Player Control, OR "How the game has changed over the years, and why I don't like it"

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Conversely, by saying he plays a "more imaginative" style game, it's equally easy to take this as "I think my way is more imaginative, and I'm not liable for your interpretation of this as an absolute statement that infringes on your self".

No matter how many "In my opinion"s and "Don't take this the wrong way, but"s and similar weasel-wording you want people to add to your posts*:

1) You didn't actually put them there, and

2) That doesn't make the statement less insulting.

EDIT: * The general "you," not the specific "you."

 

[LostSoul]

DFor rules interpretation, a neutral arbiter is required - which is why, when we play D&D 4E, we want as few rules interpretations as possible (because we should all, in the "heat of battle", have investment in the outcome - that's where our fun is with 4E).

That's interesting. Why do you want the DM to have investment in the outcome? Do you find that the DM has a conflict of interest, since he's the one building the encounters? I imagine not, but I'd like to hear your answer.

 

[TheUltramark]

By saying you play a "more imaginative" style, in a game that's all about imagination. You don't see how easy it is to take this as "you don't play right?"

I am sorry for offending anyone

there is no right or wrong way to play, as long as it is enjoyable, go for it

 

[NoWayJose]

No matter how many "In my opinion"s and "Don't take this the wrong way, but"s and similar weasel-wording you want people to add to your posts*:

1) You didn't actually put them there, and

2) That doesn't make the statement less insulting.

EDIT: * The general "you," not the specific "you."

Oh, thanks for the edit, it was confusing me.

Regarding the IMOs and perceived insults, I think it's worth considering that it takes a certain quality for a person to get to page 16 of an Enworld thread.

Theoretical example:

Page 1:
Person A: I like dogs
Person B: I like cats

Page 2:
Person A: Dogs are a man's best friend!
Person B: Cats are cute!

Page 3:
Person A: No, cats are aloof and selfish
Person B: Dogs are smelly and bark too much

Page 4:
Person A: You shouldn't talk like that. My dog is the best, the love of my life.
Person B: I find this insulting. You're invalidating my pet choice.
etc. etc.

Now 99% of people have no interest in this drawn-out argument. The other 1%? Maybe they don't understand that a preferance for dogs or cats does not invalidate the other's choice, or maybe they care too deeply what the other person thinks, or maybe they have lots of time and passion to argue for their side.

All of us, including myself, that got to this page of this thread or any other thread may recognize that nobody put a gun to our head and we did have a choice as to how much we engaged in the conversation as well as how much we allow ourselves to be affected by other people's subjective opinions. There are many things in life that are unfair and hurtful. Relatively speaking, Enworld is mostly harmless.

 

[Fifth Element]

Conversely, by saying he plays a "more imaginative" style game, it's equally easy to take this as "I think my way is more imaginative, and I'm not liable for your interpretation of this as an absolute statement that infringes on your self".

Certainly. But more careful writing can save trouble on messageboards a great deal of the time.

 

[NoWayJose]

Certainly. But more careful writing can save trouble on messageboards a great deal of the time.

Sure, in an ideal world. However, it simply isn't realistic to expect everyone to be 100% careful all the time. We all make mistakes, lose patience, forget, etc. Given that it's unrealistic to control other people, it's worth noting that the reader chooses to read it and chooses to respond. Also, see above.

 

[billd91]

Sure, in an ideal world. However, it simply isn't realistic to expect everyone to be 100% careful all the time. We all make mistakes, lose patience, forget, etc. Given that it's unrealistic to control other people, it's worth noting that the reader chooses to read it and chooses to respond. Also, see above.

The onus is on everybody. There's little point in a messageboard if nobody's paying attention to each other and automatically assuming the worst of the other posters.

 

[Fifth Element]

Sure, in an ideal world. However, it simply isn't realistic to expect everyone to be 100% careful all the time. We all make mistakes, lose patience, forget, etc. Given that it's unrealistic to control other people, it's worth noting that the reader chooses to read it and chooses to respond. Also, see above.

We can say the same about the people who interpret what's written to be an insult. They've made a mistake or lost patience, or what have you. It's unrealistic to expect this not to happen. And the writer has chosen to write something, knowing that others will read it.

So yes, everyone should read things in the most charitable light, but the onus is not solely on the reader. Careful writing helps as well. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Lanefan]

And personally I find this phrase slightly annoying. Yes, the rules are there to serve the game. But it doesn't follow from this that the rules are therefore to be ignored - because perhaps following the rules is part of the game!

In most traditional games e.g. Monopoly, Chess, etc., this is quite true.

But not D+D. And that's what makes it great.

Sure there's rules presented as guidelines (well, in earlier editions anyway) and for most of the time they get the job done just fine. But in a game where pretty much the only limits on what might come up are set by the collective imaginations of the players/DM/module writer/game designer there's going to be times when the rules just don't work; and they have to be flexible enough to be able to get out of the way and wise enough to know when to do so.

In other words, the rules must serve the game.

The whole simulation-of-reality-only-with-magic argument is another question entirely; hard-and-fast rules often conflict with this as well (e.g. Zombie vs. Hydra), but how to deal with that is pretty much up to each DM and-or group to decide.

For me, to date at least, this has certainly been the case for 4e. Following the rules has produced an interesting and gripping game. And an important part of that has been applying the rules that provide for player-initiated and player-driven improvisation and narrative.

I don't think anybody's saying that players shouldn't be able to initiate and-or drive narrative; the question is merely one of to what degree, and is likely only answerable on a group-by-group basis.

That's interesting. Why do you want the DM to have investment in the outcome? Do you find that the DM has a conflict of interest, since he's the one building the encounters? I imagine not, but I'd like to hear your answer.

Why shouldn't the DM have an investment in the outcome? Unless an encounter is a complete cakewalk for the party it is going to affect them somehow (injuries, deaths, depleted resources, etc.) and is thus going to affect what they do next - which directly affects what the DM is expected to deal with next, based on what the party does.

Lan-"how would you like your rules served, sir?"-efan

 

[NoWayJose]

There's little point in a messageboard if nobody's paying attention to each other and automatically assuming the worst of the other posters.

We can say the same about the people who interpret what's written to be an insult. They've made a mistake or lost patience, or what have you. It's unrealistic to expect this not to happen. And the writer has chosen to write something, knowing that others will read it.

Yes, I agree with that too. Please allow me to phrase it another way. My impression, rightly or wrongly, is that people are MORE likely to blame another person than to be self-aware of their choices in the matter. Since the see-saw naturally leans to one side, leaning back to the other side is what may right the balance somewhat. I did not meant to imply that leaning all the way to the other side was the solution.