Quote from: Kyle Aaron;383115Yes. We call them "boring". They're the ones who drift from one group to another, claiming everyone else is boring. They usually have the largest collections of rpgs, because each time they're bored they wonder if it's the system, so they go buy another one.

They're pretty sad and lonely as gamers. That's because gaming isn't a passive experience like watching tv. Active participation is required. You can't sit at the table being entertained without doing anything anymore than you can play soccer without moving around the field trying to kick the ball.

Nobody's going to change soccer to accommodate having most of the players just stand around and only kick the ball if it hits them. Soccer is a game where people chase the ball and kick it to another player. If you don't like running around chasing balls, don't play soccer. Chasing balls is the entire point of soccer, take that out and it's not soccer anymore.

If you don't like participating in a game session actively... stay at home. Active participation is the whole point of roleplaying games, take that out and they're not rpgs anymore. The GM really would be a "storyteller", then. Which is a nice thing, I'm very much in favour of telling and hearing stories. That's one reason I organise the Geektogethers.

But passively listening ain't roleplaying games. Roleplaying games require active participation. Sorry.


There's a difference between "making an effort" and "working hard." Gaming doesn't ask huge amounts of us, really. You have to roleplay a bit, but you don't have to be Helen Mirren. You have to use your tactical mind, but you don't have to go through Army infantry officer training. As I said, the game session's a co-operative thing - so long as you're making an effort and your ideas aren't totally ridiculous, the GM is going to work with you and let some of them go to the dice to see what happens.

It's an effort, but hobbies require effort. The model train guys have to lay out tracks, social volleyballers have to jump to block, rock climbers have to climb, quilters have to sew, and so on. But it ain't "working hard" unless you are truly, truly bone idle. Or an extremely boring person.

What you're driving at here is that if we say, "we're here to game tonight," then we're anti-social. Uh-huh. So if I go down to the courts for the social volleyball league, and half the team has fucked off to the pub and we had to forfeit the match, I'm the anti-social one? Rightyo.

You can be committed to a hobby involving other people and still be social. It's not either/or. It is as you say a social hobby. That's why it's not passive like watching tv. That's why those guys who just sit there expecting to be entertained are boring - participation in the game session is a social action and experience.

"Many people game with friends, and -" I hear this all the time. What's forgotten is, how did they meet? How did they become friends? In many cases, they first met in a game session, and their friendship was developed by active participation in that game session. You talk, you interact, you share ideas, you tell stories of other game sessions or talk about your life outside gaming - this is part of the game session, and it's social, and it builds friendships.

The passive guys don't build friendships out of gaming, because they don't participate so nobody is interested in them, and they don't hang around long enough to befriend anyone, they're wandering off to the next group in search of their passive viewing experience.

A roleplaying game session requires your active participation. Again, it doesn't have to be an all-out balls-to-the-wall effort from everyone all the time. Just, you know, toss in a few ideas from time to time, talk to an NPC or two, look under the stone idol and that sort of thing. Be interested. We're here to play.

Chase the ball, and kick it to another player. Or get up from the table and go home. You can leave your snacks, though.

Quote from: The Shaman;383124Well-said.

Quote from: Benoist;383127Awesome post.

I don't really understand how you say things like this and act all surprised and incredulous when people accuse you of spouting "badwrongfun".

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;3831261. A lot of "Old School" statements go along the lines of "This, to me, is D&D". Whether they mean it or not, this is an aggressive statement, or at the very least a passive aggressive one.

Please explain further.  "This is D&D" looks pretty obviously to me like an attempt to claim territory.  "This, to me, is D&D" seems to leave the field open to alternate interpretations.  I don't see how the latter is aggressive.  If someone asks me what D&D is, how should I answer?

Quote from: jrients;383130Please explain further.  "This is D&D" looks pretty obviously to me like an attempt to claim territory.  "This, to me, is D&D" seems to leave the field open to alternate interpretations.  I don't see how the latter is aggressive.  If someone asks me what D&D is, how should I answer?

Its not as big of a difference as you make it out to be. When you say that something "Is D&D", you also tend to say or strongly imply that something else isn't. The OSR as a whole has a strong undercurrent of defining or implying things as "not D&D". With some people this is intentional, and others don't realize they are doing it, but either way its there. Its the negative side that the aggression/passive aggression stems from.

Saying that it only applies to you isn't as strong a statement than the negative implication itself, and doesn't entirely mitigate it.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;383132Its not as big of a difference as you make it out to be. When you say that something "Is D&D", you also tend to say or strongly imply that something else isn't. The OSR as a whole has a strong undercurrent of defining or implying things as "not D&D". With some people this is intentional, and others don't realize they are doing it, but either way its there. Its the negative side that the aggression/passive aggression stems from.

Saying that it only applies to you isn't as strong a statement than the negative implication itself, and doesn't entirely mitigate it.

With this line of thinking aren't you pretty well damning any use of the verb "is" when defining something?  That's fine if you're talking to Robert Anton Wilson, but not particularly useful when having a conversation with ordinary people.  Again I ask if someone asks me what D&D is, how should I answer?  Avoid "to be" usages entirely?

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;383132Its not as big of a difference as you make it out to be. When you say that something "Is D&D", you also tend to say or strongly imply that something else isn't. The OSR as a whole has a strong undercurrent of defining or implying things as "not D&D".

You're right, to some extent. 4e isn't D&D to me. It may be D&D to a whole lot of other people, but it isn't D&D to me. OD&D and/or AD&D1e isn't D&D to a lot of people who started playing with 3.x or 4e, but both are exactly what I think of when I say "D&D."  The difference between you and me seems to be that you find such statements somehow inherently offensive where I simply find them accurate statements what what different people think of when they hear the words "D&D."  The fact that I think 4e is a complete waste of time and paper doesn't make it any less fun for those who enjoy it any more that the fact that some don't think OD&D rules are comprehensible (let alone playable) prevents me from enjoying it.

People are allowed to have their opinions on such things (and to state those opinions in public) and there is really no disputing them as they are all about personal tastes. 4e can't be demonstrated to be objectively the best (or worst) version of D&D ever any more than any other version can. But everyone is entitled to their opinion on the issue and to state what is and isn't D&D to them.

Quote from: RandallS;383136You're right, to some extent. 4e isn't D&D to me. It may be D&D to a whole lot of other people, but it isn't D&D to me. OD&D and/or AD&D1e isn't D&D to a lot of people who started playing with 3.x or 4e, but both are exactly what I think of when I say "D&D."  The difference between you and me seems to be that you find such statements somehow inherently offensive where I simply find them accurate statements what what different people think of when they hear the words "D&D."  The fact that I think 4e is a complete waste of time and paper doesn't make it any less fun for those who enjoy it any more that the fact that some don't think OD&D rules are comprehensible (let alone playable) prevents me from enjoying it.

People are allowed to have their opinions on such things (and to state those opinions in public) and there is really no disputing them as they are all about personal tastes. 4e can't be demonstrated to be objectively the best (or worst) version of D&D ever any more than any other version can. But everyone is entitled to their opinion on the issue and to state what is and isn't D&D to them.

I don't think they're equivalent. I don't see 3E/4E people calling earlier editions "not D&D". They may state that they prefer modern editions, or think modern editions better, but those aren't on the same level as calling somebody's game "not D&D". I don't consider OD&D/1E/2E "not D&D". I don't even consider 3.5E, which at this point I HATE, "not D&D". I consider them D&D editions I don't play, and D&D editions I prefer 4E to.

Preferring 3E/4E to earlier editions contains no aggression. Stating that you don't consider 2E/3E/4E to truly be D&D is an agressive statement.

Quote from: jrients;383135With this line of thinking aren't you pretty well damning any use of the verb "is" when defining something?  That's fine if you're talking to Robert Anton Wilson, but not particularly useful when having a conversation with ordinary people.  Again I ask if someone asks me what D&D is, how should I answer?  Avoid "to be" usages entirely?

Deconstruct much? Can you state that without the legalese?

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;383138Preferring 3E/4E to earlier editions contains no aggression. Stating that you don't consider 2E/3E/4E to truly be D&D is an agressive statement.

What's your opinion on a statement like "I consider 3e/4e to be a different game, despite the D&D brand name."  Or "The WotC editions are not your daddy's D&D." Aggressive? Offensive?

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;383139Deconstruct much? Can you state that without the legalese?

Please tell me how I can better express my opinions without using such 'aggressive' language as "This, to me, is..."

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;383143What's your opinion on a statement like "I consider 3e/4e to be a different game, despite the D&D brand name."  Or "The WotC editions are not your daddy's D&D." Aggressive? Offensive?

I don't see "not your daddy's" D&D to be a problem, as it doesn't say my D&D isn't D&D. Considering 3e/4e to be a different game, despite the D&D brand name implies that 3e/4e are not D&D and as such is an aggressive statement.

Quote from: jrients;383145Please tell me how I can better express my opinions without using such 'aggressive' language as "This, to me, is..."

Its more a case of don't comment on how other people play their games and expect them not to respond.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;383118but it has been fetishized and distorted in use.

With the small amount of product released for Sandbox campaigns it is not surprising to me that there is a lot of confusion on the term.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;383118Also, while I don't follow the "old school scene" very closely, you ought to be aware that some of the "old school" pundits are recent "converts", James Maliszewski (author of Grognardia) being a prime example.

I played GURPS for 20 years before taking up Swords & Wizardry. However I pretty much ran a sandbox regardless of the ruleset I used.  Which so far as been AD&D 1e, Fantasy Hero 1st, Harnmaster 1st, GURPS 2nd, GURPS 3rd, GURPS 4th, D&D 3.0, D&D 4.0 and now Swords & Wizardry.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;3831261. A lot of "Old School" statements go along the lines of "This, to me, is D&D". Whether they mean it or not, this is an aggressive statement, or at the very least a passive aggressive one.

Pure and utter bullshit.  If you find that statement aggressive or passive-aggressive, that's on you and not the person making the statement.

Quote from: Drohem;383164Pure and utter bullshit.  If you find that statement aggressive or passive-aggressive, that's on you and not the person making the statement.

The manner in which it is generally stated by the OGL community either implies or directly states that newer editions of D&D either aren't D&D, or are lesser D&D.

Frankly, whether you are stating as fact that what I'm playing isn't D&D or you are saying that in your opinion that what I'm playing isn't D&D doesn't make much difference. You don't get to tell me what is or isn't D&D.

I'm not saying that you have no right to say this or are wrong to say this. What I'm saying is that you can't say things like this and expect people not to call you an asshole.

Saying that a person's preferred edition of D&D is not D&D is fightin' words. Saying that you prefer edition X or think edition X is better than edition Y is not in the same ballpark. One is a fight and one is a disagreement.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;383165The manner in which it is generally stated by the OGL community either implies or directly states that newer editions of D&D either aren't D&D, or are lesser D&D.

Frankly, whether you are stating as fact that what I'm playing isn't D&D or you are saying that in your opinion that what I'm playing isn't D&D doesn't make much difference. You don't get to tell me what is or isn't D&D.

I'm not saying that you have no right to say this or are wrong to say this. What I'm saying is that you can't say things like this and expect people not to call you an asshole.

And what I said was that your statement was pure and utter bullshit.  Yes, I can say things like "This, to me, is D&D" and expect sensible people who don't have a chip on their shoulder not to react like an asshole.