Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 5992254" data-attributes="member: 27160">Actually, despite the fact that I'm really with you in thinking stat rolling is a bad approach for D&amp;D, I disagree with you here. In fact, I think this cuts to the very heart of many of the conflicts and dividing lines around D&amp;D on the 'net.It comes down to what the players are supposed to be doing. Not the characters; the players. That's where the &quot;playstyle&quot; thing actually comes in. And if the player isn't supposed to be concerned with how his or her character performs compared to the other characters in the game, then rolling stats will work just fine.There does seem to be a &quot;playstyle&quot; that consists of &quot;meeting&quot; your character (rather than designing, choosing or building it) and, in this as in everything else in the game, taking whatever crap the dice and the GM throw at you. It's sort of like an &quot;Endurance&quot; competition. You actually get kudos for taking worse flak than anyone else - and the &quot;winner&quot; is the &quot;last man standing&quot; after taking all the crud.It's not really a style that appeals to me at all, but there are those who seem to enjoy it (for some value of &quot;enjoy&quot;, at least). Probably the best fist I could make of such a game is to focus on exploring the dysfunctional world the GM has concocted* while spiralling down to my character's inevitable, miserable fate. Common traits of the style include GM &quot;rulings, not rules&quot; (because mere rules should not stand in the way of the arbitrary crap your character has to survive) and an emphasis on player ignorance of the setting and monsters (because knowing what was going to trip you up next would spoil the surprise). The player, essentially, is not supposed to be in control of anything in this style of game - their aim is simply to keep at least a breathing tube above the surface in order to keep in the game long enough to earn some small measure of a breathing space. It's basically the opposite of &quot;player agency&quot; or &quot;empowerment&quot; - but it's what some folk enjoy. Is it compatible with a system that also supports players having an active role to play and active aims in the game? I don't think so, personally, but maybe a system can come along that proves me wrong - who knows?Such a system would have to resolve the &quot;rolled stats/picked stats&quot; issue, though.*: There is actually also a quite functional style of play where the players' mission is to explore the game world, but the system is so constructed that character death or maiming are fairly unlikely. In other words, most of the &quot;competition&quot; elements are removed and the players (through their characters) cooperate to explore the world with their characters in (relative) safety. I get the impression that this is a minority playstyle with D&amp;D, however.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Balesir, post: 5992254, member: 27160"] Actually, despite the fact that I'm really with you in thinking stat rolling is a bad approach for D&D, I disagree with you here. In fact, I think this cuts to the very heart of many of the conflicts and dividing lines around D&D on the 'net. It comes down to what the [B][I][U]players[/U][/I][/B] are supposed to be doing. Not the [I]characters[/I]; the [B][I]players[/I][/B]. That's where the "playstyle" thing actually comes in. And if the player isn't supposed to be concerned with how his or her character performs [I]compared to the other characters in the game[/I], then rolling stats will work just fine. There does seem to be a "playstyle" that consists of "meeting" your character (rather than designing, choosing or building it) and, in this as in everything else in the game, taking whatever crap the dice and the GM throw at you. It's sort of like an "Endurance" competition. You actually get kudos for taking worse flak than anyone else - and the "winner" is the "last man standing" after taking all the crud. It's not really a style that appeals to me at all, but there are those who seem to enjoy it (for some value of "enjoy", at least). Probably the best fist I could make of such a game is to focus on exploring the dysfunctional world the GM has concocted* while spiralling down to my character's inevitable, miserable fate. Common traits of the style include GM "rulings, not rules" (because mere rules should not stand in the way of the arbitrary crap your character has to survive) and an emphasis on player ignorance of the setting and monsters (because knowing what was going to trip you up next would spoil the surprise). The player, essentially, is not supposed to be in control of anything in this style of game - their aim is simply to keep at least a breathing tube above the surface in order to keep in the game long enough to earn some small measure of a breathing space. It's basically the opposite of "player agency" or "empowerment" - but it's what some folk enjoy. Is it compatible with a system that also supports players having an active role to play and active aims in the game? I don't think so, personally, but maybe a system can come along that proves me wrong - who knows? Such a system would have to resolve the "rolled stats/picked stats" issue, though. *: There is actually also a quite functional style of play where the players' mission is to explore the game world, but the system is so constructed that character death or maiming are fairly unlikely. In other words, most of the "competition" elements are removed and the players (through their characters) cooperate to explore the world with their characters in (relative) safety. I get the impression that this is a minority playstyle with D&D, however. [/QUOTE]

Verification