Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TheCrazyMuffinMan" data-source="post: 3699273" data-attributes="member: 53470">I cited a cruder version of this in the Dancey thread, and I figured it needed its own thread, so that it wouldn't disrupt the general concept of the thread it forked from.I see a philosophical lean not unlike D&D alignments here:First, we have Tactics vs. Immersion (Practical axis)Then, we have Form vs. Content (Methodical axis)Those on the side of Tactics tend to want to play the game now, and write the story later (if at all). This was once called "Power", but changed to "Tactics" because while power is important to pure tactical/gamist play, it is only one of many paths to optimization thereof.Those on the side of Immersion tend to prefer to immerse themselves in the world, or alternatively, live through their character. These are rather different viewpoints, but they approach the same concept. This was formerly called "Story", but changed to Immersion once I realized that some aspects of Storytelling can easily clash with Immersion when misused. This also includes storytelling, though it is a different approach, it deals with the world of the game in question.Those on the side of Form tend to approach things from the perspective of the medium, rather than the message. Anyone familiar with Marshall McLuhan knows what I'm talking about. Otherwise, they would look at it from the viewpoint of the genre or theme of the game, or compare it to other forms of media.Those on the side of Content tend to approach things from the perspective of gaming content and internal workings, and put formal/externalist issues on the backburner unless the situation specifically called for them.The purest form of Tactics/Form mentality will likely lean towards Munchkin, WoW and the like, due to preconceived notions of the types of game. They will probably focus on levels, xp, and the like exclusively when playing D&D, and they will likely run characters not QUITE like Pun-Pun, but definitely in the same spirit of optimization. Those really interested in pushing the rules of the game to the very limit, in an attempt to come as close to "winning" as one can, ideally as soon as possible, would be Tactics/Form. The purest form of Immersion/Form mentality will likely lean towards Vampire the Masquerade and other obvious immersive games, and would be more than willing to invoke Rem's Law whenever tactical issues are prioritized over immersive ones. They would think very little of the mechanics and much more of their character. They don't let the dice get "in the way of" interacting with the D&D world. Ryan Dancey seems to be channeling this alignment in his blog on RPG reform, albeit more realistically and with far more understanding then the hypothetical IF purist.The purest form of Tactics/Content mentality will lean towards freeform games like GURPS and classless ones like Shadowrun, and it would be fond of the mechanical aspects of any game, regardless of medium.In addition, it would likely approach D&D as a specific challenge to building a really good character (or a really good system variant), and work with the system in order to create a character as good as possible for a certain situation (be it diplomatic, combative, stealth, or anything of the sort.) They would want to aid the party by fulfilling their character's archetype to the best of their ability. T/C DMs could create variants or challenges that either restrict or encourage a certain character archetype or class, to see how effectively the players can work under those boundaries.Ryan Stoughton's E6, which is all about mechanical balance within an existing ruleset, while maintaining the big picture, has shades of T/C.The purest form of Immersion/Content mentality will likely lean towards many CRPGs, or d20 variants based on existing popular fiction, and they will prioritize their character and their setting, but they won't constrain themselves in either. Many of these would probably want to introduce a crossover character (like a Keyblade Knight) into D&D, and see how a crossover character's mentality would fit in the context of the campaign. IC type Dungeonmasters could easily lean towards outside inspiration for their segments. The Lunar: Silver Star Story fan who wants to introduce a Dragonmaster PrC is an example of Immersion/Content mentality.As you can imagine, one can be neutral toward either axis, or both axes. I would be considered either Tactics/Content or Neutral/Content, depending on whether I'm playing or mastering. As a player, I am TC nearly all the way. As a DM and a designer, I swing both ways with regards to priorities (T/I). Overall, I would be NC because I can easily go one way or the other if required.1) Where do you think you fall under here?2) What do you think of this (revised) analogy?3) Any further additions or questions?</blockquote>

Verification