Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6201651" data-attributes="member: 6696971">I understand.  I think its difficult conveying preferences without it either being, or appear to be, derision toward a playstyle that is either at odds with, or at least on the opposite end of, the continuum.  Most of us have played every style out there and we have just changed tastes as years go on.  It doesn''t mean that games we've left behind were crap.  It just means that our preferences have changed.  The more thoughtful the person involved, the more refined their analysis will be as to why those preferences may have changed.  Refined analysis sometimes comes off as a threat, unfortunately.  Further, sometimes the analysis is indeed a threat.  Beyond that, there has been a great deal of ire focused on the Indie/Story Now playstyle simply because it was borne out of a "orthodox/establishment fatigue."  Its inevitable and natural for the orthodoxy or establishment to be annoyed at a counterculture.  In fact, its basically inescapable.  That doesn't make the orthodox crap nor does it make the counterculture enlightened.  That gets decided in the arena of ideas and the fundamental experiences that both sides bring to bear.  And I can say personally, that I have taken artillery fire from 1e proponents when I switched to 2e as being soft.  I took artillery fire from 2e proponents when I fiddled around with Skills and Powers and owned Complete Book of Elves (OMGHERESY) for being a munchkin.  I took flak from both when I moved to 3.x because it inverted Thaco/STs etc and was too fiddly and a boardgame, etc.  Then, I took flak from everyone when I started playing Indie Games roundabouts 2004.  Then I witnessed more derision than I have before when I moved to 4e as I found out I was no longer playing RPGs because it was just a "tactical boardgame linked by freeform roleplaying."  So trust me mate, I've been there.  And a lot of what you're sensing from probably @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?42582-pemerton" target="_blank">pemerton</a>, @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?22779-Hussar" target="_blank">Hussar</a> , @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?205-TwoSix" target="_blank">TwoSix</a>, and myself is either "OMG how many times and in how many ways do we have to do this" or it may be residual 4venger "bunker mentality", insofar as it is truly present in our posts, resulting from the above.It would be a thousand times easier if we could just run a few sessions together to get the various, sometimes subtle/sometimes not so subtle, distinctions between the playstyles in play and out...but alas, we have to settle for this medium.Regardless, our preference and our analysis of the distinctions between the games doesn't mean that you, Ahnenois, and Wicht don't run great sandbox D&D 3.x games.  I'm sure you do, I'm sure your players have a great time.  It would be absurd to assume the antithesis given how stridently you defend your playstyle or attempt to analysis the distinctions at hand.I think, when I finish with that social challenge that I outlined above, I'm going to break out the systemic and technique differences and extrapolate the table dynamics should the same conflict components be applied to 3.x process-simulation based play.</blockquote>

Verification