Semi-Rant: Maturity and dumbing down a game

[Pielorinho]

Otherwsie, spare us all these bombastic, self-inflated threads.

Moderator's Notes
Did you not read my last warning? Next person to make a snarky post in this thread is earning a three-day ban. I'm serious about this: when a thread gets reported multiple times for bad behavior, it's pretty frustrating for us mods.

If you must insult people, do it elsewhere.

Daniel

 

[Dremmen]

Alright, I think that post kinda cleared your position up for me, Dremmen. You're down on people using D&D for a miniatures combat game with no plot or characterization, where you might think up a name for your character and maybe make a sketchy map of the area if you're feeling really into it. Is that accurate?

Its not that I'm not down with it John. They are welcome to do that and I surely don't fault them. Its if they call that role-playing that I take issue. Because to me, that's not.

By contrast:

When I play, I try to take into account my characters emotions and what knowledge he has, and try to have him behave accordingly. I would find it ridiculous to describe his actions in minute detail, and tedious. And laughably uncomfortable. Oh yes, I will certainly describe a dramatic combat moment, or mention a facial expression or similiar if it is called for, or descibe physical things that cant be portrayed with my characters own speech

Aaron, not sure why you're upset here. You are describing a very engaging and fun narrative style and one that I would love to see used in any game that I'm in or running. You are making individuals out of your characters and putting quite a bit of thought and effort into it. How much or to what detail you describe things exactly is completely up to the individual, the important thing is playing that role in role playing games. What you desribe is great and I applaud your method of role-playing. I think its exemplary. What I had described in my original post was just an example, one style of many. It was the overall point of using *some* form of narrative style over hack'n'slash faceless dice rolling that I was trying to make, is all.

 

[diaglo]

I agree with this 100%.

less filling.

i like my pretzels low fat now. i think that is the only maturity to it different from when i was a youth.

edit: i'm not making a comment on anyone else's style of play. just my own.

i'm a beer and pretzels gamer.

edit2: so what does that mean? it means when i was a youth and had all the time in the world. we still roleplayed the combat. but it was also just numbers. we killed things in the end and took their stuff.

now i'm older. i have less time to game. so i cut back on a lot of the extras... like roleplaying selling the phat lewt. but i still kill things and take their stuff.

 

[diaglo]

if you are curious how a beer & pretzels gamer plays the newest edition read the story hour in my sig.

 

[Flyspeck23]

Aaron, not sure why you're upset here.

If you don't know, re-read your first post:

The better - yes, BETTER - RPGers begin to play down and combat becomes - "does it attack?" "attack of opportunity" " me too" "what's its AC?" " I miss" " I hit. 8dmg." - stale, insipid, uninspired gameplay that is the antithesis of RPG.

Basically, what you said was: if you don't RP the combat (of which you later give an example), your game isn't a RPG at all.

 

[Captain Tagon]

I don't think many people have a problem with RPing, or even with "narrative" style RPing. The problem I think stems from the TYPE of role-playing you presented in your first post. I think we've all come to the conclusion now that there are multiple ways to play the game that still include RPing.

Yours is a fully narrative style that permeates through combat.

Others use a more internal style in combat, thinking as their character when acting but still using game mechanics terms.

And others are somewhat in the middle, thinking like their characters in combat while using at least a little "fluff" language.

All of these are still role-playing, because you are still playing the role.

 

[Mark Chance]

Emphasis added:

Its not that I'm not down with it John. They are welcome to do that and I surely don't fault them. Its if they call that role-playing that I take issue. Because to me, that's not.

And therein is the rub.

To you it isn't. But, meant in an entirely non-insulting way, who are you? Are you the authority about what constitutes genuine RPing and who gets to be called a genuine RPer? If so, from where did you derive this authority? If not, then your opinion is just one of many with no more substance than any other.

In essence, you're arguing that chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla, and that people who eat vanilla ice cream aren't really eating ice cream.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

If you're having fun, you're doing it right.
snip

Amen.

 

[Pielorinho]

I do think gamers that play at what I discribed as High School level, others call hack and slash, have some maturing to do within the game regardless of how old they are.

Moderator's Notes:
Dremmen, as I'm sure you've realized by now, others are going to disagree strenuously when you place any sort of absolute value-judgment on different folks' preferred form of entertainment. De Gustibus Non Est Disputandem is just about a sacred creed around here, and while I think you've softened your position somewhat since your OP, I very much hope you'll remember in the future that posts like this, no matter how politely worded, strongly imply that your fellow posters are immature, which is in violation of this messageboard's guidelines.

Had this post been reported soon after it was made, I would have closed the thread; but it appears to me that the thread has polymorphed into an interesting discussion, so I'm going to leave it open for now.

Daniel

(Note: remember, folks, we mods don't have time to read all threads or all posts; we often only read a post after it's reported).

 

[Dremmen]

Moderator's Notes:
Had this post been reported soon after it was made, I would have closed the thread; but it appears to me that the thread has polymorphed into an interesting discussion, so I'm going to leave it open for now.

Daniel

Thank you much. I'll admit, I was venting a bit there at the very first. I was genuinely frustrated with players that do the "I attack" "what's the AC" "x dmg", etc, and think that is the end all be all of an RPG. That extra verbage and descriptions delay more combats or slow the game down. That don't take the time to ask things like who is my character? where did he come from? what does he do when not fighting? what does he fight for? does he have a family? does he want to start one? why do I care whether this character lives or dies in the game? And while to some players these questions hold no intrinsic value to the game, to me they are the crux of the thing. And hence, why I got frustrated. I still believe what I put down on the first post but realize it could have been said differently. And part of that has to do with some very solid points made on the thread by some very insightful people as well as reading some of the articles referenced. And this was, after all, part of my intent - to try to get an idea of how others felt about it and get some discussion going with other folks that indulge in the hobby.

To you it isn't. But, meant in an entirely non-insulting way, who are you? Are you the authority about what constitutes genuine RPing and who gets to be called a genuine RPer? If so, from where did you derive this authority? If not, then your opinion is just one of many with no more substance than any other.

That's right Mark. And other than by stating over and over and over again that this is just my opinion I don't know any other way of letting folks know that I certainly don't expect them to change their own views on the subject. I stated how I felt. And to noone's surprise, other folks have different thoughts on it which I am grateful they shared with me. If they feel threatened by my disagreement with their own view of things I am sorry but I certainly have no wish to interject my thoughts on to them. Then again, I know I've learned alot through everyone's comments and I hope to some that've kept up with this post, some of the views expressed by me or others have been enlightening.

Again, not really sure why you still seem irked since you play a narrative style game which is, at the root of it, all I am advocating.

I don't think many people have a problem with RPing, or even with "narrative" style RPing. The problem I think stems from the TYPE of role-playing you presented in your first post. I think we've all come to the conclusion now that there are multiple ways to play the game that still include RPing.

Yours is a fully narrative style that permeates through combat.

Others use a more internal style in combat, thinking as their character when acting but still using game mechanics terms.

And others are somewhat in the middle, thinking like their characters in combat while using at least a little "fluff" language.

All of these are still role-playing, because you are still playing the role.

That's right Captain. I guess despite my best efforts to lay out my point clearly, I am still not gettting across. All the playing styles you touch on above are narrative styles that involve playing a role and therefore, in my book, kosher and great and completely in the spirit of an RPG. I have zilch argument with any of them. What I wrote as an example of a narrative style in my first post was something I came up with right then and there so I could have something more concrete when talking about narrative play. Should I have used a noncombat example? Or maybe a scene using skills instead of fighting? It was just an example and I am not saying its the only narrative style or even a good example of narrative style, very simply its just a example of a narrative style. One among many and I am all for ANY of those.