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

[DinoInDisguise]

No. You can’t faithfully portray a character without some sort of metric to measure that portrayal against.

“I’m faithfully portraying the headcanon I have” doesn’t meet that standard. It’s a semantic distortion.

This is a wild claim. It assumes that fidelity to a character must be measured externally, as if there's an authoritative benchmark. But that's an odd standard. It dismisses a person’s ability to assess their own thoughts and intentions.

You also disregard subjective portrayal. In roleplaying, internal consistency is the norm. If I say my character is cautious, but I play them recklessly without reason, I’m not staying true to my concept. But I don’t need someone else’s metric to realize that. My own creative goals provide the standard.

This argument doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. It casually dismisses the value of self-awareness and introspection. Worse, it seems to undermine the legitimacy of self-directed creativity. An idea that, if taken seriously, would reduce personal expression in roleplay to something dangerously limited.

 

[JConstantine]

Regarding neotrad the Cultures of Play author revised their accidental conflating with OC. The linked post contains a full explanation with references.

Link doesn't work for me, but if it's what I think it is, the author's revision is that they consider "neotrad" to be a misappellation to the playstyle laid out in the original post, and that "neotrad" should refer to game design, while "OC" should apply to the playstyle, yes?
I, however, have no problem with "neotrad" being used for that playstyle, instead viewing "OC" as the misappellation, and further that there is a burgeoning new playstyle that warrants being called "OC". Essentially, I see "trad", "neotrad" and "OC" as 3 different playstyles with enough overlap to be considered somewhat of a continuum, albeit with a crucial enough difference to be considered separate (I could also see an argument for them being 3 subtypes of a broader playstyle).

 

[JConstantine]

I know I haven't read everything Baker has written, but nothing I've read has come across, to me, as pretentious or arrogant.

I suspect the charge is directed at Edwards more than Baker, though possibly with some conflation of the two.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Eh, I've seen a few too many people (not a huge number, but more than I'd like) to try and use history or connections to make themselves more important and spotlight grabbing to be entirely blase about it. You can make it work if a game has it baked in so everyone is expected to do it (13th Age's One Unique Thing), or if there's a cost associated with it, but it can absolutely be used as a different but still real version of the malign end of power gaming.

Well, I've seen a lot, and my sense of it is that if a player uses backstory authority to, say, grant their character power and influence, so what? Now their story is about that! Meanwhile, spotlight is a whole other thing. Part of the job of a GM, in most systems -both traditional and otherwise- is to manage the allocation of table time. If a player is unable to defer to others, that seems like not an issue of play style. It usually happens with children.

I mean, there can be additional manifestations too, like using some kind of authority to push play in a direction, or change the tone, genre, etc. unilaterally. But again the problem isn't player authority, it's table manners!

 

[AlViking]

Well, I've seen a lot, and my sense of it is that if a player uses backstory authority to, say, grant their character power and influence, so what? Now their story is about that! Meanwhile, spotlight is a whole other thing. Part of the job of a GM, in most systems -both traditional and otherwise- is to manage the allocation of table time. If a player is unable to defer to others, that seems like not an issue of play style. It usually happens with children.

I mean, there can be additional manifestations too, like using some kind of authority to push play in a direction, or change the tone, genre, etc. unilaterally. But again the problem isn't player authority, it's table manners!

It's a group game with group dynamics. If one character has inherited wealth and power it's not fair to the rest of the players at the table. But thanks for making your opinion clear that if we don't care for your choice it's only an issue if we're childish. It helps me put the opinion into perspective.

 

[JConstantine]

But it's hardly a criticism of Burning Wheel, or Apocalypse World, or Marvel Heroic RP, that these are not particularly well-suited for gamist play. It's not as if anyone ever asserted the contrary.

What? I've pointed out previously that there are people who view various PbtA games, including AW, as gamey because of the move structure. And, while I can't speak to MHRP specifically, Cortex is incredibly gamist with step up/down, buying off hitches, etc.

 

[JConstantine]

Seems a little nitpicky to me. Is the 100% sim straw man going back into battle once more?

You'll have to roll to find out.

 

[JConstantine]

Personally I'm not a fan of no re-tries unless the fiction informs the no-retry.
I'd argue the no-retries principle is gamist not sim, but that it has been adopted by the sim-crowd.

I'd say "no retries" can be as much about a presenting a certain narrative as it is about session pacing.

 

[AlViking]

Seems a little nitpicky to me. Is the 100% sim straw man going back into battle once more?

I'd say we have to burn that straw man with fire but I'm afraid we'd just get this guy

Which, admittedly, is a really cool image and I have to figure out how to use it as a monster, but that's a different issue.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'd say we have to burn that straw man with fire but I'm afraid we'd just get this guy
View attachment 410418

Which, admittedly, is a really cool image and I have to figure out how to use it as a monster, but that's a different issue.

Something involving a harvest ritual and a sacrifice, perhaps?