare at their character sheets and never move past their powers, just stating their powers and skills instead of adding character and flavor. If that's how a group likes to play, more power to them. (I still play and have a good time with the group mentioned above.) But if they're not having fun, I'm not going to chalk that up to the game. With 5e on the New Horizon, it behooves us all to have good discussions on the strengths and weaknesses of different styles, the rules they promote. But we're not going to have good discussions when one side says, "tactical skirmish game" and another says, "Mother May I?" It's not about blame. Don't take this personal. It's the term I have an issue with, not you. No, the best possible thing would be for D&D to be what it historically has been: a game for adults that children love to play. Let me put it this way. We're all gamers here. I'm sure any number of us has in the past year got together with fellow adults and played an RPG, a video game, a board game, even some sports. I'd be surprised if there was even one person who got together with fellow adults to play a rousing game of "Mother May I". It's not pejorative -- it simply is a kids game; a game kids play that adults don't, unless they are playing with kids. I'm not the one intentionally using that game to demean a playstyle. [/QUOTE]

Verification