| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Cause you see, BNW is a Power gaming, storytelling specialist that loves acting, and hates to be addressed by anything that only highlights one aspect of his play, downplaying all the rest.
Calling BNW a power gamer makes you think he's not good at storytelling or acting.
Calling BNW an actor makes you think he doesn't care about his build.
Thus labeling players does harm unless you're using all applicable labels.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
correct. I majored in Drama engineering for a reason dammit!
|
Still not getting it. The idea that those have to be discrete contradictory labels is the problem with the thinking in the thread.
What makes you believe they are discreetly contradictory? They're simply the different types of players who enjoy roleplaying.
Actually I believe where I got those exact types actually gives advice on how a DM could help a campaign be enjoyable to players of these different types, as well what to possibly expect from them.
|
|
I believe the issue is with "either". As that continues the line of thinking that they are opposites of each other and not just very different things.
if you had said, "I'll be fine with roleplayers and rollplayers in my game" You might have received less *headdesk*
if you had said, "I'll be fine with any kind of player in my game" You might have received no *headdesk*
Fair enough... though I wouldn't have been able to say that last one, because there would be players I feel would bring conflict or have "creative differences" and I would normally wish to avoid in any of my games unless an agreement could be reached.
For example, I had one admittedly intelligent young player who like to liked to question and pick apart not only my own decisions or rulings but also details of the game, where I could spend hours of out of session time discussion or arguing even the smallest of details. There was even one involving guns in Pathfinder and how they worked... it was exhausting to say the least, and often left me frustrated. Sure, she could often make good points but it was disruptive and distracted what could otherwise be a much more enjoyable game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That the thing. "roleplayer" and "rollplayer" are basically meaningless and a hindrance to conversation. The reason is because the ideas they are trying to express are completely different and unrelated things. Like how wealthy you are and how much you like sports.
sure some personal examination can show a correlation for your tiny sample size, but probably wouldn't mean much in a large sample.
So getting advice for dealing the wealthy people is fine, but shouldn't be shown as opposite to advice for people that like sports. As it's not an either or situation.
You're far more likely to have a problem with random individual people then you are with people that fall under some label you want to place them in.
|
Still not getting it. The idea that those have to be discrete contradictory labels is the problem with the thinking in the thread.What makes you believe they are discreetly contradictory? They're simply the different types of players who enjoy roleplaying.
Actually I believe where I got those exact types actually gives advice on how a DM could help a campaign be enjoyable to players of these different types, as well what to possibly expect from them.
What makes you think they are discreet? They aren't secretly exclusive labels.
What you are saying is that player types are separate and distinct. That is, discrete. Whereas real people don't fit neatly into boxes and often enjoy many different aspects at the same time. Enjoying rules minutiae does not preclude enjoying meaningful character development.
|
|
Well for good or for bad, positive and negative, humanity as a whole seems to have a preference to the use of labels. It allows us to quickly define not only who we are but others. Labels may not always be completely accurate, but more often not they can actually have some basis.
For example, we'll all in all going details could become much more complex, I could describe myself as follows:
"I am an Aspy (Aspergers) who is an INFP (Idealist) of the 5w4 (The Iconoclast), though I have also seen a sub-branch of INFJ in which shows I am a ‘Harmony-Seeking Idealist.'"
Though it is not perfect, I do feel the above could describe me pretty well.
When it comes to gaming related labels I would probably call myself a "Novelist" in approach and style, with a bit of "Storyteller" mixed in as well focus on characters of a certain theme or concept.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Novelist and Storyteller as labels means nothing to me. I have basically nothing to go off of for what you're trying to convey. Apparently Novelist must be different from Storyteller, though I don't know how. Are these supposed to correlate with character building, character playing, or something else.
Your labels mean nothing. Even the labels "roleplayer" and "rollplayer" haven't had a consistent meaning from people in this thread. Some have said it's how you build your character while other say it's all about how descriptive you describe your actions. The majority voiced definitions have been: roleplayer = playing correctly; with rollplayer = playing wrong.
Labels only mean something when everyone knows the labels and should only be used if people choose to self identify with those labels. Thus they can be great in a personal setting. Your local gaming group or all the gaming groups in your city. These groups can easily be aware of local labels and use them. But the labels will quickly lose value as you talk with people unfamiliar with your labels.
I believe it's far easier to avoid labels and describe what you mean to avoid having to go and define all your labels when someone asks what you mean when you say them.
|
|
Storyteller
The storyteller is a player who prefers the narrative of the game to individual character motivations and personality. This player sees the game as an ongoing chronicle of events in the fantasy world, and he wants to see where the tale goes.
For the storyteller, the rules are there to support the game's ongoing story. He believes that when the rules get in the way, the narrative should win. Compromise for the sake of the story is more important than individual character motivations.
A storyteller…
•Often provides an extensive background for his PC.
•Works hard to make sure his character fits the story.
•Likes dramatic scenes and recurring characters.
•Prefers adventures that include at least some plot.
Actor
The actor likes to pretend to be her character. He emphasizes character development that has nothing to do with numbers and powers, trying to make her character seem to be a real person in the fantasy world. He enjoys interacting with the rest of the group, with characters and monsters in the game world, and with the fantasy world in general by speaking "in character" and describing her character's actions in the first person. The actor values narrative game elements over mechanical ones. Unlike the storyteller, he values his character’s personality and motivations over other story elements.
An actor…
•Provides PC background, emphasizing personality.
•Plays according to her character's motivations.
•Prefers scenes where she can portray her character.
•Often prefers social encounters to fights.
-----------------------------------------------
Also, a couple of links to different sites going over Player Types:
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is frustrating when I enjoy this amazing game filled with all manner of amazing people and all those amazing people want to do it attack each other...
~sigh~
It is frustrating when I enjoy this amazing game filled with all manner of amazing people and all those amazing people want to do it attack each other...
~sigh~
All they have to do is stop using nebulous terms that don't actually mean anything.
Then they can stop fighting about roleplaying and start fighting about politics and/or religion, like rational internet people do!
It is frustrating when I enjoy this amazing game filled with all manner of amazing people and all those amazing people want to do it attack each other...
~sigh~
All they have to do is stop using nebulous terms that don't actually mean anything.
Then they can stop fighting about roleplaying and start fighting about politics and/or religion, like rational internet people do!
Let them fight over paladin fall threads and alignment threads too! :P
All they have to do is stop using nebulous terms that don't actually mean anything.It is frustrating when I enjoy this amazing game filled with all manner of amazing people and all those amazing people want to do it attack each other...
~sigh~
It isn't the term that is attacking, it's the person who wants to insult you. If by some miracle you stop people from using that term then they will insult you with the next term. The cleverest way I have seen to stop this is to reverse it and take the insult as a compliment. If enough people start using it as a good thing then the insulting people become toothless. Just look at the term "geek" which was used as an insult till people took the insult and turned it into a compliment. Now if people want to insult you with that it is THEY who have to find a new insulting term and that is harder to do with any traction.
As a case study let me examine my use of the term "munchkin" as a compliment. I do use it as a compliment. BUT unlike "rollplayer" which is still heavily tied to its descriptive roots, "munchkin" is pretty much universally used as an insult these days. Does that stop me from using it as a compliment? Nope. I do have to attach an adjective to let people know I am using it as a compliment however... these days I use the term "lovable munchkin" which is a LOT harder to take as an insult. And I suppose if at some point the use of "rollplayer" drifts solidly into the insult camp (or I am dealing with someone I know is upset by it) I will have to do the same with it. Hmmm... "vital rollplayer" sounds good right?
As a case study let me examine my use of the term "munchkin" as a compliment. I do use it as a compliment. BUT unlike "rollplayer" which is still heavily tied to its descriptive roots, "munchkin" is pretty much universally used as an insult these days. Does that stop me from using it as a compliment? Nope. I do have to attach an adjective to let people know I am using it as a compliment however... these days I use the term "lovable munchkin" which is a LOT harder to take as an insult. And I suppose if at some point the use of "rollplayer" drifts solidly into the insult camp (or I am dealing with someone I know is upset by it) I will have to do the same with it. Hmmm... "vital rollplayer" sounds good right?
Ultimately, I don't have a problem with attempts to classify players as some kind of intellectual exercise. Having said that, I would venture that most people who use those sorts of terms (munchkin, rollplayer, powergamer, etcetera - basically anything other than roleplayer or gamer) are intending it to be negative. That means one should be very, very careful in using them - merely adding an adjective probably risks miscommunication; you may have meant it as a compliment, but it's pretty easy to read "lovable munchkin" as either ironic or patronising. (Granted I realise that's not your intent).
I think the issue I have is when people frame it in terms of either-or (or portraying it as a scale).
To me, even leaving aside the negative connotations, saying "I'm a roleplayer, not a rollplayer!" sounds like "I'm left handed, not a redhead!".
As a case study let me examine my use of the term "munchkin" as a compliment. I do use it as a compliment. BUT unlike "rollplayer" which is still heavily tied to its descriptive roots, "munchkin" is pretty much universally used as an insult these days. Does that stop me from using it as a compliment? Nope. I do have to attach an adjective to let people know I am using it as a compliment however... these days I use the term "lovable munchkin" which is a LOT harder to take as an insult. And I suppose if at some point the use of "rollplayer" drifts solidly into the insult camp (or I am dealing with someone I know is upset by it) I will have to do the same with it. Hmmm... "vital rollplayer" sounds good right?Ultimately, I don't have a problem with attempts to classify players as some kind of intellectual exercise. Having said that, I would venture that most people who use those sorts of terms (munchkin, rollplayer, powergamer, etcetera - basically anything other than roleplayer or gamer) are intending it to be negative. That means one should be very, very careful in using them - merely adding an adjective probably risks miscommunication; you may have meant it as a compliment, but it's pretty easy to read "lovable munchkin" as either ironic or patronising. (Granted I realise that's not your intent).
I think the issue I have is when people frame it in terms of either-or (or portraying it as a scale).
To me, even leaving aside the negative connotations, saying "I'm a roleplayer, not a rollplayer!" sounds like "I'm left handed, not a redhead!".
I haven't encountered any misunderstanding yet. The adjective combined with context is so far more than sufficient to get my meaning across with a fully poisoned term like "munchkin".
"I'm left handed, not a redhead" makes NO sense. Rollplayer and Roleplayer are related terms even if they aren't opposites. A proper analogy would be "I'm a brunette, not a redhead" they are both describing hair colors and certainly aren't seen as opposites. Rollplayer and Roleplayer are describing the same thing; a play style preference. I think at this point there isn't anyone who still thinks they are opposites, that you can't roleplay if you rollplay. At this point it's a strawman argument.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't encountered any misunderstanding yet. The adjective combined with context is so far more than sufficient to get my meaning across with a fully poisoned term like "munchkin".
I didn't intend that as any kind of accusation. I suspect in person it would be far clearer. Nonetheless, given the tyrrany of text, on a messageboard in particular I'd recommend labelling someone a 'lovable munchkin' with care. :)
"I'm left handed, not a redhead" makes NO sense. Rollplayer and Roleplayer are related terms even if they aren't opposites. A proper analogy would be "I'm a brunette, not a redhead" they are both describing hair colors and certainly aren't seen as opposites. Rollplayer and Roleplayer are describing the same thing; a play style preference.
I really don't see it like that. To me if I'm discussing my preferred playstyle I am inherently ruling out other playstyles (or at least saying they are less preferable).
Hence if roleplaying and rollplaying are two playstyles, I would be indicating a preference for one or the other. In fact, I think (as you do) that you can be equally interested or disinterested in each. I genuinely think they are orthogonal and totally unrelated - other than just being "about gaming" which is why I used redhead/lefthanded - they're both physical characteristics and that's about it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't encountered any misunderstanding yet. The adjective combined with context is so far more than sufficient to get my meaning across with a fully poisoned term like "munchkin".
"I'm left handed, not a redhead" makes NO sense. Rollplayer and Roleplayer are related terms even if they aren't opposites. A proper analogy would be "I'm a brunette, not a redhead" they are both describing hair colors and certainly aren't seen as opposites. Rollplayer and Roleplayer are describing the same thing; a play style preference. I think at this point there isn't anyone who still thinks they are opposites, that you can't roleplay if you rollplay. At this point it's a strawman argument.
It's still purposely exclusionary language. If I categorize people going to a university as "liberal arts majors" and "college students" the implication is that liberal arts isn't a "real degree". If I said "liberal arts majors" and "STEM majors" this is not exclusionary because it is two subsets of "college student".
"Roleplayer" and "rollplayer" is setting some people apart despite both groups playing Role Playing Games. Thus "rollplayer" by way of how actual human convesation works is implicitly excluded from roleplaying and isn't a "real roleplayer". If the categories were "rollplayer" and "actor, or "roleplayer" and "tea partyer" this conversation would not be coming up.
This point has been repeated multiple times through this thread. Aranna are you purposely arguing in bad faith or just really bad at understanding human reactions?
I haven't encountered any misunderstanding yet. The adjective combined with context is so far more than sufficient to get my meaning across with a fully poisoned term like "munchkin".I didn't intend that as any kind of accusation. I suspect in person it would be far clearer. Nonetheless, given the tyrrany of text, on a messageboard in particular I'd recommend labelling someone a 'lovable munchkin' with care. :)
"I'm left handed, not a redhead" makes NO sense. Rollplayer and Roleplayer are related terms even if they aren't opposites. A proper analogy would be "I'm a brunette, not a redhead" they are both describing hair colors and certainly aren't seen as opposites. Rollplayer and Roleplayer are describing the same thing; a play style preference.I really don't see it like that. To me if I'm discussing my preferred playstyle I am inherently ruling out other playstyles (or at least saying they are less preferable).
Hence if roleplaying and rollplaying are two playstyles, I would be indicating a preference for one or the other. In fact, I think (as you do) that you can be equally interested or disinterested in each. I genuinely think they are orthogonal and totally unrelated - other than just being "about gaming" which is why I used redhead/lefthanded - they're both physical characteristics and that's about it.
We all have preferences. Why hide yours? I prefer chocolate to vanilla and mint even more than those. I detest peach. If you are searching for the best analogy perhaps flavors is the best one. I can understand new people not knowing what their preference is yet... they haven't sampled the variety yet. But it becomes clear the more you sample. And there are a TON more flavors than "rollplayer" or "roleplayer", but you want to pretend no flavor exists in the universe or perhaps that nobody can possibly enjoy one more than another. Just because some people think one flavor is inferior doesn't make them right in your case. If I say "Peach!? Yuck!" I am not expressing anything more than my tastes. If someone says "Peach should be banned as a flavor" then that would be wrong they would deprive the people who like it from getting it. BUT if a group of 6 friends throws a party and says "don't bring peach" then don't bring peach. Clearly those six don't like it so don't serve it to them. Renaming peach won't change anything except to confuse people. Peach isn't an insult.
We all have preferences. Why hide yours? I prefer chocolate to vanilla and mint even more than those. I detest peach. If you are searching for the best analogy perhaps flavors is the best one. I can understand new people not knowing what their preference is yet... they haven't sampled the variety yet. But it becomes clear the more you sample. And there are a TON more flavors than "rollplayer" or "roleplayer", but you want to pretend no flavor exists in the universe or perhaps that nobody can possibly enjoy one more than another. Just because some people think one flavor is inferior doesn't make them right in your case. If I say "Peach!? Yuck!" I am not expressing anything more than my tastes. If someone says "Peach should be banned as a flavor" then that would be wrong they would deprive the people who like it from getting it. BUT if a group of 6 friends throws a party and says "don't bring peach" then don't bring peach. Clearly those six don't like it so don't serve it to them. Renaming peach won't change anything except to confuse people. Peach isn't an insult.
I can't really put my view any other way so I guess this will be my last reply to you. I don't think flavor is a good analogy either. Maybe flavor and texture would capture how I see roleplaying and rollplaying.
I really don't think they are related. They're two different facets of the game. They're not options we select between, in my view.
|
|
For me, how I personally define the two terms and those with these play styles, is that one focuses more on the roleplaying aspect of the game while the other focuses on the dice rolling. A mindset if you will. Were some players prefer to focus their time and attention on the game from the mechanical/numbers standpoint where others prefer to look at it based on the story, characters, and setting.
Now yes there's no way of divorcing D&D and Pathfinder from the necessity of dice rolling, and I believe most players wouldn't want to do that, but the same time I am personally of the opinion that some choose to focus too much of their time and attention on the dice rolling. They put too much time and attention into the number crunching or trying to squeeze every benefit they can out of the mechanics to the point where they care more about this then creating an interesting character or even considering a less powerful option because of flavor.
It is actually something I noticed in the D&D when it came to prestige classes. There were some players who found it inconceivable to even consider an option that loses you a spell level, or otherwise lessened the power or versatility of the character, even if said option was actually quite flavorful and could allow for great roleplaying.
For me, this is the difference between roleplayer and rollplayer. Though I should probably mention I have no intention of using one term in an insulting way, I simply have a preference in style.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This point has been repeated multiple times through this thread. Aranna are you purposely arguing in bad faith or just really bad at understanding human reactions?
Even though I'm on the opposite benches, in this debate, I will stand up for Aranna, who's a long term member of the boards, and someone I've never seen fall afoul of the moderators.
I don't believe she's the type to play head games, or argue a contrary position, just to drag a thread out.The thing is, even from the first post, we've not been arguing over differences in how we play, but in the ways we describe how we (and by contrast, others) play.
I suspect the actual differences in play style to be minor, and if we were to meet in person, or over a virtual tabletop, most of us would get along fine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We all have preferences. Why hide yours? I prefer chocolate to vanilla and mint even more than those. I detest peach. If you are searching for the best analogy perhaps flavors is the best one. I can understand new people not knowing what their preference is yet... they haven't sampled the variety yet. But it becomes clear the more you sample. And there are a TON more flavors than "rollplayer" or "roleplayer", but you want to pretend no flavor exists in the universe or perhaps that nobody can possibly enjoy one more than another. Just because some people think one flavor is inferior doesn't make them right in your case. If I...I haven't encountered any misunderstanding yet. The adjective combined with context is so far more than sufficient to get my meaning across with a fully poisoned term like "munchkin".I didn't intend that as any kind of accusation. I suspect in person it would be far clearer. Nonetheless, given the tyrrany of text, on a messageboard in particular I'd recommend labelling someone a 'lovable munchkin' with care. :)
"I'm left handed, not a redhead" makes NO sense. Rollplayer and Roleplayer are related terms even if they aren't opposites. A proper analogy would be "I'm a brunette, not a redhead" they are both describing hair colors and certainly aren't seen as opposites. Rollplayer and Roleplayer are describing the same thing; a play style preference.I really don't see it like that. To me if I'm discussing my preferred playstyle I am inherently ruling out other playstyles (or at least saying they are less preferable).
Hence if roleplaying and rollplaying are two playstyles, I would be indicating a preference for one or the other. In fact, I think (as you do) that you can be equally interested or disinterested in each. I genuinely think they are orthogonal and totally unrelated - other than just being "about gaming" which is why I used redhead/lefthanded - they're both physical characteristics and that's about it.
Except that analogy doesn't work because, as I said, the term is a nebulous since it means different things to different people.
It's like if I said "don't bring peach" but you thought that when I said "peach" I meant "chocolate." Then we start arguing about what peach and chocolate mean for 100 pages in an internet thread.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
For me, how I personally define the two terms and those with these play styles, is that one focuses more on the roleplaying aspect of the game while the other focuses on the dice rolling. A mindset if you will. Were some players prefer to focus their time and attention on the game from the mechanical/numbers standpoint where others prefer to look at it based on the story, characters, and setting.
Now yes there's no way of divorcing D&D and Pathfinder from the necessity of dice rolling, and I believe most players wouldn't want to do that, but the same time I am personally of the opinion that some choose to focus too much of their time and attention on the dice rolling. They put too much time and attention into the number crunching or trying to squeeze every benefit they can out of the mechanics to the point where they care more about this then creating an interesting character or even considering a less powerful option because of flavor.
It is actually something I noticed in the D&D when it came to prestige classes. There were some players who found it inconceivable to even consider an option that loses you a spell level, or otherwise lessened the power or versatility of the character, even if said option was actually quite flavorful and could allow for great roleplaying.
For me, this is the difference between roleplayer and rollplayer. Though I should probably mention I have no intention of using one term in an insulting way, I simply have a preference in style.
*cough* Stormwind Fallacy *cough*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All they have to do is stop using nebulous terms that don't actually mean anything.It is frustrating when I enjoy this amazing game filled with all manner of amazing people and all those amazing people want to do it attack each other...
~sigh~
It isn't the term that is attacking, it's the person who wants to insult you. If by some miracle you stop people from using that term then they will insult you with the next term. The cleverest way I have seen to stop this is to reverse it and take the insult as a compliment. If enough people start using it as a good thing then the insulting people become toothless. Just look at the term "geek" which was used as an insult till people took the insult and turned it into a compliment. Now if people want to insult you with that it is THEY who have to find a new insulting term and that is harder to do with any traction.
Why is it the responsibility of the person being insulted to fix things?
If you want to use the word without unwanted context, you should go talk to the people doing the insulting. They are the ones who are adding the context you don't like, not those of us on the receiving end.
*cough* Stormwind Fallacy *cough*For me, how I personally define the two terms and those with these play styles, is that one focuses more on the roleplaying aspect of the game while the other focuses on the dice rolling. A mindset if you will. Were some players prefer to focus their time and attention on the game from the mechanical/numbers standpoint where others prefer to look at it based on the story, characters, and setting.
Now yes there's no way of divorcing D&D and Pathfinder from the necessity of dice rolling, and I believe most players wouldn't want to do that, but the same time I am personally of the opinion that some choose to focus too much of their time and attention on the dice rolling. They put too much time and attention into the number crunching or trying to squeeze every benefit they can out of the mechanics to the point where they care more about this then creating an interesting character or even considering a less powerful option because of flavor.
It is actually something I noticed in the D&D when it came to prestige classes. There were some players who found it inconceivable to even consider an option that loses you a spell level, or otherwise lessened the power or versatility of the character, even if said option was actually quite flavorful and could allow for great roleplaying.
For me, this is the difference between roleplayer and rollplayer. Though I should probably mention I have no intention of using one term in an insulting way, I simply have a preference in style.
No. Really it isn't.
"You can't make an interesting character if you take the more powerful option" is the fallacy.
"Refusing the weaker options, even though the character could still be interesting" is often mistaken for Stormwind, but it's not the same thing at all.
You're saying the same thing twice.
The inverse/converse of any conditional statement is still derived from that conditional statement.
|
|
"You can't make an interesting character if you take the more powerful option" is the fallacy.
"Refusing the weaker options, even though the character could still be interesting" is often mistaken for Stormwind, but it's not the same thing at all.You're saying the same thing twice.
The inverse/converse of any conditional statement is still derived from that...
The second statement is not an inverse/converse/contrapositive of the first.
If the statement is read as "If you only take the most powerful option, then it is not possible to make an interesting character" ( P -> Q ), then the second is the negation of the first !( P -> Q )*. If you agree the first statement is false, an example of the Stormwind Fallacy, then the second statement must necessarily be true.
*"If you only take the most powerful option, it is possible to make an interesting character."
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is not an example of the Stormwind Fallacy, as my point of contention is not that "One must not optimize in order to roleplay" or "the optimizers cannot make interesting characters" but more to the idea that to play D&D and Pathfinder you must look to optimizing first or that being as powerful as possible and having the highest numbers mechanically possible should be so focused on.
Personally the way I build characters is this: I come up with a concept or character idea first, maybe considering a mechanic/class/archetype I find interesting or inspiring for such, before then I look to the rules and mechanics to see how best to realize this concept of character idea with that of a backstory I could create for such. If I can optimize this, I'll definitely see how I can do so, but not if its sacrifices the sort of character I want to.
For example I have a lot of interest in playing a Druid, but no real interest in their Wild Shape ability or at least the class' ability to Wild Shaping into Elementals. Heck, to be honest I never really cared for the elemental side of Druid in general even though in the eyes of many this is for them the most powerful part of the class or essential to the concept.
Another consideration as I much prefer playing social characters, and with that consideration combative ability is often secondary to most of my concepts and character ideas. As such, if this these weaken a character's combative ability or being able to deal the most amount of damage I'm perfectly fine with giving that up... yet then I have other players telling me that I'm wrong for doing such or that my character is simply going to get killed.
Personally for me the most toxic mindset is that the game is somehow supposedly so dangerous that you have to maximize damage and defenses capability and general combat ability to survive or even "win". The way I look at it is that it is a DM responsibility to tailor a campaign based on the capabilities of the party while still being challenging, the players thinking they have to make the most powerful characters they can may often be unnecessary at best.
The way I look at it the mechanics of the game should be used to create the sort of character you want to play while also keeping the game balanced and fun. If this happens to be a character with strong combat of ability or great power so be it but it shouldn't be considered the only option for characters. I believe that players shouldn't feel it's necessary to maximize these areas. They need to understand that DM is not out to kill their characters or even to create a campaign on hard mode, or at least they shouldn't be out to do so unless that's the sort of thing the players actually want.
"You can't make an interesting character if you take the more powerful option" is the fallacy.
"Refusing the weaker options, even though the character could still be interesting" is often mistaken for Stormwind, but it's not the same thing at all.You're saying the same thing twice.
The inverse/converse of any conditional statement is still derived from that...
The second statement is not an inverse/converse/contrapositive of the first.
If the statement is read as "If you only take the most powerful option, then it is not possible to make an interesting character" ( P -> Q ), then the second is the negation of the first !( P -> Q )*. If you agree the first statement is false, an example of the Stormwind Fallacy, then the second statement must necessarily be true.
*"If you only take the most powerful option, it is possible to make an interesting character."
You're saying the same thing I said.
The inverse of a statement is its negation, but is still derived from the original condition.
We're going in circles.... for a lot of pages....
This is so confusing!
|
|
The inverse of a statement is its negation, but is still derived from the original condition.
We're going in circles.... for a lot of pages....
No. You need to review your propositional logic. The inverse of (P -> Q) is ( !P -> !Q).
The negation of a proposition is not one of the derived statements ( inverse, converse, and contrapositive ). The negation of a proposition is the statement that a proposition itself is not true, !(P -> Q), it is not the opposite proposition. The negation of a false proposition is necessarily true.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*cough* Stormwind Fallacy *cough*For me, how I personally define the two terms and those with these play styles, is that one focuses more on the roleplaying aspect of the game while the other focuses on the dice rolling. A mindset if you will. Were some players prefer to focus their time and attention on the game from the mechanical/numbers standpoint where others prefer to look at it based on the story, characters, and setting.
Now yes there's no way of divorcing D&D and Pathfinder from the necessity of dice rolling, and I believe most players wouldn't want to do that, but the same time I am personally of the opinion that some choose to focus too much of their time and attention on the dice rolling. They put too much time and attention into the number crunching or trying to squeeze every benefit they can out of the mechanics to the point where they care more about this then creating an interesting character or even considering a less powerful option because of flavor.
It is actually something I noticed in the D&D when it came to prestige classes. There were some players who found it inconceivable to even consider an option that loses you a spell level, or otherwise lessened the power or versatility of the character, even if said option was actually quite flavorful and could allow for great roleplaying.
For me, this is the difference between roleplayer and rollplayer. Though I should probably mention I have no intention of using one term in an insulting way, I simply have a preference in style.
No. Really it isn't.
"You can't make an interesting character if you take the more powerful option" is the fallacy.
"Refusing the weaker options, even though the character could still be interesting" is often mistaken for Stormwind, but it's not the same thing at all.
Perhaps I shouldn't have bolded "or even considering a less powerful option because of flavor".
It still talks about spending "too much of their time and attention on the dice rolling" with the implication that it prevents them from roleplaying properly since they "care more about this then creating an interesting character".
All they have to do is stop using nebulous terms that don't actually mean anything.It is frustrating when I enjoy this amazing game filled with all manner of amazing people and all those amazing people want to do it attack each other...
~sigh~
It isn't the term that is attacking, it's the person who wants to insult you. If by some miracle you stop people from using that term then they will insult you with the next term. The cleverest way I have seen to stop this is to reverse it and take the insult as a compliment. If enough people start using it as a good thing then the insulting people become toothless. Just look at the term "geek" which was used as an insult till people took the insult and turned it into a compliment. Now if people want to insult you with that it is THEY who have to find a new insulting term and that is harder to do with any traction.
Why is it the responsibility of the person being insulted to fix things?
If you want to use the word without unwanted context, you should go talk to the people doing the insulting. They are the ones who are adding the context you don't like, not those of us on the receiving end.
I would love to talk angry at the insulters, point me at one.
Simple answer who wants it fixed? The insulter or the insulted?
I really like the left handed and red headed comparison. Because that's what they are. They are two completely different and basically unrelated things. Sure you might find a small correlation that left handed is more likely to have red hair than right handed or something, but that's the strongest relation you'd get. That's why when you label someone as a roleplayer or a rollplayer it's as if you're saying. You're either a left handed, or a red head. And many of us are like, but what if I'm a left handed red head? And a few posters are like, NO, you are either labeled one or the other based on some decision I made of which is prominently displayed at a certain point in time.
|
|
My point of contention is not against those who have a strong system mastery, optimizing in general, or even enjoying the aspect of the game involving dice rolling and/or while creating interesting characters with strong concepts... But those who do not creating interesting characters with strong concepts because of their focus too much time and attention in, or perhaps in spite of, the above. Where they create the character they based simply or largely on the most powerful options made available to them. Perhaps also while casting aside anything they see as making a character weaker.
All they have to do is stop using nebulous terms that don't actually mean anything.It is frustrating when I enjoy this amazing game filled with all manner of amazing people and all those amazing people want to do it attack each other...
~sigh~
It isn't the term that is attacking, it's the person who wants to insult you. If by some miracle you stop people from using that term then they will insult you with the next term. The cleverest way I have seen to stop this is to reverse it and take the insult as a compliment. If enough people start using it as a good thing then the insulting people become toothless. Just look at the term "geek" which was used as an insult till people took the insult and turned it into a compliment. Now if people want to insult you with that it is THEY who have to find a new insulting term and that is harder to do with any traction.
Why is it the responsibility of the person being insulted to fix things?
If you want to use the word without unwanted context, you should go talk to the people doing the insulting. They are the ones who are adding the context you don't like, not those of us on the receiving end.
I would love to talk angry at the insulters, point me at one.
Simple answer who wants it fixed? The insulter or the insulted?
yes, who wants racism fixed? the insulter or the insulted? The people being mean don't want to change and feel that there's no problem, since they are fine and unaffected by anything. Why can't I keep doing what I've been doing? It hasn't negatively affected me.
GNS theory, it matters.
I'd see a 'roll player' defined as someone who focuses too much/exclusively on the G (also known as a power gamer, as a derogative).
In this case, the 'role player' (defined antithetically to the derogative 'roll player') would be focused too much/exclusively on the N.
Hyperbolically, these extremes represent the two sides of the Stormwind Fallacy.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
But those who do not creating interesting characters with strong concepts because of their focus too much time and attention in, or perhaps in spite of, the above. Where they create the character they based simply or largely on the most powerful options made available to them.
In 35 years of playing I've somehow never met these people. In fact, the aggregate of my experience suggests that the people who are most into optimizing are the ones who are most into the game as a hobby. As a result, they tend to be much better role-players, too, with the strongest characterizations and best-developed personalities for their PCs.
GNS theory, it matters.
I'd see a 'roll player' defined as someone who focuses too much/exclusively on the G (also known as a power gamer, as a derogative).
In this case, the 'role player' (defined antithetically to the derogative 'roll player') would be focused too much/exclusively on the N.
Hyperbolically, these extremes represent the two sides of the Stormwind Fallacy.
Except they wouldn't be called a roleplayer as that is the broad group that, carry with me here includes literally everyone who plays tabletop ROLEPLAYING games. If you want to point out that they focus exclusively on narrative call them something else. For instance actors, closet otherkin. Anything else is the same no-true scotsman argument used by idiots on twitter to define what a "gamer" is.
I am not sure of the relevance but with GNS; G maps to rollplayer mostly; N maps to roleplayer mostly; but S could be either, both or neither.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Chess Pwn,
I have to disagree with you in that I know quite a few people that find it help to to put either of the two terms in add's seeking new players. (both in person (home,game store, other) and online.After talking to them about it our experience has been that most negative reactions are do to the person not being allowed to play and or being asked to leave the game. Which can pose a problem and is why such descriptive language was included in the game description to begin with.
As I said I appreciate this topic and I am being more selective in where i use the term (and try and explain it before hand) but even then in the last few days since this topic started the people that I would expect to have problems with the term have done so because it defines they play style to a T and if a new term was coined then they would have a problem with that term also.
I do understand that not everyone's experiences will be or are the same but I know that I try and get many different opinions and ranges of experience when I seek out information and I thank you and the others who have such feeling's for your's.
MDC
The problem is who is defining those terms, and how are they defining them. If I am both am i allowed or banned? What level of optimization is the cutoff before I am too Rollplay and not enough Roleplay?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can be one or the other, or both.
I play with a guy who enjoys the mechanics of building characters. He rarely actually contributes to roleplay in the game, or give anything in detail about a character background. It is what it is, but his character still contributes.
In the same group, we had a gal who was the polar opposite. She would come up with backstories, and ask her husband to create the mechanics for her based on the backstory (which class made the most sense, could do what she had in mind, etc.) She didn't like combat much, but always roleplayed the hell out of her characters.
The other three folks in my group, including myself, do both in varying degrees.
Are any of us less gamers than the other? Are any of us "better" at gaming? Being geeks?
Are broad brush terms stupid? Yes.
Except they wouldn't be called a roleplayer as that is the broad group that, carry with me here includes literally everyone who plays tabletop ROLEPLAYING games. If you want to point out that they focus exclusively on narrative call them something else. For instance actors, closet otherkin. Anything else is the same no-true scotsman argument used by idiots on twitter to define what a "gamer" is.GNS theory, it matters.
I'd see a 'roll player' defined as someone who focuses too much/exclusively on the G (also known as a power gamer, as a derogative).
In this case, the 'role player' (defined antithetically to the derogative 'roll player') would be focused too much/exclusively on the N.
Hyperbolically, these extremes represent the two sides of the Stormwind Fallacy.
In this context I define 'role player' as the antithesis of 'roll player' to avoid that confusion.