Can't contact moderator over hostility towards playstyle?

[thejeff]

NobodysHome wrote:

Well, I was trying to avoid getting involved, but people here are being so utterly reasonable that I have an overwhelming urge to post *something*.

In short, I feel GreyWolfLord's pain.

There are two "fundamental styles" of play:
(1) I have my PC mapped out from level 1. I know exactly which feats, skills, and spells I am taking to build the PC I want to have by level 10/15/20.

(2) My PC is a dynamic creature. I choose feats, skills, and spells based on what has happened to my PC over the last few sessions played.

I have personally found (and I believe that GreyWolfLord has as well) that if you use style #2 and you post in the Rules or Advice forums, you encounter a very, VERY hostile world.
I've reached the point that I will NEVER post in the Advice threads, and I will ONLY post in the rules threads to clarify specific rules questions with no discussion whatsoever of my build. Otherwise, I stick to the AP threads, which are *FAR* more friendly to style #2.

So there's definitely hostility out there towards anyone who doesn't plan their PC from level 1. But I understand that the number-crunchers want to be "helpful" by pointing out what you've done wrong, so I've simply chosen to avoid those areas entirely.

I would say it's not just the forums that are hostile to style 2, but the game design itself. All the feat chains and other abilities that you have to plan for if you ever want to take them and things like that. The game itself is set up to reward Style 1.

Not all RPGs are that way. Prior to 3.x, D&D was much less so and that's the style I've always preferred myself.

[Matt Thomason]

thejeff wrote:

I would say it's not just the forums that are hostile to style 2, but the game design itself. All the feat chains and other abilities that you have to plan for if you ever want to take them and things like that. The game itself is set up to reward Style 1.

Not all RPGs are that way. Prior to 3.x, D&D was much less so and that's the style I've always preferred myself.

The way I tend to look at that is that reward is additional character effectiveness. As I don't actually care about character effectiveness, it's not like it's punishing me if I don't play that way, so I have no issues with that part of the design at all. If it rewards people that do enjoy that kind of thing, all the better.

[Kirth Gersen]

The thing is, in my experience, "style" isn't even divisible among individual people, much less groups of people.

I love to play in a storytime game where I can be a drunken ranger/druid/expert who raises bees, knows how to brew 16 kinds of beer, enjoys long walks in the woods, and has favored enemy (flumph) because he's afraid of those freaky things.

I also enjoy playing a straight cleric in a pedal-to-the-floor, hard-mode tactical death game like the aforementioned Age of Worms AP, where if any team member doesn't synergize perfectly and pull 150% of his share of the load, the whole team dies.

I mean, I really, really enjoy both -- as long as I know in advance which one I'm going in for.

So what am I? Am I a "traditional" gamer because I like the first? Am I a dirty no-good minmaxing munchkin optimizer because I enjoy the second as well? And what about the games that are in-between, which I also enjoy?

[NobodysHome]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

The thing is, in my experience, "style" isn't even divisible among individual people, much less groups of people.

I love to play in a storytime game where I can be a drunken ranger/druid/expert who raises bees, knows how to brew 16 kinds of beer, enjoys long walks in the woods, and has favored enemy (flumph) because he's afraid of those freaky things.

I also enjoy playing a straight cleric in a pedal-to-the-floor, hard-mode tactical death game like the aforementioned Age of Worms AP, where if any team member doesn't synergize perfectly and pull 150% of his share of the load, the whole team dies.

I mean, I really, really enjoy both -- as long as I know in advance which one I'm going in for.

So what am I? Am I a "traditional" gamer because I like the first? Am I a dirty no-good minmaxing munchkin optimizer because I enjoy the second as well? And what about the games that are in-between, which I also enjoy?

Hey, all I did was distinguish styles of play, not players. You're on your own.

[Matt Thomason]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

So what am I? Am I a "traditional" gamer because I like the first? Am I a dirty no-good minmaxing munchkin optimizer because I enjoy the second as well? And what about the games that are in-between, which I also enjoy?

You're a normal gamer, that likes trying out different things cause it's more fun not to keep on doing the same thing over and over ;)

In much the same way I throw myself into 4e games from time to time because it's actually fun to do so, just so long as I approach it as a tactical miniatures game. I may have a "preferred" playstyle, but it'd get boring fast if that was all I did in my leisure time. Or, yeah, even a 3e or Pathfinder game with a group that was playing to beat the bad guy, I do that sometimes too ;)

Or, y'know, I might even sit down and play cards or Monopoly sometimes, or fire up Fallout: New Vegas :)

(Ohnoes, does this make me a traitor to tabletop RPGs? I can hear the mob with the pitchforks and torches outside even now!)

[Matt Thomason]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

So what am I? Am I a "traditional" gamer because I like the first? Am I a dirty no-good minmaxing munchkin optimizer because I enjoy the second as well? And what about the games that are in-between, which I also enjoy?

Actually no, scratch my previous post. You're obviously just schizophrenic ;)

[thejeff]

Matt Thomason wrote:

thejeff wrote:

I would say it's not just the forums that are hostile to style 2, but the game design itself. All the feat chains and other abilities that you have to plan for if you ever want to take them and things like that. The game itself is set up to reward Style 1.

Not all RPGs are that way. Prior to 3.x, D&D was much less so and that's the style I've always preferred myself.

The way I tend to look at that is that reward is additional character effectiveness. As I don't actually care about character effectiveness, it's not like it's punishing me if I don't play that way, so I have no issues with that part of the design at all. If it rewards people that do enjoy that kind of thing, all the better.

I only care about relative character effectiveness. If the GM ramps the difficulty up because some characters are more effective (or just because he thinks we should be), I care about that. If he doesn't and the more effective characters in the group make everything a walkover, I care about that.

I want a character who can pull his own weight in the group, but I also want one who is allowed to make suboptimal choices, both in build and actions, without being relatively crippled by it.

I enjoy the more organic way of building a character, but I don't enjoy reaching the mid-levels and suddenly being incompetent next to those whose carefully planned builds are coming in their own.

I guess what I'm saying is that the reward is too high. The additional character effectiveness from a well planned build is more than I'm comfortable with. At least when it happens in the same group.

[Haladir]

NobodysHome wrote:

Well, I was trying to avoid getting involved, but people here are being so utterly reasonable that I have an overwhelming urge to post *something*.

In short, I feel GreyWolfLord's pain.

There are two "fundamental styles" of play:
(1) I have my PC mapped out from level 1. I know exactly which feats, skills, and spells I am taking to build the PC I want to have by level 10/15/20.

(2) My PC is a dynamic creature. I choose feats, skills, and spells based on what has happened to my PC over the last few sessions played.

GreyWolfLord: I don't really have much to add to what NobodysHome said.

I certainly sympathize with you: I think my play style is very much like yours.

[EDIT]: I realized that I just wrote a wall of text, that's probably not appropriate for this forum. I am going to start a new thread on the "Gamer Talk" board to talk about this a bit more. I'll start by pasting in what I originally wrote here.

[Chris Lambertz]

Hey guys, this thread isn't to debate the original content of the locked thread. If you want to discuss different styles of gaming, Gamer Talk is probably more appropriate.

[NobodysHome]

Chris Lambertz wrote:

Hey guys, this thread isn't to debate the original content of the locked thread. If you want to discuss different styles of gaming, Gamer Talk is probably more appropriate.

Yay! Another post for the "I'm sorry, Chris!" thread!

Sorry, Chris! Slinking off now!