D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[Maxperson]

Lol, it's like a train wreck/broken record, at this point I check it every day or so an speed scroll looking for red text.

That's why you're under the mistaken impression that it's like a train wreck/broken record. Like a working record, maybe, but not a broken one, and certainly not a train wreck.

 

[Maxperson]

He's written the essay to praise simulationist play. He is showing that it is worthwhile, and that it doesn't need to be described in different terms to defend itself.

If you didn't work that out, I encourage you to re-read the blog.

He is using disparaging terminology for that style of play, which makes the motive suspect. If he wanted his motive to be taken at face value, he'd have used non-disparaging terms.

 

[pemerton]

Like I said, it's not about agreement, it's about tone. I just really prefer a more casual examination.

Vincent Baker is not especially casual. He's serious about game design. I don't see how that makes him elitist or condescending.

 

[Micah Sweet]

He's written the essay to praise simulationist play. He is showing that it is worthwhile, and that it doesn't need to be described in different terms to defend itself.

If you didn't work that out, I encourage you to re-read the blog.

Does that make the terms used not derogatory?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Vincent Baker is not especially casual. He's serious about game design. I don't see how that makes him elitist or condescending.

Casual =/= not serious.

 

[Maxperson]

Casual =/= not serious.

Yep. There's a middle ground.

 

[pemerton]

Does that make the terms used not derogatory?

He is using disparaging terminology for that style of play, which makes the motive suspect. If he wanted his motive to be taken at face value, he'd have used non-disparaging terms.

He doesn't agree that they are disparaging terms - for instance,:

the term “princess play” is not intended to be disparaging. I do not think that playing princess is a shameful activity. If you do, you might need help, because you’re criticizing a very common childhood game. The name comes, of course, from the common role-adoption game that children like to play, which I believe to present a creative agenda that is essentially similar to the enjoyment a roleplayer gets from a role meaningful to them. That is, it is exciting to pretend to be a princess or a fireman or rock star or astronaut or whatnot because you get to pretend to engage in exciting activities and be treated differently from usual.​

Page 2 of the 2014 D&D Basic Rules says that D&D "shares elements with childhood games of make-believe." Tuovinen is elaborating on that point.

To be honest, to me it seems that a lot of the objection to "princess play" or "dollhouse play" is because men don't like their pastime being compared to something that girls do.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It makes no sense to you because we have different definitions. Besides, I am talking about RPGs because all I care about is how we handle things in RPGs. I do not care about philosophical debates about cause and effect in the real world.

The comparison to how things work in the real world was made, and that's what I've been addressing when I've asked people to look at it without doing so in the context of RPGs.

If you don't care about that, then you probably shouldn't have been responding.

As far as you're concerned, sure. As far as I'm concerned, when it comes to how I run a game, they are not. Insisting that I'm wrong to have a different point of view on this is not changing anything.

Again, I'm talking about in real life.

Something may happen, it may not. Depends on what events were in play when they took their action.

Yes, this is my point. It depends on the context... on what's going on in the world. Maybe a cook shows up, maybe a guard does, maybe a knife wielding maniac... and so on. None of those things are necessarily going to wait for the character to act again.

I make the call on the result of a declared action, the players are responsible to moving the story forward by declaring what they say or do - unless there's some other event going on that they have to deal with of course.

Sure, the players declare actions for their characters, then the GM says what happens next, then the players declare actions again, and so on.

I see the distinction, do you? I do not care about the real world,

Then I really don't know why you're responding to me. My point for some time now has been about how "nothing happens" is not "more realistic" than fail forward or any other technique. My point is related to how we view these kinds of things in the real world.

If that's not of interest to you, and if you're not claiming that "nothing happens" is more realistic, then you're not actually disagreeing with me and I have no idea why you continue to respond.

 

[Micah Sweet]

He doesn't agree that they are disparaging terms - for instance,:

the term “princess play” is not intended to be disparaging. I do not think that playing princess is a shameful activity. If you do, you might need help, because you’re criticizing a very common childhood game. The name comes, of course, from the common role-adoption game that children like to play, which I believe to present a creative agenda that is essentially similar to the enjoyment a roleplayer gets from a role meaningful to them. That is, it is exciting to pretend to be a princess or a fireman or rock star or astronaut or whatnot because you get to pretend to engage in exciting activities and be treated differently from usual.​

Page 2 of the 2014 D&D Basic Rules says that D&D "shares elements with childhood games of make-believe." Tuovinen is elaborating on that point.

To be honest, to me it seems that a lot of the objection to "princess play" or "dollhouse play" is because men don't like their pastime being compared to something that girls do.

You may have something there (none of us are perfect), but the books used to refer to "cops & robbers" for stuff like that. Referring to it as "princess play" or "dollhouse" seems an unnecessary and, yes, clearly gender-tagged change. Why make a point out of using it? I'm sure there are other make-believe activities that could be used as a reference.

 

[pemerton]

I'm talking about in real life.

<snip>

My point for some time now has been about how "nothing happens" is not "more realistic" than fail forward or any other technique. My point is related to how we view these kinds of things in the real world.

Your honour, I didn't kill them. I just introduced a substance into their food, which - when they ingested it - disrupted some cell membranes. It was their choice to take a drink, combined with the fragility of their cellular structure, that caused them to die!