Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
The "Stop Trying to Impose Your Playstyle" Argument
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Guest 6801328" data-source="post: 7335628"><p>Dear gamers,</p><p></p><p>This is a request that we <em>stop</em> using the argument, "If you are against including <em>X</em> as an <em>option</em> then you are selfishly trying to prevent others from playing the game with their chosen playstyle."</p><p></p><p>It's a nonsense argument, partly because it is equally (if poorly) applicable both directions.</p><p></p><p>A) We are all free to house-rule and use 3rd party material or re-fluff to our heart's content. If I can do it, you can do it, and vice versa.</p><p>B) Except in Adventurer's League, where both sides of the debate are equally subject to the restrictions of AL. If I'm trying to deny you your play style, you are equally trying to impose it on me.</p><p></p><p>"Optional" sounds so innocuous, but Feats are "optional" and if you hate Feats (I don't, I love them) and if you play in AL you are going to be sitting next to people who use them. Sure, you don't have to use them yourself, but you're going to be in a game with them.</p><p></p><p>Which brings up a corollary to this argument: "<em>You</em> don't have to use the options." First, that's not true in all cases. There are options that the DM chooses, not players. But even if we are talking character options, opposition is almost always going to be based on the impact on the game, either aesthetically or mechancially, not on one's own character. Take the Feat argument: yes, I don't have to build and play a crossbow expert, but that doesn't really make me any less annoyed with the guy who runs up and gets the point blank -5/+10 shot over and over and over again.</p><p></p><p>Next argument: "Then don't play AL; find an independent campaign." Not everybody has that option, and even those who do rarely have multiple options. So what if your only available table uses Option X?</p><p></p><p>It may be my DM is my best friend and loves option X, and if it becomes an official option he's going to use it in our game. And I really don't want that. (And given in that case if what I'm doing is preventing somebody from using their preferred playstyle I'm apparently willing to do it to my <em>best friend</em>. So I'm not likely to be persuaded by that argument from some stranger on the Internet.)</p><p></p><p>Beyond the Adventurer's League argument, there are several other perfectly valid reasons why somebody may oppose new options:</p><p>1) It takes up page count. (Which is a problem both in the $/page ratio, and bloat in general.)</p><p>2) It takes up WotC development time.</p><p>3) Most significantly, it begins to normalize the option. We may start to see NPCs or plot elements or magic items designed around existence of the option, and what is optional/normal now may be core in future editions.</p><p></p><p>Would it be exceptionally generous of you to be willing to lessen your own experience in order to increase the enjoyment of some stranger on the internet (some stranger who probably intentionally misconstrued your arguments, cast aspersions on your abilities as a DM and roleplayer, and is just generally patronizing and pedantic)? Sure. That would make you a saint. But the decision not to do so does not make you selfish. </p><p></p><p>Finally, we are not designing D&D here, or deciding what becomes official. We are debating pros and cons of design ideas. The argument to not deny other people their playstyle is really equivalent to "either agree that this should be an option, or shut up and get out of this thread." That's not ok.</p><p></p><p>It's a stupid argument. Let's just drop it. In all situations. Please.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Guest 6801328, post: 7335628"] Dear gamers, This is a request that we [I]stop[/I] using the argument, "If you are against including [I]X[/I] as an [I]option[/I] then you are selfishly trying to prevent others from playing the game with their chosen playstyle." It's a nonsense argument, partly because it is equally (if poorly) applicable both directions. A) We are all free to house-rule and use 3rd party material or re-fluff to our heart's content. If I can do it, you can do it, and vice versa. B) Except in Adventurer's League, where both sides of the debate are equally subject to the restrictions of AL. If I'm trying to deny you your play style, you are equally trying to impose it on me. "Optional" sounds so innocuous, but Feats are "optional" and if you hate Feats (I don't, I love them) and if you play in AL you are going to be sitting next to people who use them. Sure, you don't have to use them yourself, but you're going to be in a game with them. Which brings up a corollary to this argument: "[I]You[/I] don't have to use the options." First, that's not true in all cases. There are options that the DM chooses, not players. But even if we are talking character options, opposition is almost always going to be based on the impact on the game, either aesthetically or mechancially, not on one's own character. Take the Feat argument: yes, I don't have to build and play a crossbow expert, but that doesn't really make me any less annoyed with the guy who runs up and gets the point blank -5/+10 shot over and over and over again. Next argument: "Then don't play AL; find an independent campaign." Not everybody has that option, and even those who do rarely have multiple options. So what if your only available table uses Option X? It may be my DM is my best friend and loves option X, and if it becomes an official option he's going to use it in our game. And I really don't want that. (And given in that case if what I'm doing is preventing somebody from using their preferred playstyle I'm apparently willing to do it to my [I]best friend[/I]. So I'm not likely to be persuaded by that argument from some stranger on the Internet.) Beyond the Adventurer's League argument, there are several other perfectly valid reasons why somebody may oppose new options: 1) It takes up page count. (Which is a problem both in the $/page ratio, and bloat in general.) 2) It takes up WotC development time. 3) Most significantly, it begins to normalize the option. We may start to see NPCs or plot elements or magic items designed around existence of the option, and what is optional/normal now may be core in future editions. Would it be exceptionally generous of you to be willing to lessen your own experience in order to increase the enjoyment of some stranger on the internet (some stranger who probably intentionally misconstrued your arguments, cast aspersions on your abilities as a DM and roleplayer, and is just generally patronizing and pedantic)? Sure. That would make you a saint. But the decision not to do so does not make you selfish. Finally, we are not designing D&D here, or deciding what becomes official. We are debating pros and cons of design ideas. The argument to not deny other people their playstyle is really equivalent to "either agree that this should be an option, or shut up and get out of this thread." That's not ok. It's a stupid argument. Let's just drop it. In all situations. Please. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
The "Stop Trying to Impose Your Playstyle" Argument
Top