I am genuinely perplexed by the responses from some posters on these boards anytime some else does something different. I just can't get over the responses I've seen from a few posters. We are seeing insult after insult if someone wants to change something around whether it's class, race, or even campaign setting. I'm not sure where this "one true way" stuff comes from but it needs to stop. It is perfectly okay for you to disagree or even not like what someone does in their game, but it is not okay for you to bash that person or their style. Where has this attitude come from? You don't really see much of it on other RPG forums. It's a disgrace to people and the game.
Because Internet.
Sorry, that's really all I have.
You keep making threads talking about your playstyle. Over and over, you do that.
You're inviting those comments. You're asking for them, in a literal sense, since the purpose of a thread on a set of forums is to discuss the topic of the original post.
If people think you're not running your game as well as you could, and you invite comment on how you run your game, of course they will tell you that.
I'm baffled you expect anything different.
It's perfectly fine to have different playstyles.
The problem comes when you don't implicitly read "In my experience, and with only anecdotal evidence, I think ..." at the start of everyones statement of the irrefutably right way of doing things on an internet forum.
(Yes, including this one.)
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
I will admit though the DND forums are the worst of this versus any other forums I have frequented for RPG games. I suspect it comes from a few reasons:
1)These forums are much larger than most RPG forums so the community is much more divided just by virtue of having more variety of ideas.
2)Dnd is so entrenched in the mindset because of its age/popularity that people have a set idea in their head about what DND should be. Where as newer or less known RPGs people go into with more open minds
3)The 5th edition rules just came out so everyone is busy figuring and discussing the base rules and all the other discussions get drawn into this, Once they are more solved and we have the core books out I imagine the dicussions for playing different ways and houserules will be more produdive
Just some thoughts I had
To go along with all of the excellent reasons given above, some people simply thrive on conflict. I sometimes encounter this in the real world, but frequently encounter it online. As Eldren said, "Because, Internet".
I agree that these forums are a bit worse, at present, than others. That tends to be cyclical, though, in my experience. Given time, it should mellow, one would hope.
Popularity+ No true official fluff + Anonymity
95% of RPG have a official fluff which determines the playstyle. You would get laughed at if you said a Jedi can leap 10 feet straight up or a Solar can't parry a arrow.
But D&D.....
flamepheonix182 wrote:
I think it also has to do with the moderation of the board. If you go to Enworld, any hint of an attack on someone else's playstyle would get an immediate warning from a mod. Here, we get thread after thread of people starting playstyle-war-bait.
I agree with pretty much everyone about me (especially "Internet") but....
As civil as this thread has managed to be thus far, I feel things like this will probably do more harm than good.
I get $20 from the government everytime I tell someone on the internet they are wrong. $50 if I can quote a fallacy or use jargon or latin while doing it. And $75 if I can manage to imply, without actually stating, some demeaning insult to their character, qualities, or reasoning.
I can only conclude that many other people have the same arrangement.
It's odd where our tax dollars go.
Everyone believes in "the One True Way," even if they deny it. Their One True Way is their way of playing, because otherwise they'd play a different way. Minor changes usually don't bother people, but when people post playstyles that are so opposed to their own, they find it offensive. It's then human nature to attack, which leads to what passes for commentary on these boards 
Its not as simple as "Because internet."
Put of it is that there is non Official Story behind D&D holding it together.
These allowed for many interpretations to flourish.
This then caused fans to fight over the future of the game as there is no book or author or director saying "You are Wrong!"
D&D forums are non different from sports forums of non championship team. Instead of edition wars, its player wars.
"X sucks. Trade him."
" You are dumb. Build around X and trade Y."
Shiroiken wrote:
Internet. Is. Wrong. Must. Enter. Thread.
Orzel wrote:
This thread is not on topic here, so I'll be moving it to D&D Community business.
Thanks for understanding,
Monica
Dragonette wrote:
Synjin wrote:
alienux wrote:
This is an every edition type of thing.
The flamewars over on the WebRPG forums between 2nd ed and 3e players were always toasty. Heck, it you called either edition by the wrong name (2e or 3rd edition) the masses would flood down upon you, let alone talking about "play style"
tallric_kruush wrote:
Orzel wrote:
alienux wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
alienux wrote:
Eldren73 wrote:
LordVonDerp wrote:
alienux wrote:
The collective of Nerds is "A Rage".
But frankly, I'm very still glad I'm in this hobby rather than what fans of certain sports and communities get upto.
Here's my take: Play what ever you want and however you want. Do not however attempt to force me to see your playstyle as good, bad, right, or wrong: it's simply different. If it's so goofy I laugh try not to be offended. It's not my fault you play that way and are silly enough to share that. I'm not trying to hurt your feelings,Gobs knows I don't really care what you think anyway. I figure that goes both ways. When one acts as if "they are the D&D God and Others are the sod" or attempts self promotion of a blog or self written article, rest assured I will be laughing at you. I will also not use the link in your sig for some home brew caca. I will also ignore you regardless of how big your head is. Happy gaming. 
Another thing I forgot to mention in my thoughts.
4) I still think most of these forums are good, It tends to be a vocal minority who seem to be going around hijacking threads
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Speaking for myself, I feel a need to speak out against the group of people on these forums who constantly like to imply that DMs that say no to their players on occassion, or who set limits and restrictions are tyrants. I find it extremely annoying.
Atheosis wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
I'd kinda like it if there was just one thread where everyone had the same argument about how wrong everyone else is. And then, you know, maybe a discussion of bugbear society wouldn't devolve into a personal grudge match between people who don't agree. On anything. I fully believe that a discussion on bugbear society would result in two groups of people who take the opposite stance on bugbear society, just because they like arguing with each other.
I've posted exactly... 58 times in these forums. I don't, therefore, carry much "street cred" here. On the other hand, I'm someone who wandered to the official WOTC community to get a fresh perspective and some clarification on a game which is dear to me, but is in a period of transition. It's a little disappointing that, as I read a new thread, after an initial on-topic conversation of, oh, maybe 4 posts, the thread either dies or erupts in drama. It certainly makes me unlikely to ask for an opinion. I've tried offering my own in a non-confrontational and thoughtful way, though I have my doubts that most people care much about something they can't argue about.
Having said that, there are many individuals here who have been very helpful, thoughtful, and insightful. It might not be a bad idea if everyone gave themselves a good, hard, honest look and decided if they were really adding insight to the game when they post, or if they were just pounding their opinions out to others who were never going to agree with them. If that must happen, I wish it would stay in one place.
I think disagreements are natural and healthy in any comminity. Discussions -- not raging arguments -- can make people think. And when people think, they might change opinions... or they might not. But I have never, ever -- here or in real life -- observed a situation where two people screaming opposite opinions at each other changed anyone's minds about anything except what a jerk the other person was. It's awesome that so many people here feel so passionately about this amazing game. But it's sad that this common, deep interest looks like a hate-fest to someone who just wanders in.
I am always right. I am brilliant. I am a ray of sunshine in a world of darkness. Infallibility is my middle name.
Therefore, you are always wrong. You're not brilliant. You are a cloudy sky, trying to block out my light. Your middle name is failure.
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
animeus wrote:
I am genuinely perplexed by the responses from some posters on these boards anytime some else does something different. I just can't get over the responses I've seen from a few posters. We are seeing insult after insult if someone wants to change something around whether it's class, race, or even campaign setting. I'm not sure where this "one true way" stuff comes from but it needs to stop. It is perfectly okay for you to disagree or even not like what someone does in their game, but it is not okay for you to bash that person or their style. Where has this attitude come from? You don't really see much of it on other RPG forums. It's a disgrace to people and the game.
Because Internet.
Sorry, that's really all I have.
You keep making threads talking about your playstyle. Over and over, you do that.
You're inviting those comments. You're asking for them, in a literal sense, since the purpose of a thread on a set of forums is to discuss the topic of the original post.
If people think you're not running your game as well as you could, and you invite comment on how you run your game, of course they will tell you that.
I'm baffled you expect anything different.
It's perfectly fine to have different playstyles.
The problem comes when you don't implicitly read "In my experience, and with only anecdotal evidence, I think ..." at the start of everyones statement of the irrefutably right way of doing things on an internet forum.
(Yes, including this one.)
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
I will admit though the DND forums are the worst of this versus any other forums I have frequented for RPG games. I suspect it comes from a few reasons:
1)These forums are much larger than most RPG forums so the community is much more divided just by virtue of having more variety of ideas.
2)Dnd is so entrenched in the mindset because of its age/popularity that people have a set idea in their head about what DND should be. Where as newer or less known RPGs people go into with more open minds
3)The 5th edition rules just came out so everyone is busy figuring and discussing the base rules and all the other discussions get drawn into this, Once they are more solved and we have the core books out I imagine the dicussions for playing different ways and houserules will be more produdive
Just some thoughts I had
To go along with all of the excellent reasons given above, some people simply thrive on conflict. I sometimes encounter this in the real world, but frequently encounter it online. As Eldren said, "Because, Internet".
I agree that these forums are a bit worse, at present, than others. That tends to be cyclical, though, in my experience. Given time, it should mellow, one would hope.
Popularity+ No true official fluff + Anonymity
95% of RPG have a official fluff which determines the playstyle. You would get laughed at if you said a Jedi can leap 10 feet straight up or a Solar can't parry a arrow.
But D&D.....
flamepheonix182 wrote:
I think it also has to do with the moderation of the board. If you go to Enworld, any hint of an attack on someone else's playstyle would get an immediate warning from a mod. Here, we get thread after thread of people starting playstyle-war-bait.
I agree with pretty much everyone about me (especially "Internet") but....
As civil as this thread has managed to be thus far, I feel things like this will probably do more harm than good.
I get $20 from the government everytime I tell someone on the internet they are wrong. $50 if I can quote a fallacy or use jargon or latin while doing it. And $75 if I can manage to imply, without actually stating, some demeaning insult to their character, qualities, or reasoning.
I can only conclude that many other people have the same arrangement.
It's odd where our tax dollars go.
Everyone believes in "the One True Way," even if they deny it. Their One True Way is their way of playing, because otherwise they'd play a different way. Minor changes usually don't bother people, but when people post playstyles that are so opposed to their own, they find it offensive. It's then human nature to attack, which leads to what passes for commentary on these boards
Its not as simple as "Because internet."
Put of it is that there is non Official Story behind D&D holding it together.
These allowed for many interpretations to flourish.
This then caused fans to fight over the future of the game as there is no book or author or director saying "You are Wrong!"
D&D forums are non different from sports forums of non championship team. Instead of edition wars, its player wars.
"X sucks. Trade him."
" You are dumb. Build around X and trade Y."
Shiroiken wrote:
Internet. Is. Wrong. Must. Enter. Thread.
Orzel wrote:
This thread is not on topic here, so I'll be moving it to D&D Community business.
Thanks for understanding,
Monica
Dragonette wrote:
Synjin wrote:
alienux wrote:
This is an every edition type of thing.
The flamewars over on the WebRPG forums between 2nd ed and 3e players were always toasty. Heck, it you called either edition by the wrong name (2e or 3rd edition) the masses would flood down upon you, let alone talking about "play style"
tallric_kruush wrote:
Orzel wrote:
alienux wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
alienux wrote:
Eldren73 wrote:
LordVonDerp wrote:
alienux wrote:
The collective of Nerds is "A Rage".
But frankly, I'm very still glad I'm in this hobby rather than what fans of certain sports and communities get upto.
Here's my take: Play what ever you want and however you want. Do not however attempt to force me to see your playstyle as good, bad, right, or wrong: it's simply different. If it's so goofy I laugh try not to be offended. It's not my fault you play that way and are silly enough to share that. I'm not trying to hurt your feelings,Gobs knows I don't really care what you think anyway. I figure that goes both ways. When one acts as if "they are the D&D God and Others are the sod" or attempts self promotion of a blog or self written article, rest assured I will be laughing at you. I will also not use the link in your sig for some home brew caca. I will also ignore you regardless of how big your head is. Happy gaming.
Another thing I forgot to mention in my thoughts.
4) I still think most of these forums are good, It tends to be a vocal minority who seem to be going around hijacking threads
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Speaking for myself, I feel a need to speak out against the group of people on these forums who constantly like to imply that DMs that say no to their players on occassion, or who set limits and restrictions are tyrants. I find it extremely annoying.
Atheosis wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
I'd kinda like it if there was just one thread where everyone had the same argument about how wrong everyone else is. And then, you know, maybe a discussion of bugbear society wouldn't devolve into a personal grudge match between people who don't agree. On anything. I fully believe that a discussion on bugbear society would result in two groups of people who take the opposite stance on bugbear society, just because they like arguing with each other.
I've posted exactly... 58 times in these forums. I don't, therefore, carry much "street cred" here. On the other hand, I'm someone who wandered to the official WOTC community to get a fresh perspective and some clarification on a game which is dear to me, but is in a period of transition. It's a little disappointing that, as I read a new thread, after an initial on-topic conversation of, oh, maybe 4 posts, the thread either dies or erupts in drama. It certainly makes me unlikely to ask for an opinion. I've tried offering my own in a non-confrontational and thoughtful way, though I have my doubts that most people care much about something they can't argue about.
Having said that, there are many individuals here who have been very helpful, thoughtful, and insightful. It might not be a bad idea if everyone gave themselves a good, hard, honest look and decided if they were really adding insight to the game when they post, or if they were just pounding their opinions out to others who were never going to agree with them. If that must happen, I wish it would stay in one place.
I think disagreements are natural and healthy in any comminity. Discussions -- not raging arguments -- can make people think. And when people think, they might change opinions... or they might not. But I have never, ever -- here or in real life -- observed a situation where two people screaming opposite opinions at each other changed anyone's minds about anything except what a jerk the other person was. It's awesome that so many people here feel so passionately about this amazing game. But it's sad that this common, deep interest looks like a hate-fest to someone who just wanders in.
I am always right. I am brilliant. I am a ray of sunshine in a world of darkness. Infallibility is my middle name.
Therefore, you are always wrong. You're not brilliant. You are a cloudy sky, trying to block out my light. Your middle name is failure.
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
animeus wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
I suspect it has something to do with edition wars and 4E everything is core mentality. AD&D was very explicit over what was allowed or not as Skills and Powers for example was kinda crazy. 3.5 was a little worse but during 4E tiome on these boards it was very one true way. Anyone with a different opinion left and/or fled to Pathfinder.
This is compunded that for 31 years you more or less only had the classic AD&D races in the game which was carried through to 3rd ed. This meant gonzo goofy races were really up to the DMs discretion. I lurked here during 4E run and people would often post their party compositions and generallyy they often lacked human PCs as in 4E as humans were trhe 2econd best at everything. So you would have partied full of Drow, Dragonborns, Deva, Genasi because they were chosen heavily to favor 4E's class builds which more or less boiled down to pick a race with +2 on your primary and terttiary scores and find a race with the best racial feats and/or powers to support that build. This runs heavily counter to other D&D games which were more humanocentric if not eurocentric in design and some of them are also "what is a build?". With the influx of older edition players the goof ball anything goes mentality has gone out the window and the 5E PHB is clear that it is up to the DM to cose the bits he is allowed such as feats, races and classes.
This means that anyone with an anything goes sense of entitlement may not be able to find a game where they can play anything they want. Beats me why they can't just run an anything goes game if thats what they like. In addition DDI more or less gave you everything that mattered in terms of mechanics and there was a lot of gonxzo and silly stuff in there as of 2010 when I canceled my subscription to it. I heard about vampires and stuff like that which are hell no in my games as a PC race.
animeus wrote:
So let me get this strait. Someone from these forums showed up to your house and forced you to play dnd his way at gun point? Thats just tragic, somebody beeter call the drama police. I get it, you dont like 5th and that sux(for you). But to keep making thread after thread about how people you have never met in real life are holding you down or not letting you play the game the way you want is just sad and to me its just become pointless edition warring now. You are just as bad at saying other peoples playstyle is not the right way as anyone else on these boards. Let it go man, you will feel so much better.And honestly this goes for anyone not happy with 5th, just let it go. We live in a world now that has multiple types of rpgs to play. I know they dont have the brand name your used to but if you find one you enjoy , does it really matter.
I personally don't understand why people who are obviously deternined to hate 5e hang around these boards being negative. It's like some people aren't happy unless they are miserable, and are trying to make others miserable as well. It's pitiful.
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
seti wrote:
animeus wrote:
If you post something on a public forum, it's because you want feedback from others.
If you disagree with the majority of the feedback you're getting, that doesn't mean people are attacking you. It just means most people disagree with your idea.
If someone IS being immature and actually attacking you via the internet, posting a brand new thread to complain about it solves literally nothing. What you should do is flag the post for an administrator to evaluate and move on with your life.
Because this is the internet. If you don't have a thick skin, you're gonna have a bad time! 
TehSchwann wrote:
TehSchwann wrote:
TehSchwann wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Thank_Dog wrote:
Define "play style". I keep seeing the words thrown around without clear definition.
Edition is not a play style. Editions may have different rules, but a saving throw vs dragon breath and a reflex saving throw when a dragon breathes on you amount to the same thing. Rolling an attack roll using THAC0 or using BAB amount to the same thing.
So what is Play Style?
Webster wrote:
TehSchwann wrote:
Thank_Dog wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Albumuth wrote:
Noon wrote:
Thank_Dog wrote:
Gatt wrote:
If something is posted in a publc form, then it is open to criticism. The insanity of it all is trying to convince someone else that is a polar opposite on a specific viewpoint to accept yours. What is even more insane is always trying to get the last word in thinking it will change attitudes. But some people thrive on it.
Gatt wrote:
Beoric wrote:
Mecheon wrote:
Mecheon wrote:
Brightmantle wrote:
Shouting someone down as wrong and piling on does not make them wrong. There I'd no right or wrong way to play the game, there are just styles. Some styles are interesting to one person, and other styles are not. But someone who plays differently than you is not wrong, just different.
Pluvious wrote:
Gatt wrote:
animeus wrote:
thewok wrote:
"Edit: To give a idea of how useless it is as feedback. How bad would an idea have to be for you to say "Don't do it even if your players like it"?"
"Hey, lets change the formula for Coke."
"Hey, lets drive the Costa Concordia closer to the shore."
"Hey, let's cancel Firefly"
DemoMonkey wrote:
animeus wrote:
Thank_Dog wrote:
Gatt wrote:
Noon wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
I suspect it has something to do with edition wars and 4E everything is core mentality. AD&D was very explicit over what was allowed or not as Skills and Powers for example was kinda crazy. 3.5 was a little worse but during 4E tiome on these boards it was very one true way. Anyone with a different opinion left and/or fled to Pathfinder.
This is compunded that for 31 years you more or less only had the classic AD&D races in the game which was carried through to 3rd ed. This meant gonzo goofy races were really up to the DMs discretion. I lurked here during 4E run and people would often post their party compositions and generallyy they often lacked human PCs as in 4E as humans were trhe 2econd best at everything. So you would have partied full of Drow, Dragonborns, Deva, Genasi because they were chosen heavily to favor 4E's class builds which more or less boiled down to pick a race with +2 on your primary and terttiary scores and find a race with the best racial feats and/or powers to support that build. This runs heavily counter to other D&D games which were more humanocentric if not eurocentric in design and some of them are also "what is a build?". With the influx of older edition players the goof ball anything goes mentality has gone out the window and the 5E PHB is clear that it is up to the DM to cose the bits he is allowed such as feats, races and classes.
This means that anyone with an anything goes sense of entitlement may not be able to find a game where they can play anything they want. Beats me why they can't just run an anything goes game if thats what they like. In addition DDI more or less gave you everything that mattered in terms of mechanics and there was a lot of gonxzo and silly stuff in there as of 2010 when I canceled my subscription to it. I heard about vampires and stuff like that which are hell no in my games as a PC race.
animeus wrote:
So let me get this strait. Someone from these forums showed up to your house and forced you to play dnd his way at gun point? Thats just tragic, somebody beeter call the drama police. I get it, you dont like 5th and that sux(for you). But to keep making thread after thread about how people you have never met in real life are holding you down or not letting you play the game the way you want is just sad and to me its just become pointless edition warring now. You are just as bad at saying other peoples playstyle is not the right way as anyone else on these boards. Let it go man, you will feel so much better.And honestly this goes for anyone not happy with 5th, just let it go. We live in a world now that has multiple types of rpgs to play. I know they dont have the brand name your used to but if you find one you enjoy , does it really matter.
I personally don't understand why people who are obviously deternined to hate 5e hang around these boards being negative. It's like some people aren't happy unless they are miserable, and are trying to make others miserable as well. It's pitiful.
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
seti wrote:
animeus wrote:
If you post something on a public forum, it's because you want feedback from others.
If you disagree with the majority of the feedback you're getting, that doesn't mean people are attacking you. It just means most people disagree with your idea.
If someone IS being immature and actually attacking you via the internet, posting a brand new thread to complain about it solves literally nothing. What you should do is flag the post for an administrator to evaluate and move on with your life.
Because this is the internet. If you don't have a thick skin, you're gonna have a bad time!
TehSchwann wrote:
TehSchwann wrote:
TehSchwann wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Thank_Dog wrote:
Define "play style". I keep seeing the words thrown around without clear definition.
Edition is not a play style. Editions may have different rules, but a saving throw vs dragon breath and a reflex saving throw when a dragon breathes on you amount to the same thing. Rolling an attack roll using THAC0 or using BAB amount to the same thing.
So what is Play Style?
Webster wrote:
TehSchwann wrote:
Thank_Dog wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Albumuth wrote:
Noon wrote:
Thank_Dog wrote:
Gatt wrote:
If something is posted in a publc form, then it is open to criticism. The insanity of it all is trying to convince someone else that is a polar opposite on a specific viewpoint to accept yours. What is even more insane is always trying to get the last word in thinking it will change attitudes. But some people thrive on it.
Gatt wrote:
Beoric wrote:
Mecheon wrote:
Mecheon wrote:
Brightmantle wrote:
Shouting someone down as wrong and piling on does not make them wrong. There I'd no right or wrong way to play the game, there are just styles. Some styles are interesting to one person, and other styles are not. But someone who plays differently than you is not wrong, just different.
Pluvious wrote:
Gatt wrote:
animeus wrote:
thewok wrote:
"Edit: To give a idea of how useless it is as feedback. How bad would an idea have to be for you to say "Don't do it even if your players like it"?"
"Hey, lets change the formula for Coke."
"Hey, lets drive the Costa Concordia closer to the shore."
"Hey, let's cancel Firefly"
DemoMonkey wrote:
animeus wrote:
Thank_Dog wrote:
Gatt wrote:
Noon wrote:
First, I like your idea that spell component pouches run out and must be refreshed. Seems more realistic, and not that burdensome.
Second, I don't understand why you are still trying to bash your head against the walls of 5e, Xun. It sure seems on-balance to not be a game you like. I'm curious, is it because you feel you have no choice? Is it 5e or nothing for your group? If that is the case, then why not try and find a way to enjoy it more? And if not, if you can instead play a game you like more, why not go enjoy that game?
TehSchwann wrote:
TehSchwann wrote:
Thank_Dog wrote:
Noon wrote:
I think that arguing is just what you do on the internet. Peace is boring. You are either creating something together or you are debating. Despite the fact that sometimes the arguing gets more acrimonious than it should, I believe it improves everyone's games for having participated. If nothing else you learn a lot about yourself. I had a lot of "unidentified" playstyle choices embedded in my psyche that I assumed were just the basic practices of everyone. My local community didn't really disabuse me of that fact either. On these boards, with people from all over the world, it is far easier to hear about other approaches and other ideas. Whether you like them or not doesn't matter. Just knowing about them is useful and sometimes you can use an idea even if you modify it.
Some people's playstyles are actively unethical.
"Some people's playstyles are actively unethical."
Mine is banned on three continents and requires special protective pants.
erachima wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
Jokes aside, that's the answer to the OP's question: some of what people attempt to defend or promote as a playstyle decision isn't "OK" behavior.
erachima wrote:
Mine is only played in Madagascar, which is not under international copyright law. *said like Steve Martin in Bowfinger*
Orethalion wrote:
Noon wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
erachima wrote:
That would be telling.
Thank_Dog wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Unethical roleplaying. That typically involves games that /don't/ have social combat rule crunch so you have to actually seduce/drive-insane the DM or player ;)
Noon wrote:
erachima wrote:
Lord_Ventnor wrote:
First, I like your idea that spell component pouches run out and must be refreshed. Seems more realistic, and not that burdensome.
Second, I don't understand why you are still trying to bash your head against the walls of 5e, Xun. It sure seems on-balance to not be a game you like. I'm curious, is it because you feel you have no choice? Is it 5e or nothing for your group? If that is the case, then why not try and find a way to enjoy it more? And if not, if you can instead play a game you like more, why not go enjoy that game?
TehSchwann wrote:
TehSchwann wrote:
Thank_Dog wrote:
Noon wrote:
I think that arguing is just what you do on the internet. Peace is boring. You are either creating something together or you are debating. Despite the fact that sometimes the arguing gets more acrimonious than it should, I believe it improves everyone's games for having participated. If nothing else you learn a lot about yourself. I had a lot of "unidentified" playstyle choices embedded in my psyche that I assumed were just the basic practices of everyone. My local community didn't really disabuse me of that fact either. On these boards, with people from all over the world, it is far easier to hear about other approaches and other ideas. Whether you like them or not doesn't matter. Just knowing about them is useful and sometimes you can use an idea even if you modify it.
Some people's playstyles are actively unethical.
"Some people's playstyles are actively unethical."
Mine is banned on three continents and requires special protective pants.
erachima wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
Jokes aside, that's the answer to the OP's question: some of what people attempt to defend or promote as a playstyle decision isn't "OK" behavior.
erachima wrote:
Mine is only played in Madagascar, which is not under international copyright law. *said like Steve Martin in Bowfinger*
Orethalion wrote:
Noon wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
erachima wrote:
That would be telling.
Thank_Dog wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Unethical roleplaying. That typically involves games that /don't/ have social combat rule crunch so you have to actually seduce/drive-insane the DM or player ;)
Noon wrote:
erachima wrote:
Lord_Ventnor wrote:
First, I like your idea that spell component pouches run out and must be refreshed. Seems more realistic, and not that burdensome.
Second, I don't understand why you are still trying to bash your head against the walls of 5e, Xun. It sure seems on-balance to not be a game you like. I'm curious, is it because you feel you have no choice? Is it 5e or nothing for your group? If that is the case, then why not try and find a way to enjoy it more? And if not, if you can instead play a game you like more, why not go enjoy that game?
TehSchwann wrote:
TehSchwann wrote:
Thank_Dog wrote:
Noon wrote:
I think that arguing is just what you do on the internet. Peace is boring. You are either creating something together or you are debating. Despite the fact that sometimes the arguing gets more acrimonious than it should, I believe it improves everyone's games for having participated. If nothing else you learn a lot about yourself. I had a lot of "unidentified" playstyle choices embedded in my psyche that I assumed were just the basic practices of everyone. My local community didn't really disabuse me of that fact either. On these boards, with people from all over the world, it is far easier to hear about other approaches and other ideas. Whether you like them or not doesn't matter. Just knowing about them is useful and sometimes you can use an idea even if you modify it.
Some people's playstyles are actively unethical.
"Some people's playstyles are actively unethical."
Mine is banned on three continents and requires special protective pants.
erachima wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
Jokes aside, that's the answer to the OP's question: some of what people attempt to defend or promote as a playstyle decision isn't "OK" behavior.
erachima wrote:
Mine is only played in Madagascar, which is not under international copyright law. *said like Steve Martin in Bowfinger*
Orethalion wrote:
Noon wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
erachima wrote:
That would be telling.
Thank_Dog wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Unethical roleplaying. That typically involves games that /don't/ have social combat rule crunch so you have to actually seduce/drive-insane the DM or player ;)
Noon wrote:
erachima wrote:
Lord_Ventnor wrote:
First, I like your idea that spell component pouches run out and must be refreshed. Seems more realistic, and not that burdensome.
Second, I don't understand why you are still trying to bash your head against the walls of 5e, Xun. It sure seems on-balance to not be a game you like. I'm curious, is it because you feel you have no choice? Is it 5e or nothing for your group? If that is the case, then why not try and find a way to enjoy it more? And if not, if you can instead play a game you like more, why not go enjoy that game?
TehSchwann wrote:
TehSchwann wrote:
Thank_Dog wrote:
Noon wrote:
I think that arguing is just what you do on the internet. Peace is boring. You are either creating something together or you are debating. Despite the fact that sometimes the arguing gets more acrimonious than it should, I believe it improves everyone's games for having participated. If nothing else you learn a lot about yourself. I had a lot of "unidentified" playstyle choices embedded in my psyche that I assumed were just the basic practices of everyone. My local community didn't really disabuse me of that fact either. On these boards, with people from all over the world, it is far easier to hear about other approaches and other ideas. Whether you like them or not doesn't matter. Just knowing about them is useful and sometimes you can use an idea even if you modify it.
Some people's playstyles are actively unethical.
"Some people's playstyles are actively unethical."
Mine is banned on three continents and requires special protective pants.
erachima wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
Jokes aside, that's the answer to the OP's question: some of what people attempt to defend or promote as a playstyle decision isn't "OK" behavior.
erachima wrote:
Mine is only played in Madagascar, which is not under international copyright law. *said like Steve Martin in Bowfinger*
Orethalion wrote:
Noon wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
erachima wrote:
That would be telling.
Thank_Dog wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Unethical roleplaying. That typically involves games that /don't/ have social combat rule crunch so you have to actually seduce/drive-insane the DM or player ;)
Noon wrote:
erachima wrote:
Lord_Ventnor wrote:
First, I like your idea that spell component pouches run out and must be refreshed. Seems more realistic, and not that burdensome.
Second, I don't understand why you are still trying to bash your head against the walls of 5e, Xun. It sure seems on-balance to not be a game you like. I'm curious, is it because you feel you have no choice? Is it 5e or nothing for your group? If that is the case, then why not try and find a way to enjoy it more? And if not, if you can instead play a game you like more, why not go enjoy that game?
TehSchwann wrote:
TehSchwann wrote:
Thank_Dog wrote:
Noon wrote:
I think that arguing is just what you do on the internet. Peace is boring. You are either creating something together or you are debating. Despite the fact that sometimes the arguing gets more acrimonious than it should, I believe it improves everyone's games for having participated. If nothing else you learn a lot about yourself. I had a lot of "unidentified" playstyle choices embedded in my psyche that I assumed were just the basic practices of everyone. My local community didn't really disabuse me of that fact either. On these boards, with people from all over the world, it is far easier to hear about other approaches and other ideas. Whether you like them or not doesn't matter. Just knowing about them is useful and sometimes you can use an idea even if you modify it.
Some people's playstyles are actively unethical.
"Some people's playstyles are actively unethical."
Mine is banned on three continents and requires special protective pants.
erachima wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
Jokes aside, that's the answer to the OP's question: some of what people attempt to defend or promote as a playstyle decision isn't "OK" behavior.
erachima wrote:
Mine is only played in Madagascar, which is not under international copyright law. *said like Steve Martin in Bowfinger*
Orethalion wrote:
Noon wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
erachima wrote:
That would be telling.
Thank_Dog wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Unethical roleplaying. That typically involves games that /don't/ have social combat rule crunch so you have to actually seduce/drive-insane the DM or player ;)
Noon wrote:
erachima wrote:
Lord_Ventnor wrote:
First, I like your idea that spell component pouches run out and must be refreshed. Seems more realistic, and not that burdensome.
Second, I don't understand why you are still trying to bash your head against the walls of 5e, Xun. It sure seems on-balance to not be a game you like. I'm curious, is it because you feel you have no choice? Is it 5e or nothing for your group? If that is the case, then why not try and find a way to enjoy it more? And if not, if you can instead play a game you like more, why not go enjoy that game?
TehSchwann wrote:
TehSchwann wrote:
Thank_Dog wrote:
Noon wrote:
I think that arguing is just what you do on the internet. Peace is boring. You are either creating something together or you are debating. Despite the fact that sometimes the arguing gets more acrimonious than it should, I believe it improves everyone's games for having participated. If nothing else you learn a lot about yourself. I had a lot of "unidentified" playstyle choices embedded in my psyche that I assumed were just the basic practices of everyone. My local community didn't really disabuse me of that fact either. On these boards, with people from all over the world, it is far easier to hear about other approaches and other ideas. Whether you like them or not doesn't matter. Just knowing about them is useful and sometimes you can use an idea even if you modify it.
Some people's playstyles are actively unethical.
"Some people's playstyles are actively unethical."
Mine is banned on three continents and requires special protective pants.
erachima wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
Jokes aside, that's the answer to the OP's question: some of what people attempt to defend or promote as a playstyle decision isn't "OK" behavior.
erachima wrote:
Mine is only played in Madagascar, which is not under international copyright law. *said like Steve Martin in Bowfinger*
Orethalion wrote:
Noon wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
erachima wrote:
That would be telling.
Thank_Dog wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Unethical roleplaying. That typically involves games that /don't/ have social combat rule crunch so you have to actually seduce/drive-insane the DM or player ;)
Noon wrote:
erachima wrote:
Lord_Ventnor wrote:
First, I like your idea that spell component pouches run out and must be refreshed. Seems more realistic, and not that burdensome.
Second, I don't understand why you are still trying to bash your head against the walls of 5e, Xun. It sure seems on-balance to not be a game you like. I'm curious, is it because you feel you have no choice? Is it 5e or nothing for your group? If that is the case, then why not try and find a way to enjoy it more? And if not, if you can instead play a game you like more, why not go enjoy that game?
TehSchwann wrote:
TehSchwann wrote:
Thank_Dog wrote:
Noon wrote:
I think that arguing is just what you do on the internet. Peace is boring. You are either creating something together or you are debating. Despite the fact that sometimes the arguing gets more acrimonious than it should, I believe it improves everyone's games for having participated. If nothing else you learn a lot about yourself. I had a lot of "unidentified" playstyle choices embedded in my psyche that I assumed were just the basic practices of everyone. My local community didn't really disabuse me of that fact either. On these boards, with people from all over the world, it is far easier to hear about other approaches and other ideas. Whether you like them or not doesn't matter. Just knowing about them is useful and sometimes you can use an idea even if you modify it.
Some people's playstyles are actively unethical.
"Some people's playstyles are actively unethical."
Mine is banned on three continents and requires special protective pants.
erachima wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
Jokes aside, that's the answer to the OP's question: some of what people attempt to defend or promote as a playstyle decision isn't "OK" behavior.
erachima wrote:
Mine is only played in Madagascar, which is not under international copyright law. *said like Steve Martin in Bowfinger*
Orethalion wrote:
Noon wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
erachima wrote:
That would be telling.
Thank_Dog wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Unethical roleplaying. That typically involves games that /don't/ have social combat rule crunch so you have to actually seduce/drive-insane the DM or player ;)
Noon wrote:
erachima wrote:
Lord_Ventnor wrote:
First, I like your idea that spell component pouches run out and must be refreshed. Seems more realistic, and not that burdensome.
Second, I don't understand why you are still trying to bash your head against the walls of 5e, Xun. It sure seems on-balance to not be a game you like. I'm curious, is it because you feel you have no choice? Is it 5e or nothing for your group? If that is the case, then why not try and find a way to enjoy it more? And if not, if you can instead play a game you like more, why not go enjoy that game?
TehSchwann wrote:
TehSchwann wrote:
Thank_Dog wrote:
Noon wrote:
I think that arguing is just what you do on the internet. Peace is boring. You are either creating something together or you are debating. Despite the fact that sometimes the arguing gets more acrimonious than it should, I believe it improves everyone's games for having participated. If nothing else you learn a lot about yourself. I had a lot of "unidentified" playstyle choices embedded in my psyche that I assumed were just the basic practices of everyone. My local community didn't really disabuse me of that fact either. On these boards, with people from all over the world, it is far easier to hear about other approaches and other ideas. Whether you like them or not doesn't matter. Just knowing about them is useful and sometimes you can use an idea even if you modify it.
Some people's playstyles are actively unethical.
"Some people's playstyles are actively unethical."
Mine is banned on three continents and requires special protective pants.
erachima wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
Jokes aside, that's the answer to the OP's question: some of what people attempt to defend or promote as a playstyle decision isn't "OK" behavior.
erachima wrote:
Mine is only played in Madagascar, which is not under international copyright law. *said like Steve Martin in Bowfinger*
Orethalion wrote:
Noon wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
erachima wrote:
That would be telling.
Thank_Dog wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Unethical roleplaying. That typically involves games that /don't/ have social combat rule crunch so you have to actually seduce/drive-insane the DM or player ;)
Noon wrote:
erachima wrote:
Lord_Ventnor wrote: