Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6736793" data-attributes="member: 6696971">So I've run a few various one-off games (Basic, Dungeon World, Dogs in the Vineyard, Marvel Heroic) with a mix of (a) long time, exclusively D&D players, (b) casual players of lots of different games and genres, (c) more or less TTRPG virgins.  These are all adults, 30s-40s.With respect to approach to play, group (b) and (c) have shown a decent bit of overlap betwixt the two groups.  Historically, this has matched up to my experience in running games for these two groups.  They don't play recklessly/foolishly but they're definitely not conflict averse.  The level of zoom/amount of information required for them to make decisions and declare actions is pretty similar.  I set each scene with an above-modicum (not minimalist, but certainly leaning in that direction versus the opposite) amount of relevant information and context.  One or two player questions later (often different from each other) and they're ready to proceed with their respective actions.  Sometimes, no questions required.The 3 players representing group (a) has a propensity for consistently trying to minimize risk/exposure to the highest degree possible.  Their approach to action declarations is much more steeped in "reverse pixel bitching" (the expectation that every tiny bit of spatial/temporal/context minutiae will inevitably be relevant and therefore must be "parameterized" before they can execute their mental model).  Unlike (b) and (c), the number of questions required to proceed with action declarations doesn't border on excessive.  It tramples over excessive with enough force to make the Pamplona Bull Run blush.Group (b) and (c) have expressed vexation with the effect on play that group (a) has while group (a) has, unsurprisingly, expressed like vexation with the approach of the players making up group (b) and (c).  Now these are one-offs, so "vexation" manifests as pretty mild, adult ribbing.  If these were campaigns (which I outright refuse to do with this mix), it wouldn't take too terribly long before either one side capitulated/compromised/reined it in, or ribbing turned into legitimate table strife.Now this is no mystery to most of us.  We either are a member of group (a) or  we've run games for many-a-group (a)-player.  What got me thinking about this is the nature vs nurture question.  The guys in group (a) are long-time friends of mine (relative to those in groups b and c who I have a fair amount of history with or very little at all) and each run their own home D&D games (house ruled 1e or RC).  Their careers/trades they ply have little to no overlap.  They're all athletes, and they're naturally competitive.  However, they don't have a propensity for conservative, risk-averse play with respect to ball sports (I would say it is pretty close to the exact opposite with two of them).  While each possesses varying levels of shrewdness and pragmatism in their daily affairs, none of the three exhibit anything remotely resembling their D&D mental framework when working or playing outside of it.  When I ask them to play games outside of the D&D sphere, they universally bring their D&D dispositions with them.  They HATE Call of Cthulu games because of the lack of agency/ability to strategically power play.  When the system calls for abstract scene resolution or genre logic, they chafe horribly because a player's OODA Loop/the permutations they undertake will be either slightly askew from group (a)'s orthodox/SOP, or more deeply so.There is definitely a wee bit of nature with these guys, but it seems to me that the overwhelming input in the formulation of these guys mental framework/approach to play here is nurture.  Any opinions/anecdotes?  Does D&D generally attract players of that mental framework or does it cultivate it?  I guess the next question would be, why doesn't that cultivation extend to other reaches of life?  Or does it (in your experience)?</blockquote>

Verification