log in or register to remove this ad

 

Do you prefer your character to be connected or unconnected to the adventure hook?

Aldarc

Legend
What they are describing as part and parcel of play is hardly so outside of the norm that it is abnormal or strange. In some cases, e.g., Blades in the Dark, it's as simple as paying the game as written. Trying to force a plot is almost impossible with some game systems due to the very nature of dice resolution.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

pemerton

Legend
The goal is to learn as you stated. And I do take your testimony at face value. But can you just acknowledge that to see something in practice is much much different than reading about it. I could read all I wanted to about a baseball pitcher's unique fastball, but until I see it in action, I might still not have a full understanding. The same is true for teaching. A teacher can talk about a technique all they want. But until another teacher sees it in use, it would be hard for them to apply. The same is true for surgery. That is why they have live viewings. The same is true for boxing, that is why they have hands-on coaches. The same is true business sales, that is why they have mentors. The same is true for mechanics. That is why they have shop bosses that demonstrate what to do ten times before letting them try it on their own.
All these people are trying to learn something. They need to be shown. This truth is even more pronounced when someone is explaining a technique that falls outside of the norm.
What they are describing as part and parcel of play is hardly so outside of the norm that it is abnormal or strange. In some cases, e.g., Blades in the Dark, it's as simple as paying the game as written. Trying to force a plot is almost impossible with some game systems due to the very nature of dice resolution.
Here I'm with Aldarc.

Unlike pitching, surgery, boxing or mechanical repairs we're not trying to explain a physical process.

The comparison to sales is perhaps a bit more apt, but unlike sales we're not talking about techniques to be used in circumstances of deep conflict of interest and high stakes between parties.

We're talking about playing a game. With friends. There is a time-honoured tradition of using writing to explain game rules. and procedures and techniques It may not be perfect, but it's not useless.

Start a 5e game and tell your players to write "kickers" for their PCs, based on their backrounds, bonds, ideals and flaws. You might want to start at 2nd or 3rd level so the players are a bit more confident to write stuff that is a bit more dramatic. Then start your session. You have a MM in front of you which has stats that support some aspects of action resolution. You have a DC-by-natural-language-difficulty chart in front of you that supports other aspects of action resolution. See what happens!

Unlike surgery or repairs to a car or a boxing match, nothing more is at stake than a couple of hours of recreation time.
 

Campbell

Legend
Here's a pretty lengthy Let's Play of Blades in the Dark run by Jon Harper, the game's designer..


While they can absolutely be useful there are some limits to Let's Plays in terms of seeing techniques in motion. What we see coming from the GM in any roleplaying game are framing scenes (simply describing the initial state of things), descriptions of the environment, portraying NPCs,, some rules talk, and adjudicating consequences for main character actions. Likewise regardless we see action declarations, character portrayal, and some rules talk from players. What we do not see are the processes of play. This is where play techniques live and breathe.

What are the expectations for play?
When players encounter something in the fiction what is guiding their choices?
How do players and GMs prepare for play?
What principles does a GM use when exercising their judgment as to what should happen in the fiction?

Play is often instinctual and dependent on unspoken social reward systems. The experience of play is also radically different from the output of play. Just like any other creative endeavor the creation of the thing and how it was made has unique value to the creators. The hidden nature of process is a big part of why I do try to do regular check ins with the people I play with and why discipline is so crucial to me on both sides of the screen.

That Monsterhearts quote is top of mind to me whenever I play a roleplaying game (from both sides of the screen) because playing to find out what happens can be like really hard sometimes. Trying to nudge things this way or that way can be real seductive, but in doing so I feel something is lost. It's so easy to become attached to things and not really collaborate with each other.

TLDR Let's Plays are useful, but the only way to really see different techniques in motion is to try them with a real commitment to like following through and embracing the mentality behind them. I think it's a lot of fun. You might too. You might also hate it.
 

Doug McCrae

Legend
Start a 5e game and tell your players to write "kickers" for their PCs, based on their backrounds, bonds, ideals and flaws.
It's interesting to me that players create their own kickers. That isn't what I'd have expected.

Here is an attempt to create kickers for my PC, Flaming Helen, a sorcerer.

Background: Acolyte (Joramy, goddess of fire).
Ideal: Defend civilisation from threats.
Bond: City of Greyhawk militia captain.
Flaw: Obsessed with fire.

Proposed kickers:

1) Unexplained fires are being started in the City of Greyhawk. My idea is that these are being caused by fire elementals summoned by an elementalist who wants to demonstrate the dangers of fire. (A potential arch-nemesis for Helen.)
2) A philosophical school is promoting the idea that fire was invented by human beings rather than being gifted to humanity by the goddess Joramy, as the church of Joramy claims.
 

pemerton

Legend
It's interesting to me that players create their own kickers. That isn't what I'd have expected.

Here is an attempt to create kickers for my PC, Flaming Helen, a sorcerer.

Background: Acolyte (Joramy, goddess of fire).
Ideal: Defend civilisation from threats.
Bond: City of Greyhawk militia captain.
Flaw: Obsessed with fire.

Proposed kickers:

1) Unexplained fires are being started in the City of Greyhawk. My idea is that these are being caused by fire elementals summoned by an elementalist who wants to demonstrate the dangers of fire. (A potential arch-nemesis for Helen.)
2) A philosophical school is promoting the idea that fire was invented by human beings rather than being gifted to humanity by the goddess Joramy, as the church of Joramy claims.
From the point of view of the "kicker" device, those are a bit too abstract.

Your (2) sounds like some backstory. Given that a kicker is an "'event or realization that your character has experienced just before play begins."'. . . [It] propels the character into the game," your (1) seems like it could be tuned up a notch: Helen is responding to a night-time fire with the rest of her patrol, but it can't be extinguished. Helen sees that there is a wizard across the street, controlling a fire mephit!

In standard scene-framing play it would be mostly up to the GM to work out how (2) fits into this (maybe the wizard is an adherent of the school, who thinks the human invention took place by summoning elements?).

And of course it's up to you as the player to decide what Helen does - eg does she try and join forces with the wizard, or does she try and take control of the mephit (or kill it?) to stop the fire, or . . .?

(Apologies for taking control of your character by post - but I wanted to try and concretely illustrate the idea of a kicker.)
 

Doug McCrae

Legend
Thanks for that answer, it's very helpful. I hadn't realised kickers are supposed to be so immediate.

your (1) seems like it could be tuned up a notch: Helen is responding to a night-time fire with the rest of her patrol, but it can't be extinguished. Helen sees that there is a wizard across the street, controlling a fire mephit!
That sounds really good - it sets a scene, it's very dramatic, and we don't know what's going to happen.

How are the other PCs involved in kickers? Or could the players create a single kicker that affects the whole party? Or could there be both individual and group kickers?
As play progresses are players expected to create more kickers?
 

pemerton

Legend
As play progresses are players expected to create more kickers?
Dunno the answer to this one - I don't have a copy of Sorcerer, so my knowledge of this is via posts/essays on The Forge.

My intuitive feeling is that a new round of kickers might make sense after a period of "downtime" - ie the immediate sequence of GM-framed scenes has come to a natural pause. From my point of view, what is key to the kicker as a technique is that it puts the PC at the centre of the action as the player conceives of it. So the writing of new kickers would have to be related to the bigger issue of whose job is it, at this point in play, to be deciding what is happening?

I'm also thinking just now that there is a (loose) parallel or analogy here to the patron encounter in Classic Traveller. The Traveller player can always seek to generate a new scenario/situation by having his/her PC hang out in a likely place to try and meet a patron. The rules give the GM authority over the who and what, but not the if and when - the player has his/her PC look for a patron and the encounter dice are rolled (with Carousing-1+ giving a DM of +1 on the check). A player writing a kicker is one step further than this - not just when but key aspects of the who and what with a further dimension of in media res.

At least as I understand the technique, it's the in media res element of a kicker that allows key aspects of the narrative control to pass, fairly seamlessly, from the player to the GM.

it sets a scene, it's very dramatic, and we don't know what's going to happen.
Again as per my understanding, this is central to a kicker. And it's what allows that pivot from player to GM, ie it's what keeps us in a RPG rather than a shared storytelling game. The player frames but doesn't resolve. And doesn't even set all the stakes. Eg in the example I developed from what you set out, we don't know (i) why exactly the wizard chose this building, (ii) what exactly the mephit is doing there, (iii) whether the wizard is linked to the (2) group, or their enemy, or . . . , etc.

How are the other PCs involved in kickers? Or could the players create a single kicker that affects the whole party? Or could there be both individual and group kickers?
The one time I used kickers - in the Dark Sun session I posted a bit of upthread - each player created a kicker and I used my GM-fu to interweave them.

Given that Ron Edwards tends to push away from traditional party play, I suspect (again without actually knowing) that he might take a similar approach.

I think the tendency of D&D to rely on party play is one obstacle to establishing some of the sorts of connections between PCs and events that we're talking about in this thread, but it doesn't have to be insuperable I don't think.

And of course there's always the possibility of the players discussing among themselves as they write their kickers.
 

Scott Christian

Adventurer
Here I'm with Aldarc.

Unlike pitching, surgery, boxing or mechanical repairs we're not trying to explain a physical process.

The comparison to sales is perhaps a bit more apt, but unlike sales we're not talking about techniques to be used in circumstances of deep conflict of interest and high stakes between parties.
Wrong analogy. Ok. Teaching. There are hundreds of techniques. It helps to see them. That is why teachers do internships. Counseling. Again, hundreds of techniques. That is why counselors have an internship. Sales. We covered. Crime investigation. They have internships. Really long ones in some places. They need to see the techniques. Acting. Yup, internships, in-person classes, etc. Basically any job that relies heavily on human interaction with multiple techniques can be better accomplished via visually seeing as opposed to reading about. Imagine trying to learn an acting technique from reading versus seeing. Which method would have greater success?
I have a hard time believing, outside of arguing for arguments sake, that anyone here does not understand that.
We're talking about playing a game. With friends. There is a time-honoured tradition of using writing to explain game rules. and procedures and techniques It may not be perfect, but it's not useless.

Start a 5e game and tell your players to write "kickers" for their PCs, based on their backrounds, bonds, ideals and flaws. You might want to start at 2nd or 3rd level so the players are a bit more confident to write stuff that is a bit more dramatic. Then start your session. You have a MM in front of you which has stats that support some aspects of action resolution. You have a DC-by-natural-language-difficulty chart in front of you that supports other aspects of action resolution. See what happens!

Unlike surgery or repairs to a car or a boxing match, nothing more is at stake than a couple of hours of recreation time.
You are spot on. It is a game. Stakes are low. And, (sorry to everyone if I sound like a broken record), I have DM'ed games that start like this. I have been a player in games that start like this. They can be a lot of fun. My experience from both, me behind the screen and others behind the screen, is that things become pre-plotted. Exactly like I described earlier. When they don't become pre-plotted, they switch to mere random encounters that may or may not be tied together with a loose theme that may or may not have character arcs and a plot. Again, my experience.
I have taken at face value that others have been able to not have one of these two things happen. I have accepted that. But, visual evidence for a D&D 5e game, where this happens I have never seen. Not at my tables for the past 30 years. Not at any of the dozens of conventions I've played at. And not in any video online that I have watched.
I have stated many times other game mechanics may lend themselves to this, and they probably do it well. But I am looking for what I asked, not something else. I want to see it to learn; to bring back to my tables. I am not trying to argue. I am merely asking for tutelage. But, no one can seem to provide it. Instead it is read this (My point on visuals is extremely clear) or look at this game. Do you show an actor a video of a teacher in a room using a teaching technique. While both may be manipulating an audience, you do not. You show an actor using the same technique, because stage craft is different than a classroom. D&D is its own thing.
If the video does not exist, do me a favor. Ask why? Then please answer that question in writing so we can discuss.
 

Campbell

Legend
@Doug McCrae

Kickers should be something like disrupts the characters life and demands action in some way. They are meant to be personal to the character. You might like try to link them together, but it's not like mandatory. Sometimes you will play an entire Sorcerer game where the characters never meet although their actions should usually affect each other.

The following explains it a bit better than I do.

The Kicker

There’s two issues to discuss about starting Kickers.

1. Go back to that point about the distinct differences among the three levels of a Sorcerer player-character: a person, a person who’s a sorcerer, and a sorcerer who faces a Kicker. Don’t mix them up or fold one into another. Most especially, “I just bound a demon!” cannot be the sole
content of a Kicker.

2. Simplicity and honesty matter here too. An excellent Kicker from one of the earliest Sorcerer games was, “Just released from prison.” At first glance, it may seem ordinary – and yes, that’s the strength of it. I’m not saying that the player had real-life prison experience. I’m saying that he could relate to the situation in ordinary human terms. I certainly can; I am close friends with at least two people who’ve served hard time.

The Kicker is defined as a fictional crux point, meaning, this will be a crucial moment for the character. Therefore in this case, prison did make a difference to him in some undisclosed way, and now is the time to see whether that difference is going to work out for him or not.

Sometimes that crux-point concept can be sticky too. For example, a player made up a great initial character concept, a former child star with a drug habit, married to a politician, strategically using his sorcery to eliminate his wife’s political opposition. For the Kicker, he proposed a couple of situations
in which his wife’s political enemies were investigating him or her, one of which included something really bad the demon had done, but my point to him was that the character had clearly been successful so far, and therefore must have handled any such situations well in the past. In other words, the proposed Kickers were simply “more of the same” material that we’d expect to be part of his back-story anyway. I asked him to think laterally: what sort of situation
would throw a rock into his character’s life which could not be solved simply by sending his demon as usual, but would rather upset the assumptions that he’d been so carefully protecting? He instantly said, “My wife puts me in detox.”

That’s how to get a Kicker.

That's the starting Kicker. When you get to the point that a character's Kicker is resolved Ron recommends sitting down and discussing if there's like more story there. Sometimes the game simply ends when everyone's Kicker is resolved. Sometimes you introduce new characters at the end of a character's shelf life. Sometimes create new ones.

Ron talks about creating Kickers as a shared activity. Just like creating characters. Both the player and the GM are involved in process and must be happy with the results.
 
Last edited:

pemerton

Legend
If the video does not exist, do me a favor. Ask why?
I can tell you why, in my case. Because I have zero interest in presenting my leisure activity as a videoed teaching tool for you, or anyone else.

I have DM'ed games that start like this. I have been a player in games that start like this. They can be a lot of fun. My experience from both, me behind the screen and others behind the screen, is that things become pre-plotted. Exactly like I described earlier. When they don't become pre-plotted, they switch to mere random encounters that may or may not be tied together with a loose theme that may or may not have character arcs and a plot. Again, my experience.
That hasn't happened to me.

Here is an account of our most recent Prince Valiant session. You can follow its links back through our sessions to the first one. (There are about 14 sessions, I think - with maybe 12 or so posts.)

You will see that there has been no switching to random encounters, and no pre-plotting. The campaign started in Kent. It is now in Cyprus. One of the first three PCs died in the first session. The other two, who began as a father-and-son knight of little skill and reputation, are now leaders of a holy military order which has travelled east on a crusade.

Most of the situations have been taken either directly, or via adaptation, from episodes in the rule book and the Episode Book.
 

Fenris-77

Small God of the Dozens
Supporter
I can see why someone might be interested in a video, but IMO even if it did exists it wouldn't be as helpful as one might think. The range of what the skill in question might look like is pretty vast given differences in various rules sets and the players at different tables. My personal GMing style is usually some version of PtFO, but it looks pretty different across games and groups. The other variable is, of course, me - different GMs have different styles and strengths and weaknesses, and their individual implementations of PtFO will differ, to some larger or smaller degree, on what their existing GMing style is. I put PtFO into practice based almost entirely on the written info in various PbTA games combined with some reflection on my personal style and how I thought it might work best. After that it was an iterative process of reflection and tweaking.
 

Scott Christian

Adventurer
I can tell you why, in my case. Because I have zero interest in presenting my leisure activity as a videoed teaching tool for you, or anyone else.
Pemerton, I wasn't singling you out. I asked in general if there were videos like this out there. There are none that I have found. I think that is because the rules do not lend themselves to the style of play several of you here use, the majority of players do not play that way, and the expectations of the game are not built around that style of play.
No video. That's cool. I respect you, your time and your players' time.
That hasn't happened to me.

Here is an account of our most recent Prince Valiant session. You can follow its links back through our sessions to the first one. (There are about 14 sessions, I think - with maybe 12 or so posts.)

You will see that there has been no switching to random encounters, and no pre-plotting. The campaign started in Kent. It is now in Cyprus. One of the first three PCs died in the first session. The other two, who began as a father-and-son knight of little skill and reputation, are now leaders of a holy military order which has travelled east on a crusade.

Most of the situations have been taken either directly, or via adaptation, from episodes in the rule book and the Episode Book.
Awesome. Sounds like a great game. And I enjoyed your recap. But, as I have said many times before, it does little to teach these techniques. But thank you for sharing.
 

Aldarc

Legend
When over 50 percent of people play D&D 5e and/or Pathfinder with little to no knowledge of games outside of that purview, I would say that arguing that "the majority of players do not play that way" is a fairly uncontroversial, if not banal, argument. Sure, the majority very likely don't play that way. But the point is NOT how do the majority of players play, but, rather, how do the minority of players play within this style of gaming DO. As to whether or not the expectations of play are built around that style of play, I would say that involves actually reading what the rules of play are for different games, and people have been patiently explaining how such play styles are built into other game systems.
 

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
The goal is to learn as you stated. And I do take your testimony at face value. But can you just acknowledge that to see something in practice is much much different than reading about it. I could read all I wanted to about a baseball pitcher's unique fastball, but until I see it in action, I might still not have a full understanding. The same is true for teaching. A teacher can talk about a technique all they want. But until another teacher sees it in use, it would be hard for them to apply. The same is true for surgery. That is why they have live viewings. The same is true for boxing, that is why they have hands-on coaches. The same is true business sales, that is why they have mentors. The same is true for mechanics. That is why they have shop bosses that demonstrate what to do ten times before letting them try it on their own.
All these people are trying to learn something. They need to be shown. This truth is even more pronounced when someone is explaining a technique that falls outside of the norm.
And, yet, RPGs come with a rulebook and no video guide.

I learned a completely different RPG style from reading here and buying, reading, and trying Blades in the Dark. I suppose I'm exceptional? I don't think so. I mean, for a long time I actually thought as you seem to and bounced off these approaches. Then I unplugged my computational unit from the nether orifice and tried to learn. It wasn't hard, even without a video, after I accepted it was a doable thing and worked to understand it. I then ported that learning back into 5e.

You point out surgeons learning a technique by observing, yet you flatly refuse to observe the technique when offerred because it's not your patient. You refuse to accept that the approach can be independant of the game. This is your problem to solve, and, as long as you continue to demand the perfect example before you try to learn, you're not even trying.
 


Scott Christian

Adventurer
And, yet, RPGs come with a rulebook and no video guide.

I learned a completely different RPG style from reading here and buying, reading, and trying Blades in the Dark. I suppose I'm exceptional? I don't think so. I mean, for a long time I actually thought as you seem to and bounced off these approaches. Then I unplugged my computational unit from the nether orifice and tried to learn. It wasn't hard, even without a video, after I accepted it was a doable thing and worked to understand it. I then ported that learning back into 5e.

You point out surgeons learning a technique by observing, yet you flatly refuse to observe the technique when offerred because it's not your patient. You refuse to accept that the approach can be independant of the game. This is your problem to solve, and, as long as you continue to demand the perfect example before you try to learn, you're not even trying.
No offense Ovinomancer, but I wish you would read what I wrote, in the tone that I wrote, instead of making up both meaning and tone.

I too learned without video. I too learned from reading other games. I too have implemented said rules for one game into another. I too have read and learned techniques from one game and brought them to another.
You bring up the surgeon analogy when I clearly stated ten others. And your take on the surgeon analogy is still incorrect. It is the patient who is different. One is operating on a human (D&D) and the other on a cat (Blades in the Dark). I could try to figure out how the surgery would work on a person, or the doctors could just perform the surgery on a human instead of a cat.
All that was in a snide tone. I chose this tone because I feel you are arguing for argument's sake.

Here is a different tone. One that I used earlier:
"The goal is to learn as you stated. And I do take your testimony at face value. But can you just acknowledge that to see something in practice is much much different than reading about it...All these people are trying to learn something. They need to be shown. This truth is even more pronounced when someone is explaining a technique that falls outside of the norm."
I am not being mean nor snide. I am being sincere. The fact that the video does not really exist makes these techniques rare, if not unfounded (although I have chosen to accept that they do based on these forum posts), in the realm of D&D. So me wanting to see how it was done is not being mean or hard-headed, it is me wanting to learn how this rare technique, one that falls between pre-plotted and random, coexists within the D&D ruleset.
 

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
No offense Ovinomancer, but I wish you would read what I wrote, in the tone that I wrote, instead of making up both meaning and tone.
I'm confused. Your response below is right in line with how I read and responded to you, absent the snide tone. Tone doesn't translate with text, so expecting others to pick up your tone is a nonstarter.
I too learned without video. I too learned from reading other games. I too have implemented said rules for one game into another. I too have read and learned techniques from one game and brought them to another.
You bring up the surgeon analogy when I clearly stated ten others. And your take on the surgeon analogy is still incorrect. It is the patient who is different. One is operating on a human (D&D) and the other on a cat (Blades in the Dark). I could try to figure out how the surgery would work on a person, or the doctors could just perform the surgery on a human instead of a cat.
All that was in a snide tone. I chose this tone because I feel you are arguing for argument's sake.
You complain I didn't address all of your examples, but that'sdoesn't counter my argument. It's like a gish gallop (look it up) where you throw a huge number of similar arguments and demand they all be addressed or none are. It's another nonstarter. I picked one, which is sufficient to the point.

Further to that point, surgeons do actually start learning with cats. My father taught human anatomy to pre-meds, and they dissect cats because there's plenty of simularities.

My point is that you can learn the technique from other sources and bring it into 5e.
Here is a different tone. One that I used earlier:
"The goal is to learn as you stated. And I do take your testimony at face value. But can you just acknowledge that to see something in practice is much much different than reading about it...All these people are trying to learn something. They need to be shown. This truth is even more pronounced when someone is explaining a technique that falls outside of the norm."
I am not being mean nor snide. I am being sincere. The fact that the video does not really exist makes these techniques rare, if not unfounded (although I have chosen to accept that they do based on these forum posts), in the realm of D&D. So me wanting to see how it was done is not being mean or hard-headed, it is me wanting to learn how this rare technique, one that falls between pre-plotted and random, coexists within the D&D ruleset.
It isn't mainstream, a point made by everyone responding to you. In the major market share game, when looking for video that's findable, you're most likely going to find mainstream play. I'm not going to look through all the video of play available on youtube to find one that showcases how I already play. This is akin to saying you believe four leaf clovers might exist, but you'll only accept evidence in the form of a live video picking one from the patch of grass right here. Eventually one might turn up, but you've so restricted the requirements that you can freely ignore the opposing arguments. This is a form of special pleading.
 

Everyone learns differently, so I can understand for the desire for a video instead of written rules or actual play posts in a forum.

I largely learned how to play Blades in the Dark by watching the series that @Campbell posted above....the Roll Play series with John Harper running the game over many sessions. I skimmed the book and then watched the videos and then read the book in full. Seeing the game in action really helped me with the context of the material presented in the book.

I think there are plenty of actual play examples that can be found that cover Blades as well as Apocalypse World or Burning Wheel or Mouse Guard or Dogs in the Vineyard or any other game that uses an approach that may be a bit different from the traditional approach largely established by D&D.

There are tons to pick from on youtube.
 

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
Everyone learns differently, so I can understand for the desire for a video instead of written rules or actual play posts in a forum.

I largely learned how to play Blades in the Dark by watching the series that @Campbell posted above....the Roll Play series with John Harper running the game over many sessions. I skimmed the book and then watched the videos and then read the book in full. Seeing the game in action really helped me with the context of the material presented in the book.

I think there are plenty of actual play examples that can be found that cover Blades as well as Apocalypse World or Burning Wheel or Mouse Guard or Dogs in the Vineyard or any other game that uses an approach that may be a bit different from the traditional approach largely established by D&D.

There are tons to pick from on youtube.
Yes, but these are not from the required patch of grass.
 

Scott Christian

Adventurer
I'm confused. Your response below is right in line with how I read and responded to you, absent the snide tone. Tone doesn't translate with text, so expecting others to pick up your tone is a nonstarter.
Are you saying tone can't be read through text? :unsure:o_O Maybe the emojis help.
You complain I didn't address all of your examples, but that'sdoesn't counter my argument. It's like a gish gallop (look it up) where you throw a huge number of similar arguments and demand they all be addressed or none are. It's another nonstarter. I picked one, which is sufficient to the point.

Further to that point, surgeons do actually start learning with cats. My father taught human anatomy to pre-meds, and they dissect cats because there's plenty of simularities.

My point is that you can learn the technique from other sources and bring it into 5e.
There are enough fallacies out there that every single argument can fall under the definition of a fallacy. Even ones that are true. Pointing them out doesn't make the argument any stronger. Pointing out different facts, ones that pertain more to the subject, or have more ethos, makes arguments stronger. And for the record, I have one request. One. Not ten. Not five. One. I asked for a video. I used those analogies because it is overwhelming proof that learning visually is easier for most people. That's why people use YouTube to learn how to repair something instead of reading the manual and figuring it out. My premise was, can't we just agree that it's easier if you see it? But apparently, you have to argue over that too.
And you are right surgeons can learn with cats. So fill in the blank. Then they move to _____________________. That's right, cadavers. Then they move to watching surgeries on people. See how people is step one and two. Sorry I wanted to skip the cat step.
It isn't mainstream, a point made by everyone responding to you. In the major market share game, when looking for video that's findable, you're most likely going to find mainstream play. I'm not going to look through all the video of play available on youtube to find one that showcases how I already play. This is akin to saying you believe four leaf clovers might exist, but you'll only accept evidence in the form of a live video picking one from the patch of grass right here. Eventually one might turn up, but you've so restricted the requirements that you can freely ignore the opposing arguments. This is a form of special pleading.
You are right, this style of play is not mainstream. In fact, I can't find it all. Others have not stated as much. The "give an inch they'll take a mile" mantra is incredibly strong here. Maybe people are defensive for a reason. I don't know.
Also, I didn't ask you or anyone else to do a personal search. I asked the forum to show one. I am not asking them to search. I assume if they play this way, they might be more inclined to know others that play this way. That means, they might be more inclined to know of a video being played that way. I am not asking them to research, I am asking if they know of one, then post.
And to your bold text, show me where I have argued. I have stated three or four times I want to learn - not argue. I even said: "I AM NOT TRYING TO ARGUE." How these words are not clear to you and you insist on trying to show how clever you are by pointing out esoteric fallacies is beyond me. Because you seem intelligent. But maybe you just like to use that intelligence to stir up drama.
It is apparent to me, you just like to argue. Maybe devil's advocate is your thing. If so. Cool. Have fun.
 

COMING SOON: 5 Plug-In Settlements for your 5E Game

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top