Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Rod Staffwand" data-source="post: 6342206" data-attributes="member: 6776279">It is entirely possible to have a discussion about play styles and campaign expectations without disparaging comments. It is, in fact, a successful requirement for enjoyable long-term gaming. Roll vs. Role isn't exactly a theory as there are indeed players of both persuasions out in the world at this very moment--and far more that use a mixture of styles (either simultaneously or differing via campaign). There is no controversy here, other than the fact that the play styles are not "vs." each other at all or that either one is better than the other. It is an objective fact that gamers have had fun playing the full spectrum and beyond. Adherents of particular styles may attempt to convince others of the advantages of their methods, and some might even be swayed to at least dabble in a different style after hearing a sound argument.Granted, some partisans of particular editions and styles like to claim superiority of their own beliefs and attempt to use all manner of faulty reasoning to bolster their arguments. They don't do this to gain converts, they do it to feel better about themselves because, for some reason, their method of gaming has become so ingrained in their personality, that anyone who merely chooses differently is seen as insulting them. These voices have nothing to contribute to the discussion and are best ignored.Far more common are those that favor a particular style and, through their enthusiasm for it (along with artless phrasing) seem to disparage other styles. If an author happens to leave out an "IMO" when dealing with subjective issues, it's best to mentally insert one in there and not read an honest exploration of styles as a partisan screed. We should all judge based on what is said, not on what we think is implied.Getting back to the thread at hand, I wasn't a fan of Pulsipher's presentation. I thought it was poorly structured and lacking in details and examples, and the terminology is a bit loaded: "interesting choices" vs. "wish fulfillment". But his core concern is sound. I also think the OP's definitions of wish-fulfillment and interesting decisions are a bit all over the place [The pleasure of seeing your enemies destroyed in spectacular fashion--really? This is 100% of gamers]. But both went out of their way to state this was a subjective discussion with no right answer.I had similar problems with the "Combat as Sport" and "Combat as War" phrasing, neither of which was a good fit for what they were supposed to represent and the unbalanced terminology between sport and war was ludicrous at best. Combat as Sport vs. Combat as Pretend War is better, but it's still not a useful approach.I've found that Cinematic vs. Wargame is about as neutral as you can get, with the expectation that it IS a continuum with the vast majority of players, DMs and campaigns falling somewhere in the middle (the exact point of which may change from session to session). The cinematic player wants to play out the setpiece dragon battle. The wargame player wants to trump the setpiece dragon battle by inventing explosives and using them to trap the dragon in his cave. Both appeal to different parts of the brain. No one goes to see a James Bond movie in which Seal Team Six caps the villain in the first five minutes. No one reads The Art of War for the sex scenes.The good news is that there are more game systems today than ever before, with modern technology allowing real-time play with people all over the world. It's easier now to find or run a game to your liking and it's far easier to be exposed to new ideas and new ways to play. If we aren't hitting a Golden Age of Gaming, I don't know what will do it.</blockquote>

Verification