Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8289403" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Perhaps because TTRPGs, unlike sports and dramatically moreso than card games, are pure abstractions and thus contain no parts that cannot in principle be modified or combined? I mean, if we look at other forms of pleasurable activity, particularly ones where the rules and content are abstract even if the experience or process is not, you totally do see people combining stuff, constantly. Fusion cuisine. Music that blends styles together, or re-interprets a classic of one genre in the style of another (like electro-swing covers, an example I personally like). Genre mashups. Some of that is just because people like the distinct parts and want to bring them together. But it's definitely also sometimes the result of disparate interests meeting in the middle and finding something that satisfies all involved--some bands develop their distinctive style from precisely that.Or perhaps it's because, unlike literally any of the above things, committing to an RPG campaign is a pretty big deal? You're talking about doing the same thing on a (semi-)regular schedule. This isn't "we'll play golf next week, George, this week we're playing basketball." It's "we'll play richly-detailed, self-consistent characters next year, George, this year we're playing SP." There's a hell of a lot more reason to advocate for getting at least some of the things you value most, because you may be waiting for a very long time if you don't--or you may get (unintentionally) excluded. I've been running the same game for over three years now (with the occasional off week or break). If I had had a friend to whom I'd said, "Hey man, this is a narrative-focused game, we'll play something SP-focused next time," I think they would be understandably upset that they'd waited three years with no sign of a new game happening.Going back to the other issue: I still don't get how this isn't "about SP" [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER]. It just seems like common sense to me that, if you have a friend you think might not be on board but that you would like to be on board, you'd think about what can be done. That's thinking about SP, what makes it tick, what parts of it are "optional" vs "mandatory," what the rationale was behind including certain elements, etc. Thinking about the "why" of SP, and if possible, taking that knowledge and making it more accessible to those who wouldn't necessarily mesh well with it. And it seems to me pretty likely that in any given group of 3-5 players, having someone among them not be totally absolutely 110% committed to SP seems...reasonably probable?I mean, it's not like Actor is the only player archetype unlikely to be enthused by this style. Hardcore simulationists--and I know for an absolute fact there are such players on this very forum--are likely to find certain elements of SP distasteful, since SP wears its gamist leanings on its sleeve. Are those elements absolutely required, or optional? Can they be altered or replaced with something that fulfills the same rationale, but which would be palatable for those who really need to feel like there's a "real world" being run without bias or artificiality? If these elements are not optional and cannot be meaningfully altered, you've found clear lines where you can tell your simulationist (or actor) friends, "This is how this game works, it's what we're here for. If that isn't for you, we wish you good gaming elsewhere. If you can stomach that, great, we can have a good game together."This just....seems like the thing to do when you're wanting to work with your friends to achieve the group's common interests (everyone enjoying the shared activity to some extent, everyone getting to see the things they like). Even if you don't have a suspicion that one or more people in the group might not be immediately 100% on board, you think about the ways that what your offering may or may not fit your specific group, and how you can make it fit better. No game is perfect, no style is perfect. Plumbing the depths of what makes that style tick, what it NEEDS vs what it just often has, etc. just....seems like the thing to do if you want to get the most enjoyment out of the things you choose to run.It's weird reading through that post, because, uh....from what I can tell, this makes 4e a classic-culture game: one concerned with game balance, constructing "fair" challenges, making the process of play itself entertaining and engaging. The focus, of course, is on the battlemap rather than the overworld, but otherwise that's the only "culture of play" that really fits. (Consider the number of pro-4e DMs who cite that 4e means they don't have to "pull punches" when throwing stuff at their players.) There are certain "storygame" elements as well, e.g. having mechanics that are themselves the story for a class or race, but otherwise that style is a bit outside 4e's scope. Yet, if I were a betting man, I would absolutely bet real actual money that most "classic culture" players would be apoplectic at the suggestion that 4e is a continuation of, or participant in, their culture of play. (I am not a betting man, so I won't. But that sounds like a bet that you can't lose.)</blockquote>

Verification