Why D&D is like pr0n

[Desdichado]

I actually believe most folks who think they prefer a rules light game are actually just terrible at rules theory, rules retention, character optimization, strategy and tactics. The way many of these folks seem to cope with this is to tell everybody how they play isn't in the spirit of the game. They tell us that roleplaying is the correct way to play the game.

Well, at least that's been my milages.

Yes. They (me too, I guess) are terrible at it... because we find it terribly uninteresting and boring as all get-out. Maybe if someone tells you that they like rules light games and don't like rules theory, character optimization and tactics, they actually just don't like rules heavy systems, character optimization and tactics. Shocking concept, I know, where people actually express their preferences and they're right about their own preferences!

This whole thing smacks of "I can't believe not everyone likes the same things I do about roleplaying, so I'm coming up with a convoluted theory about how secretly they do like the same things I do, but they're convincing themselves that they're not for some other obscure reason." That is neither convincing, nor even necessary, and is in fact, kinda insulting.

 

[demetri0us]

No, but see... thats my point.

Nobody is good at tactics (as an example) because they want to be. If they aren't good at tactics, it's usually because, well, they aren't. Nobody decides to be good at chess. You either have a penchant for it or you don't. That sounds kinda harsh, but it's reality. It would be great if we could just say "oh, I'd like to be a good trombone player" and BAM, your Christian Lindberg. Well, it doesn't work that way unfortunately.

I was probably a bit confusing before with my post. Sorry about that. I was trying to point out exactly what you mention Hobo. Folks seem to think they aren't good at those things (the basics of RPG's) because they don't like them, but it's really because they aren't very talented at them.

It's like if I said "I never really played football in school because I didn't like it." That would be me being dishonest to myself. No, I didn't play because I was terrible.

I'd actually prefer if people could realize what they are good at in an RPG and focus on their strengths and (from my perspective at least) stop telling others that what they like isn't "real" gaming.

(don't think people do that? check out some signatures for RPG smugness)

 

[demetri0us]

This whole thing smacks of "I can't believe not everyone likes the same things I do about roleplaying, so I'm coming up with a convoluted theory about how secretly they do like the same things I do, but they're convincing themselves that they're not for some other obscure reason." That is neither convincing, nor even necessary, and is in fact, kinda insulting.

There is never a point where I would think people play games for the reason I do. Certainly not. Neither do I think that folks covertly enjoy something that they profess not to.

My point (clearly obscured, sorry about that) was that anecdotally I have observed that some folks like to point out that one way to play is better than another, and the way that they play is the "true" method.

However, when I see their method in action, in this case specifically were talking about role playing, there is little substance at all to the actual role playing.

Again, this is just from my experience.

 

[jonesy]

Nobody is good at tactics (as an example) because they want to be. If they aren't good at tactics, it's usually because, well, they aren't. Nobody decides to be good at chess. You either have a penchant for it or you don't. That sounds kinda harsh, but it's reality. It would be great if we could just say "oh, I'd like to be a good trombone player" and BAM, your Christian Lindberg. Well, it doesn't work that way unfortunately.

Why not? Your talents aren't set in stone the moment you are born. Mostly what you need is motivation. That's the hardest part, and that's got nothing to do with what you could do if you started doing it.

I'm terrible at ice hockey, but I'm terrible because I never had the motivation to practise it enough. Does that make me dishonest of my abilities? I don't think so. I'm good at football. I've practised it enough to be so. But I'll never be pro because I never had the motivation for that. Just a fun pastime.

And chess? That's a terrible example. You get better at chess by playing it against progressively harder opponents. You just need the motivation to go through that grind. Sure, there are people who naturally fit certain roles. Child prodigies of chess who can beat world champions a couple of times. You know what usually happens to those? They lose motivation and start to suck. Garry Kasparov repeatedly denied being great at strategy. He said he was good enough, but that practise kept him in the loop.

 

[Barastrondo]

I was probably a bit confusing before with my post. Sorry about that. I was trying to point out exactly what you mention Hobo. Folks seem to think they aren't good at those things (the basics of RPG's) because they don't like them, but it's really because they aren't very talented at them.

I disagree with this assertion. It removes personal taste as a potential reason for why people play the way they do and claims that preferences are rooted in incompetence, and an unwillingness to admit incompetence. That may be true for some people, but it's projection to assume it's true for most, much less all. I have no idea whether I'd have been good at basketball or not; certainly a lot of people assumed that I would like to play when I was in high school on account of me being tall, but I never really got a chance to see what my talents would have been because it wasn't interesting to me.

People do what they like. It may be colored by their natural skill for it, but it also may not. My wife has more raw skill at painting miniatures than I do, but I like doing it more and I spend more time doing it. Our relative competence simply doesn't have a bearing on who is more interested in spending time at the painting table on any given night.

 

[demetri0us]

You get better at chess by playing it against progressively harder opponents. You just need the motivation to go through that grind. Sure, there are people who naturally fit certain roles. Child prodigies of chess who can beat world champions a couple of times. You know what usually happens to those? They lose motivation and start to suck. Garry Kasparov repeatedly denied being great at strategy. He said he was good enough, but that practise kept him in the loop.

Your spot on there. You have to practice something to get good at it. Your totally right! However, you do have to practice. And, you cant practice football by watching it, you have to do it.

Just like you have to practice the afore mentioned RPG "skills" by doing them (and doing them correctly, an important distinction I think).

Nobody gets good at something they don't practice. We totally agree there Jonesy.

 

[jonesy]

Your spot on there. You have to practice something to get good at it. Your totally right! However, you do have to practice. And, you cant practice football by watching it, you have to do it.

Just like you have to practice the afore mentioned RPG "skills" by doing them (and doing them correctly, an important distinction I think).

Nobody gets good at something they don't practice. We totally agree there Jonesy.

Umm. Okay. Now I'm completely confused about what it is you are saying.

At first you said: "Nobody is good at tactics because they want to be."

Now you're saying they can be if they want to?

 

[Umbran]

I actually believe most folks who think they prefer a rules light game are actually just terrible at rules theory, rules retention, character optimization, strategy and tactics.

And I believe that on the internet, folks tend to attribute the personal preferences of others to some personal flaw or weakness of intellect or character, despite having nothing other than anecdotal evidence to support the position.

Where I come from, that's called negative stereotyping, and it's kinda rude.

 

[demetri0us]

People do what they like. It may be colored by their natural skill for it, but it also may not.

Well, that's a good point.

I'll definitely concede that skill at something must germinate from a desire and then (as jonesy points out) grow from motivation. This clearly makes good sense. I completely agree.

But, and this is likely to offend and I'm sorry about that, I really do think there are gamers out there that think they play D&D because they say they like to role play, but then, they don't actually role play. I've seen this happen way more often then not. Really I have, at all levels. I saw this at Gencon this year. I just don't see real role playing happen all that often, well not in the large game dominating doses I see talked about online.

However, I have been involved in games that as soon as I quote a rule (or more to the point, take advantage of a rule) I get called out as not playing in the spirit of the game...

...I think this type of play is smack dab in the middle of the spirit of the game, certainly as much as roleplaying is.

This is precisely why the OP's post struck a chord in me.

 

[Umbran]

At first you said: "Nobody is good at tactics because they want to be."

Now you're saying they can be if they want to?

Well, wanting it is not in and of itself sufficient. I want to know how to play the guitar. Wanting along, however, won't generate the skill. By and large, in order to be good at a thing, you have to practice. Wanting to be good, or liking the activity, are good ways to motivate practice.