D&D General In defence of Grognardism

[Fanaelialae]

We are not talking about immutable characteristics like race, we are talking about something much more malleable: a style of play. And very importantly, I was joking thus the smiley face

It doesn't matter whether it's immutable or a choice.

I like 5e. Saying "Fanaelialae is very smart" is still okay (more than okay, in fact). Saying "People who like 5e are very smart" isn't really okay, as it carries the implication that people who dislike 5e aren't smart.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Sure, I would agree with that. Although it's entirely possible for a player to make a choice for a character that they, themselves, would not have made (and would not have made if they were playing a different character).

Which gets into the whole question when talking about the player skill element about what degree its desirable for the player to play suboptimally; token play will give you a very different answer to IC play.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Which gets into the whole question when talking about the player skill element about what degree its desirable for the player to play suboptimally; token play will give you a very different answer to IC play.

I'd say it's entirely a matter of preference (individual, but also group).

 

[Bedrockgames]

It doesn't matter whether it's immutable or a choice.

I like 5e. Saying "Fanaelialae is very smart" is still okay (more than okay, in fact). Saying "People who like 5e are very smart" isn't really okay, as it carries the implication that people who dislike 5e aren't smart.

I think it is more like saying 5e is tactical

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'd say it's entirely a matter of preference (individual, but also group).

Sure. I'm not actually someone who views token play as an intrinsically bad thing in an RPG (because whatever someone enjoys at the end unless its at the expense of others is okay). But I think it becomes a particularly pointed part of the question when you start aiming at a very rules-minimal style because you want a bigger part of success or failure to be, from lack of a better term, at the human end.

 

[Bedrockgames]

It doesn't matter whether it's immutable or a choice.

I like 5e. Saying "Fanaelialae is very smart" is still okay (more than okay, in fact). Saying "People who like 5e are very smart" isn't really okay, as it carries the implication that people who dislike 5e aren't smart.

It doesn't matter whether it's immutable or a choice.

I like 5e. Saying "Fanaelialae is very smart" is still okay (more than okay, in fact). Saying "People who like 5e are very smart" isn't really okay, as it carries the implication that people who dislike 5e aren't smart.

Alss as I I hate 5e but if you want to say 5E is a smart edition of the game, I wouldn’t take that to mean my preferred edition isn’t smart (just that you find 5E smart, and you could probably provide reasons why), trying these kinds of statements about systems and styles to racist statements about race, is inflammatory and misleading—it’s bad rhetoric that taints the discussion

 

[Fanaelialae]

Sure. I'm not actually someone who views token play as an intrinsically bad thing in an RPG (because whatever someone enjoys at the end unless its at the expense of others is okay). But I think it becomes a particularly pointed part of the question when you start aiming at a very rules-minimal style because you want a bigger part of success or failure to be, from lack of a better term, at the human end.

If the player wants to, and the group is okay with it, I see no issue. It's not so different from the DM asking for a roll and the player asking "can I choose to fail". I've only seen that a handful of times at the table, but I always tell them they certainly have that option.

Not every player will even want to do so, and the only times I can see it being an issue is if people around the table are of differing opinions on the matter. But, even then, hopefully they discuss it like adults and arrive at a compromise they can all be happy with. If not, then presumably some of them will need to find a different group that is compatible with their own preferences.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Alss as I I hate 5e but if you want to say 5E is a smart edition of the game, I wouldn’t take that to mean my preferred edition isn’t smart (just that you find 5E smart, and you could probably provide reasons why), trying these kinds of statements about systems and styles to racist statements about race, is inflammatory and misleading—it’s bad rhetoric that taints the discussion

Even if you, personally, wouldn't take offense to it, I can practically guarantee you that there are folks who would. Any time you paint with too broad a brush you should arguably question your approach and intent (and then double-check). Painting with a broad brush tends to lead to bad rhetoric that is inflammatory and misleading, and taints the discussion. It's also frequently incorrect, either in part or whole.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Even if you, personally, wouldn't take offense to it, I can practically guarantee you that there are folks who would. Any time you paint with too broad a brush you should arguably question your approach and intent (and then double-check). Painting with a broad brush tends to lead to bad rhetoric that is inflammatory and misleading, and taints the discussion. It's also frequently incorrect, either in part or whole.

Or we could all not leap to the least charitable interpretation of these things. Yes some people will react to that term by drawing the wrong conclusions about its meaning. But I think that’s a massive overreaction. And the problem is it just keeps us mired in a semantic discussion when all it takes is looking at what people mean by skilled play to understand where they are coming from. If someone has a boneheaded meaning behind their use, take issue with that. In your words: don’t paint with a broad brush and assume anyone talking about skilled play mean it in the most insulting way.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Or we could all not leap to the least charitable interpretation of these things. Yes some people will react to that term by drawing the wrong conclusions about its meaning. But I think that’s a massive overreaction. And the problem is it just keeps us mired in a semantic discussion when all it takes is looking at what people mean by skilled play to understand where they are coming from. If someone has a boneheaded meaning behind their use, take issue with that. In your words: don’t paint with a broad brush and assume anyone talking about skilled play mean it in the most insulting way.

You just described exactly why I consider the term problematic.

Mind you, I don't personally take issue with the term when used, although I'm able to comprehend why others do. It's why I use quotation marks when I refer to it (to denote that I am using terminology and distinguish it from the natural use of those words). I actually enjoy engaging in "skilled play", I just think that it's a bad, loaded term, and I would never refer to it that way outside of something like a D&D message board.