Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 7166712" data-attributes="member: 6778044">That quote is horrible. And describes so little and does it so poorly. It's just plain wrong in so many ways.To start, from my perspective, there's at least a third option, which I think was the more common option (now potentially overtaken by min-maxers), perhaps "immersionists".That is, we approach it as if the characters are people in a real world. We're not "playing a game" which is an approach where it's more about the rules than the content, and we're not escapists, looking for a story to be told by the referee. Overall the goal is to immerse yourself in the character and the world, and the job of the DM is to populate that world, and present it in a consistent, believable, and "realistic" way, whatever that means in terms of the physics, cultures, and so on in that world. Directly engaging the rules generally ruins the immersion. Within that world, the approach of the characters can be very tactical. But the key is that as a player you approach everything as a character in a world, not as a player in a game.This approach is not well supported by the rules anymore, and hasn't been for some while. Those who like a linear approach with a referee have been well served by published adventures. Min-maxers were extremely well served by 4e, but also simply because of an influx of gamers from other hobbies, like video games, board games, and MtG type games. It's natural to approach D&D by reading the rules, and trying to play the game "according to the rules." For those that are used to deck-building and such, treating character creation the same way comes naturally.On the other hand, RPGs are unique in that they support an almost opposite approach, which is you play the game, and then if you're not sure how to resolve something, look up the rule. This was what I saw as the promoted approach with AD&D, in that most of the rules (including combat) weren't in the PHB. I still prefer to start new players by helping to build a character (which can be modified as we play), and then they just jump in and play. When they want to do something, we let them know how the rules address that if needed.You say you'd "rather be railroaded into a good story and adventure that's predesigned" and then say that the quote that says people who "prefer to be told a story by the referee" are escapists and what you hate. In a linear, pre-published adventure, you're specifically being told a story by the referee, with your input.You're mixing adventure design, DM techniques, and playstyle.You prefer everything to be predetermined, and the DM acts as a referee as you explore their predetermined adventure. I think that's great. I think it's a valid approach, and a lot of people like it. I'd argue that it's probably the predominant play style, promoted by WotC by both the rulebooks and their publication of APs, that set the baseline for playing D&D is, "Buy the PHB (or download the basic rules), buy an AP, and a DM runs you through what we designed." And that's nothing new. As soon as they started publishing adventures, the default approach is a blend of linear plot, DM as referee, and players as a mix of player and character.Player agency is sacrificed because you can only go and do what the adventure designers provided. You seem to prefer getting to the portcullis of the town and being told, sorry, you can't leave, I didn't design that, to the DM winging it and letting you leave the town. Fair enough.But here's the thing. I can design a world, with everything in place and predetermined, but with no plot. You can go anywhere and do anything you want, and I will only use material that I predesigned. That's a pure sandbox. No story, impartial referee, and absolute player agency. There are zero restrictions on your agency, and you can approach it as tactically as you'd like.I'm not complaining about your preferences, my point is that your mixing things up and attempting to define what others are doing, and it's just wrong. Lew's assessment is wrong. I can't stand the overpowered, silly, superhero approach of play either. But I also can't stand things like the conclusion that it's better to heal somebody after they are reduced to 0 hp, instead of before. Because that's ridiculous and silly too. Even if it works because of the rules. Two are both things that break the immersion in a believable world. My goal is, in part, to avoid feeling like I'm playing a game.My solution, I fix the rules. But really that's to better support the playstyle we prefer and are already doing.There are a lot of different things - game design, rules, DM approach, DM techniques, that all intersect to make a play style. And you can be along any point of each of those continuums at that point of intersection.So when you say you prefer a tactical game, and that's why you dislike DMs that run a sandbox. You're fundamentally wrong because the presence or absence of a tactical game has nothing to do with whether the game is a sandbox or not, and that's going to generate a response. There are DMs that run a sandbox game specifically to ensure their game is a tactical game full of player agency and as free from DM interference as possible.So it's very difficult to understand your position because you're mixing these things together in a way that doesn't make sense. My experience is that 90% of all players that I've actually played with prefer my approach to playing. But of course that's the case, because if they didn't, they wouldn't be playing with me.I find that despite what people say they like, the majority of players don't consider the theory behind role playing. They'll agree to just about anything because the reality is that most people just don't care. They just want to play the game. The probably don't fully understand what they are objecting to, and any sort of question and explanation tends to be not only leading, but outside the context of an actual in-game experience.I would put most "escapists" closer to your camp - they prefer a linear adventure, doesn't have to be silly and unbelievable, but it's probably not something that really has to make them think either - and they just want to play their players while the DM tells the story. They are escapists because they literally just want to play an enjoyable game to "escape" like going to a movie. Some of them like superhero stories, some horror, some gritty tests of survival. Just like any play style, there is no single group. Don't know if they approach it from what you consider a tactical approach, though. Most casual players probably fall into this category, and probably care little how the DM does what they do.Aside from that, Lew is also just plain wrong. TSR was slow to publish adventures and campaign materials, specifically because Gary felt that DMs wouldn't want anything like that, since they should be making it up themselves. Gary considered improvisation and reaction to the moment. He rewarded creative play, altering the adventure, the encounter, or the creatures in response (the ways to kill Acererak in Tomb of Horrors, for example, were because those were the creative things that his players came up with when they first played it). He also designed creatures to foil their usual approaches, and force them to come up with different solutions. He felt that anything more than a sentence or two in a room was excessive in adventure design, and that a portion of the rooms should be left empty to be filled as needed and appropriate. His approach was a very actively involved DM, but not an antagonistic one (as many accuse him of being). When the DM filled in a room wasn't a concern. Providing a great adventure and challenging both the players and the characters was. I also don't understand what you mean by playing it as a tactical game. Are you talking about combats using the rules to move around the battlefield and make tactical decisions with miniatures? Or are you talking min-maxing, finding the "perfect build" and avoiding "trap" choices? Or something else?I am genuinely interested in what you do like. I agree it's often as important to understand what you don't like as well. But be careful about assigning what you don't like to approaches incorrectly. It's a lot of what I see people disagreeing about with you.</blockquote>

Verification