D&D 5E On rulings, rules, and Twitter, or: How Sage Advice Changed

[Thomas Shey]

I'm not a mind reader, but from the normal construction of that sentence, the group would be the group that doesn't care about roleplaying, as hasn't, for some time.

I just want to make sure he's not referring to a "group" that contains that person, with the assumption the others in the group are similar in orientation.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I didn't think my sentence construction would end being that confusing, but thank you for clearing it up. That was exactly what I meant.

It wasn't confusing so much as potentially ambiguous, and I didn't want to respond to something you weren't trying to say.

Now that it is--you're quite correct, which is my point: there's a difference in trying to teach people who are simply inexperienced with doing something in the game and trying to do so with people who are simply uninterested in doing it, and treating them the same is probably not useful.

 

[Oofta]

To my mind, the best roleplaying experiences come from players who are fully engaged at both a mechanical and narrative level, which is why I consider that the best way to play.

I know I'm going against our board's "hakuna matata" no-one-way philosophy by saying I think some methods of play are superior to others, but I'll risk it.

I think if you're not characterizing your character outside of Gygaxian pawn stance play, you're not really getting the most (or contributing the most) you could to the play experience.

I'm just saying that it can be pointless to try to make people be something they're not. I run a pretty RP heavy game, I encourage getting into character and RP by trying to make that aspect of the game enjoyable.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink. I'm not going to tell people they're playing wrong as long as they are otherwise fun to play the game with.

 

[TwoSix]

I'm just saying that it can be pointless to try to make people be something they're not. I run a pretty RP heavy game, I encourage getting into character and RP by trying to make that aspect of the game enjoyable.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink. I'm not going to tell people they're playing wrong as long as they are otherwise fun to play the game with.

Sure. I'm not going to tell anyone they're playing wrong; but I'm also saying that they could play better. And that better isn't merely whatever they enjoy.

That's nothing particularly uncommon, I play and enjoy a ton of stuff that I'm objectively pretty bad at.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Sure. I'm not going to tell anyone they're playing wrong; but I'm also saying that they could play better. And that better isn't merely whatever they enjoy.

That's nothing particularly uncommon, I play and enjoy a ton of stuff that I'm objectively pretty bad at.

That still requires an objective standard that doesn't exist here.

 

[Oofta]

Sure. I'm not going to tell anyone they're playing wrong; but I'm also saying that they could play better. And that better isn't merely whatever they enjoy.

That's nothing particularly uncommon, I play and enjoy a ton of stuff that I'm objectively pretty bad at.

Better for whom? Better how?

It's a game. Are you having fun? Is it an enjoyable social activity? If yes, you're doing it right. I've played with people heavily into RP I'll never invite to another game. I have an experienced player now in my group that simply doesn't get into RP but they're still fun and is a good fit for the group.

We're just going to have to disagree. There is no one true way.

 

[TwoSix]

We're just going to have to disagree. There is no one true way.

We both agree there is no one true way. But some ways are still better than others. If you can't see how both can be true, I can't help.

 

[Oofta]

We both agree there is no one true way. But some ways are still better than others. If you can't see how both can be true, I can't help.

The problem is there's no objective "better". I'd rather have someone that's fun with no RP skills than someone who RPs the heck out of an a**hole.

 

[jayoungr]

I'm also saying that they could play better. And that better isn't merely whatever they enjoy.

What's an example of something that's better but less enjoyable?

 

[Lanefan]

I don't understand this -- do you mean you wouldn't have them because you wouldn't have thought to characterize your PC in that manner?

Given that much of the time I'm happy to let my characters' personalities etc. organically develop during play, I'd rather not end up beholden to BIFT (or equivalent) choices I'm asked - or forced - to make during char-gen before play ever begins.

Guidelines? Sure! Throw a bunch of personality traits into a list as ideas and inspirations for players to riff off of. Great stuff! More, please!

But as soon as the game insists I choose one from each of several lists for my character during char-gen, thus implying that I'm then bound to those choices* later: no thanks, I'm out.

* - and if I'm not bound to them, why make me choose them in the first place?