I appreciate the balls this took to make this video. TTRPGs have gotten to a level of toxic positivity that I hardly interact with anyone outside of my circle because I tend to have pretty similar view points as your video and I just do not wanna have that argument with other at my favorite LGS much less in the comments section of the internet. Genuinely great job on the video!
Toxic positivity! That’s exactly it. You have to be excited about the new things and about every new campaign and session regardless of quality. Otherwise, you’re anti-fun!
A LOT of grain of salts need to be taken with this one. You can already see elitists bloating their ego as we speak. When people say there are no "right" way to play it does not mean there are no "wrong" harmful way to play. It just means there are no "one size fit all". Because not everyone play for same goal or has same expectation toward gaming. Just like your martial arts analogy, it actually perfect. Some just train for fun, some to excercise, some to develop character and disciplibe, some to defense themselves and some to compete in sport. They are all valid, but none are sole correct choice. Yet some train to be better at harming others, to violate others, to find excuse to fight, to con people, to brag they did, to valid their flawed philosophy. These are harmful goal and motive that are "wrong" to pursuit. No one single right way does not mean no wrong way. But also does not means everyone should aim to be champion or listed weapon. It means you should find, or made, a group that match your level. If you feel too small for a pond you should seek bigger pond or dig one yourself, not complaining how other fishes are too weak or the pond is too small. You could, and should, encourage them to try and grow bigger, stronger. But you have no ethic right or moral high ground to pressure them or guilt tripping them into doing so. Least by internet validation.
The first half of the video I can agree with, but for me to follow you further I would need a more clear definition of what “roleplay” is from your perspective. Also, critically evaluating if something is good or bad / better or worse requires knowing what the goal of the thing is. My goal when playing TTRPG’s is not deep character immersion. If that excludes me from what you view as a TTRPG, then I’m okay if we are separated. In the same way I have no interested in learning the flute (despite it probably being very rewarding to those who learn it), I am quite content knowing how to play guitar and piano.
You are excellent at something most of us in this sphere of RPGs are not: brevity! I would have taken probably 30 minutes to say everything you did in 5. I think this warrants a video response because there's some really valuable stuff here about why we even care about RPGs in the first place.
While I broadly agree with the points being made here, I think it's worth remembering that the 'there's no wrong way to play' attitude came into being as a reaction to the extreme opposite. We had, arguably, a couple of generations of highly pretenscious gate keepers who not only imposed a lot of attitudes, but did so with out any particular insight, imposing them largely as a matter of convention and common preferences. We should definately nurture and respect the drive to generate art, but at the same time we need to make sure we don't recreate a distain for finger painting.
@@BunniRabbi I'm agreeing with you to the extent that fun is fun. The difference is saying fun is the sole focus, or only value of playing. So I'm cool with the fun players. I'm not cool with the "only fun" players.
@StagRPG I am, but likewise they need to accept that there are other kinds. To that end, I feel like we should encourage terminology that distinguishes the two sorts of players, in order to facilitate communication when setting up games.
Point 5 - Agreed. ... with a caveat. It is my experience that even the most reluctant to role play find themselves playing a role at one level or another with time and encouragement. My friend Kenny has poor reading and comprehension skills, and yet, he loves to play the game(s). He has his preferred classes, etc, and embraces them. And more often than not, when things are deep and intense at the table, his character shines. The longer he played, the less questions and confirmations he required, but they still happened. I've had more than a few players who, for one reason or another, would not or could not (or both), engage in any role play that most of us would accept. He was often blunt, using one word replies whenever possible, and asking questions out of character. I'd 'softly' remind him of that. He played for about a year and never understood (more than likely, he struggled with feeling 'stupid' or 'weird' while speaking as character while in character) why the rest of us got so immersed.
@@StagRPG Sometimes it's more than that: For example, I have found myself at various points in my life, in gaming deserts if you will. There were simply a very limited pool of players to pull from. What do you do then? Simply not play? Or, do you sit down with people and play? When I was young, I lived in a small town, with two friends, one who liked RPGs, the other liked War Games. So, I learned to play and run both. Occasionally we'd get a 'new kid', but the pool was still very limited until we reached High School. I also ran games while doing a little time. I don't like talking about that part of my life, but I've had cold faced killers (convicted ones mind) sharing my table. One even bought the 4th edition rules, about 10 books at one go, tried to DM for awhile and then asked me to do it instead. So, yeah....
@@StagRPG It's been a bit since I last played solo. 3 or 4 months I think, but it's mainly playing for videos showing the game I've spent 20 years working on. I really miss running play-by-posts on DnD beyond, but after WoTc bought it up, I dropped my membership. I've tried finding other platforms but haven't had any luck so far.
I would love to play fully immersed in roleplay someday, but the level of skill and the relaxed nature friends play like means they do very simple face-value roleplaying, and combat akin to a videogame, looking at what the sheet says they can do, and doing strictly that.
Yeah, I'm in a similar situation where I have zero ability to commit to any kind of schedule. (Hence my framing this channel as a solo endeavor) Tough to get out side our circles, isn't it?
Agh, I know your pain. I try to explain in terms of “look, imagine you could design any mods you wanted for the game on the fly. You don’t have to wait for someone to code it” Sometimes that helps them get the form
1:40 They are valid expressions, but the quality and expertise gap is astronomical. That's what we keep saying, your experience at your table when you play just for fun is 100% valid and if that's what you want then keep doing it, it's just that it's mostly not roleplay and that's objective.
In other art forms we have some conventional terminology and varied contexts for these different practices. We need something like that for rpgs. Like the way we understand that professional artists are doing something different than when people are making art as a hobby.
@EteraRPG I don't know, I think the more serious rpg play is often enough centered on adventure too, so I don't know if that would stick. That being said, if you have an rpg not focused on an adventure I do think that's more likely to be in that non-casual catagory.
@@BunniRabbiThat’s part of what we’re trying to do with the 1D-4D classification model. Have a framework for what dimension you’re playing in, and at least encourage people to write social contracts.
@flamezombie1 Terminology that contains a pejorative implication is less likely to be accepted. I do appreciate the idea of taking on the contract idea.
It’s a game - just a game. Games have rules and structure. but there is nothing at stake at your game except the enjoyment of the players. We DM must find that sweet spot between guardrails, rules, structure and sanboxing.
I see it kind of like: "This big old gold nugget is a paperweight. Just a paperweight." Sure. You can treat it that way, but you might be missing a lot that it has to offer. Yeah, I'm not saying it's not a game; but there's a lot more to games than meet the eye.
Saying there is no wrong way to play is semantically identical to saying there is no way to play. If a game is anything at all, then a game is nothing but the sum of its rules.
@@LLMTest1024 I'm not reading all that but I know what it says after the first sentence. It just goes to show both the general illiteracy of gamers and also how many other so-called game designers don't actually know what a game is. As to story. There is no story. A story is something that is told from a particular point of view to describe a series of events. What happens at the table is events based on player and NPC actions. The game has no story. Stories are told by players after the fact. No two are the same.
@@StagRPG So you agree with me now? Great. There is no experience without following a rule. It's experiencing the outcome of a process. Anything else is just making things up. And just making things up is not an experience and not a game.
Some people want to dance. I want to Tango. But we can all participate in dancing as a social activity and moving our bodies to the music. But not everybody can Tango. At least in Roleplaying. I'm a horrible dancer. But I created this analogy to show the distinction in skill when it comes to roleplaying, and what I'm aiming for when I want to join a Roleplay session. This way, I can proverbially "sign up" to the "right" dancing class.
Spot on... Good luck because nobody ever listens to me when I say this sort of thing. The rules bring structure; they give both starting points and means to progress, pretty much in any direction you'd like. So, on one hand you can, indeed, play your game any way YOU want to play it, but it's still a game, with rules; with structure; with purpose. It's similar to the 'absolutists' role-players. i.e. people who are pushing the rules and structure aside to embrace their concepts of total immersion. It doesn't help that it's hard to expression our opinions without cheesing off self-proclaimed purists.
I like looking for those few magical systems that are super capable while staying out of the way of the experience. Traveller being one; same mechanic for everything, basically. Not a lot of "which minigame should I be using right now?" It's all 2d6 over 8+ in the vast majority of situations. Simple.
@@StagRPG I played the first edition back in the late 70's, early 80's when I wasn't running Space Opera. I enjoyed the character creations system that Traveler uses.
Wait...So you mean we shouldn't waste everyone's' time by goofing off for 3/4s of the session. Or. adding inclusive everything isn't just another waste of my life...? -N.I.P. (Non Interested Player) "What would my character do right now?" "What is my character even doing here?" -G.N. (Game Novelist)... "You smell frustration and hear metal grinding on your agency as you turn around you see the train as it slams into you and carries you off to the next encounter. What do you want to do? Go ahead and roll a d20 and tell me what you get." -Good Times. Same time next week? ... A goal of anyone's session should be the attempt to stay in harmony with the table, tone, and setting. Results should be memorable.
@StagRPG ...my computer was on dark mode or something. When I went to comment the text was blended into the background...couldn't see it...once that was established, I edited. Good video by the way. Entertained I was.
The problem with this framing is that it's only a problem in your perspective... which is fine, but when you're at table that enjoys goofing off and you're the one sitting there being sour about it, it should be a sign that their table isn't for you, not the other way around.
@Jo_youwhatmate ...I agree. I was joking around about the things that I like and don't like. 99.9% of games are exactly that. Jokes and Safe words. -The atrocious example is yet another way people endure RPGs. -The suggestion at the end is the nugget of info worth anything that should be usable for any situation. Like my comment, jokes are not universally funny. For example...you probably wouldn't come see my set. You vetted me. Vetting is the most important thing before you commit. There can be anomalies that happen but mostly you want to know what you are signing up for. Love is not blind when your eyes work. Full disclosure...I am a giant advocate for "different groups do different things" and argue for that fact. There is no "right" way to do things. There "is" though the way that "i" like to try to play. Sorry for dropping an insult to your intelligence...("insult to your intelligence" is not saying your dumb...its actually a complement that you are smart and my comment was dumb and it forced you to correct me.)
Awesome analysis. You validated feelings I've had but been unable to articulate. I would love to see an expansion of point 5 and your thoughts on how that works. Being the character while having no real sensory input would really difficult if you couldn't ask the GM questions.
Some people just want to have a silly goose time and that's also okay. Find the group that likes what you like if you are really seeking this kind of deep role-play immersion. That's not always practical for some people. If your group is chill you should always be able to say "I want to run a game that goes really hard on role-play and interesting stories and sets a certain tone do you want to play that kind of game? TTRPGs inherently have an extremely high bar to becoming something that could be considered art. For one thing it borrows so much from various fantasy worlds and existing fiction in order for session preparation to be manageable for the DM. And I think secondly it does not generate income - and therefore the time available to invest will always be limited and the priority secondary to other things. I like that the game doesn't feel elitest, but it's also clear that having certain talents (improv etc.) massively improves your ability to play some facets of RP. I guess I feel you are both right and wrong at the same time it really depends on your goals when playing the game. I don't think a lot of people are trying to quantify the quality of their performance when they play. They are just trying to have fun.
I'm not saying people who have fun are wrong. I'm saying the people who claim "it's just for fun" are wrong because they're ignoring a lot more that TTRPGs have to offer.
Perma-DM here (have been DMing for the past 6-ish years by this point, across 3 campaigns) (I am specifically going to be referring to D&D 5e here, and I am not too well versed in other systems, and lack the ethos) Kind of an L take here in this video. I'll address your points one by one Self Defeating Logic: This argument tends to be pedantic, it is like the paradox of tolerance where "a truly tolerant society cannot, itself, tolerate intolerance". Such linguistic paradoxes don't exactly have any substance behind them. The False Promise: Roleplaying, like other forms of art, have value that is always relative to the artist, and to the observer. Much like how a 6 year old's hand-turkey might be seen as more valuable by that kid's mother than a painting by a 3rd year art student, even if the average observer might have a different evaluation, and may critically analyze the latter as "better". But in D&D, the observers of the roleplaying are the DM and the other players, not a wider audience (unless it is something like a Critical Role situation). This begs the question. Even if the roleplaying is subpar (based on either arbitrary or relative standards), why should the player *need* to improve? While I do think that the game is generally more fun when the roleplaying is good, it entirely depends on the play group. Some players don't want to put in the work to improve, and that is okay so long as they aren't trying to join some game with an emphasis on immersive roleplaying. Some players just want to show up on a Saturday afternoon and play some D&D and hang out with friends for a few hours while cracking jokes and talking about their week. This is fine. It doesn't make the D&D any less "valid". Perspective Taking: Method actors are PAID to do act. D&D players aren't PAID to play (again, not really counting Critical Role). Actors have a market pressure to improve their craft. I am experienced in this style of roleplaying (to the point where I once was able to have a heated debate in-character, defending an idea with cohesive arguments that I myself disagreed with irl). But while every DM has the right to choose who sits at their table, but I wouldn't want to ever put that kind of pressure on one of my players (for a similar result to the analogy, you would need to have a player's spot at the table be contingent on their skill in immersive roleplaying). I kick players only rarely, and only for real problems, not because they aren't as engaged as some of the other players or myself. The Intelligence Gate: I don't see your point. Sure, not everyone can be an amazing roleplayer, and as you said, that is fine. But how does that prevent people from improving if they want to?? I actually find that the opposite effect happens. The Mercer Effect (Last time bringing up Critical Role, I promise). So many new D&D players that saw Mercer DMing during the pandemic, expect most D&D games to be like that, not realizing that they have professional writers, and voice actors there that are PAID to act. The Way Forward: I don't see the issue with the players staying at that kid level. Like you said, they are running around "having fun" (which is the primary goal for D&D. If the game is not fun, it fails to be a game). I do acknowledge that some approaches are better than others, but there is not a one-size fits all. Every game should be tailored to its players, to maximize the fun for them. For example, one could have a D&D game that is all about combat, with basically no roleplaying with progressively harder and harder bosses that take high level strategy and coordination to defeat, while another campaign might have very little combat, focusing more on roleplaying and character-driven narratives. Some will have a focus on exploration of a world, some will have a combination of the 3. Notably, not every player should be at every table. But there should be a table for every player (so long as someone is willing to run that table) In conclusion, I defend "Play how you want" because it IS true (so long as everyone is having fun at a table appropriate for the game they want to play). The opposite of fun is boredom. Boredom arises when the game becomes a chore. If a player wants to improve their roleplaying, it should be a pursuit they take on their own volition, not because of a social pressure, as that can make it a chore. If you say that better roleplaying makes the game "better", I will ask you: "Better for whom, specifically? The player that improved? Perhaps, if they were capable of such levels of roleplaying and are able to do so without it becoming a chore. Better for the DM? Maybe, but the DM's fun ALWAYS comes secondary to the players' fun. Feel free to reply. I am definitely willing to have a civil discussion.
@@StagRPG Kenney is a guy who played at my table for about 4 years until circumstances forced me to move. I met up again with him a couple of years ago, but life is still getting in the way of having a regular session. I use him to explain 'The Kenny's of the world." People who want to play; want to game; but struggle. Some struggle do to reading issues or comprehension issues, others struggle against the various stigmas often put on our hobby. They spent years being told it was 'weird or dumb or stupid'. Some players are special needs; others are verging on special needs; you know? I watched Kenny reading the core books and it was painful, and yet, he kept reading and asking questions. How do I do this: How did you do that! But eventually, his confidence grew and so did his role playing. It took time and patience and a willingness to be given the chance to play and to grow.
But there are people out there who 'wouldn't waste their time' on the Kenny's of the world. But then, maybe its just me and I'm wrong and they're right. I don't believe that there is a 'right' or 'wrong' way to play, and yet, I am a stanch believer in 'the games have rules, structure, and purpose. Use them.' What I often seem to fail expressing or getting across to 'some' people, is that while I embrace full immersion, I will never 'ban' or 'refuse' someone who wants to play; wants to learn; and is trying to do both, you know? What makes many RPGs special as a game, is in the very fact that you can sit 10 Game Masters' down at a table and get 10 different views and implication of said rules. From strict to nearly non-existent, and if that table's occupants are having fun; are engaged in 'their play', then how is that wrong? And if you and I and Crispy and a couple of others played a deeply immersive game, had fun doing so and were engaged while at the table, then for our table, the system worked as we wanted it to do so. Of course, this is all my opinion... such that it is.
Hey, I have come to politely disagree. I fully agree that the sentence: “there are no right way to play TTRPGs” may insinuate that there is neither a wrong way to play TTRPGs. So let me rephrase the sentence. “There is no one right way to play TTRPGs.” There fixed it. I agree that your idea of TTRPGs is fun, I love role playing, but I also know it isn’t for everyone. Not because they cannot comprehend the idea, but if they are not comfortable with it or other any reason. My favourite type of game is the one where you roleplay, and then, by accident break character, notice that it’s a human being in-front of you, and then roleplay again. Like Adventures of Azarim or Tales of The Misfits, by Viva La Dirt League. But in the end, I will also leave my own opinion on the best way to play. With a carefully crafted story, unique homebrewed creatures and the one rule that vetoes any other: if even one player finds a subject uncomfortable, that subject shall not come up. I understand that life isn’t always easy, and some days you want to play as the character, imagining this grand world that you escape into. And other days you just want to meta game a tiny bit to feel badass and in control of something in your existence. One isn’t less right because of the title of the game, one doesn’t give its players a worse experience. I tell you, the GM is the one that makes a good or a bad experience. The GM and then the players, and who knows, maybe we will roleplay. Thanks for reading. Best regards- Benjamin
I appreciate you being cordial. The thing I want to point out is that you are changing what I said, and then disagreeing with that. What are your thoughts about the things I said, as presented?
While you presented some good points, when you say there's an objectively best way, or optimal way to play, you're also making a quite bold statement, and I say I agree that that's a pretty good way to play, I also recon that it may not be for everyone. Some people may be deeply interested in the character building and optimization, tactical combat and so on. Other people may be interested in power and prestige in the game world, or riches, or anything else. While we may say there's an higher tier of play, the one of immersion, living in the fictional world by means of your character, for some people that could be a lesser goal, or even not fun at all, for some reason or another, and I find it difficult to argue against this. For comparison, let's say someone likes walking, but then someone says martial arts are best, because you not only get better physically, but you also become more agile, flexible, and able to defend and attack yourself, but then the first person just want to walk, or ride a bike, or even play golf or some other not so complete exercise. Who are we to judge? How can we objectively tell the " right way" to play? We can only rank the ways to play if we first established a criteria, but then, each person could have it's own criteria to judge how games should be played, in order to have access to some kind of experience. I had a relative that loved to play a card game that was, to me, so boring and endless, and too much reliant on luck, other people love play bingo, and that to me is just a 100% luck thing with extra steps, but make people think this is a great way to spend an evening. So, I'd say there's no wrong way to play, but there's definitely best ways to play according to what you want from a game.
I would say optimal is getting the most value out of an interest. Fun is absolutely in there. Plus there's a whole lot more that 99% of people leave on the table. (Pun intended.)
If someone says "We're just here to have fun" then I'm out. We're here to have fun AND explore the power of perspective taking and experience the magic of imagination that comes from embodying a character. This video is my way of separating the wheat from the chaff, so to speak.
I don't defend "play as you want", but you make a flawed assumption that TTRPGs should be about "real role playing" The term "role playing game" was controversial when it first became popular. D&D and other games didn't originally use that term, and when it became popular, many complained that "I'm not 'role playing' when I do this. I'm playing a strategy game, I'm playing an open ended adventure game, but I'm not 'role playing" my character beyond deciding their actions"
@@StagRPG No, it is an assumption. Every argument in the video is based on the assumption that this underlying premise true, yet at no point is an argument made to defend this assumption. In TTRPGs you take on a "role", and from that perspective you are always "role-playing", but for the the majority gaming systems it has never been about full out "real role-playing" like you describe. To suggest that your style is factually "better" is rediculous, and if you want to go down that path, then you would need to create a video that explains WHY and HOW your style is better than other options.
I feel that many of the points in this video assume an inherit absolutism in the topics that it refutes. I do not think those points are commonly assumed to be contextualess holy mandate. In fact, I think most reasonable people understand that collaborative social activities are not meant to be so freeform that any expression whatsoever is equally valid. I have never seen anyone suggest that. Perhaps with the exception of children. I know that may sound like an insult, but genuinely that is the one example I can think of where this would be applicable. Have I misunderstood the target audience for this video? If so, I apologize.
So i 100% disagree with this but i think its because you are thinking of a specific person/people/situation that i dont know about. Currently, it kinda sounds like your saying a lot of things that are true to "prove" what your trying to say but without proper context it just sounds like "The way i play is the correct way and you are wrong for doing anything different".... In a creative space...
@StagRPG so there is no reason for this video? You just saw this be said, came up with an interpretation, didn't talk to anyone about it, then made a video against it? If there is more context I would like to know, otherwise the only proof I need is the fact that I and my friends are having fun.
This video is gatekeeping 101. IT has no clue about how TTRPGS are shared storytelling experiences and not video games. It requires none of the simply winey complaints you're putting on. It's not like a martial art, it's more like Calvenball or jazz. It's about having fun and experiencing a game together with people. If you want a specific experience you can find a group with that, but it's not mandatory and what other people do at their table doesn't affect you. The essence of play is how you want. In this video, you mentioned how playing how you want damages the play, but do you understand that demanding players to play how you want is more limiting to what can be experienced. Is a group that likes the combat encounters and travel mechanics less of a party than one that wants more social interactions and checks? So if I have a group that wants to shortcut travel time because they don't like it, what do I say? Nope, gotta play by the exact rules and do things you find boring to the game because it's important for some reason, and could make Rolling Stag sad that we don't play right. If players don't want to "roll play" by acting out roles and instead describe them like writers, I have no problem with it. The player is still engaged. There is no requirement to LARP. The whole point of all of these games from Gigax's original Chainmail and D&D to Cyberpunk RED, or DaggerHeart is to have fun telling stories with people you want to spend time with. If you can't see that, then you might be the one hurting the game. In essence, just because you don't like the notes someone plays, doesn't mean it's not right for another band.
@@StagRPG That isn't what you're doing though. You aren't saying "Go see how others play and if you like it" you're saying "There is a right and wrong way to play" and the only example you give of a "right" way to play is talking exclusively in character without asking questions of the GM, and let's be real that does not work for a *lot* of people and a *lot* of games
I really like your Jazz analogy here. I think it is a particularly good analogy because while there are some rules they're more like loose guidelines and there's more focus on in the moment creative expression
@@spydrmrphy1429 ...your typo "roll play" is perfect in your comment. Some people, I assume you, are total fine with a mix match of people who have different styles of play and are ok with the outcome. Others like to harmonize more and vet their players so they can have a different outcome. I saw someone say "gate keeping"...this is not that. If you are looking for a singer for your country band, you don't search or accept a pop singer. Your looking for a specific thing for your specific purpose. If your ok with how you play then good, keep on. If you want to try something different, try focusing on staying in character and hiding mechanics as much as possible. Storytelling can evolve for you with different looks. It's crazy to me when someone hears what they want on this subject and takes ultra offense and concludes elitism instead of suggestion. Some people butter the top side of their bread...some people butter the bottom side.
@@Ritten_Lies "saw someone say "gate keeping"...this is not that. If you are looking for a singer for your country band, you don't search or accept a pop singer. Your looking for a specific thing for your specific purpose." The example you use is gatekeeping as well. You've set an expectation of what is proper and exclude what you don't want. This is the reason people have session zero events, and why bands have tryouts. You can restrict who can join to build the group that you want. Where this becomes a problem is when you start imposing that restriction on the hobby as a whole. When you state that there is a right way to play it excludes everything else form what you're calling acceptable. By implying a way of play is bad, implies that the people doing it are bad. This is gatekeeping because the statement is if you don't play in this fashion you are playing the game wrong. My point is a different playstyle is not wrong, just not right for you. It's not up to anyoneone other than the group playing to determine the correct way to play their game.
The premise you start off with is false. None of the Saying "There is no wrong way to play" isn't a literal statement. What they are really saying is that "there isn't just one right way to play." Not having rules is the literally the opposite of imposing rules, saying they are the same would be nonsensical. The absence of something can not be the same as the presence of that thing. Saying that "morals are subjective" is an example of "self-defeating logic" is incorrect as it is one of the only two logical conclusions a person can reach in regards to morality. The source of morality is either subjective or it is objective, it can not be both. Either position is an absolute because of the fact that it must be one or the other, there is no other option.
You can only get so broad in your philosophical pondering before they lose all meaning. What do you mean to say is the correct way to play ttrpgs? Most of the “no wrong way,” idea comes from the fact that the most prolific rpg (Dungeons and Dragons) has like 900 pages of “core” rulebooks. Most of the debates about “how to play,” center around rules minutiae, the use of paraphernalia like miniatures or VTTs, or the endless “railroading v sandbox,” debate. So, what are you advocating for?
Might as well as be quoting Rush with their line "If you chose not to decide you still have made a choice". And which I say "DUH!" Everyone knows that. You aren't giving new insight into the world. No one is sitting there like "OMG You can't call the rule that you can play the way you want a rule, how dare you!"
My dude, TTRPGs are a hobby that people do for fun. It doesn't have to be a big artform where people are "Striving to improve their roleplaying skils." Relax.
Even if you were right, you haven't engaged with the idea that people who say "it's for fun" are missing more that TTRPGs have to offer. I'm not saying it's never fun. Not am I saying you can't have fun. I'm saying the people who make fun the highest value are wrong.
@@StagRPG Everyone gets something different out of ttrpgs, and "Fun" is just as valid as anything else. For a lot of people ttrpgs are as much to socialize and relax as they are anything else. Not everyone wants to try to be Dimension 20 or Critical Role, and that's okay.
@@morganlewis885 Critical role is to rpg as porn is to sex. I'm not advocating for that. Nor am I saying playing can't be fun. I'm saying fun is not the highest/best/most/only thing that rpgs have to offer, yet 99% of the hobby have made fun their sole focus. Ok, but they're missing out on a whole lot of other rad extras.
I appreciate the balls this took to make this video. TTRPGs have gotten to a level of toxic positivity that I hardly interact with anyone outside of my circle because I tend to have pretty similar view points as your video and I just do not wanna have that argument with other at my favorite LGS much less in the comments section of the internet. Genuinely great job on the video!
Thanks for the support. Your comment illustrates exactly why I made this one. 🙏
Toxic positivity! That’s exactly it. You have to be excited about the new things and about every new campaign and session regardless of quality. Otherwise, you’re anti-fun!
@@flamezombie1 Pelor forbid you have a criticism.
@@StagRPG keep it up boss, you have a subscriber in me
@@ForrTheXP 🙏
A LOT of grain of salts need to be taken with this one. You can already see elitists bloating their ego as we speak.
When people say there are no "right" way to play it does not mean there are no "wrong" harmful way to play. It just means there are no "one size fit all". Because not everyone play for same goal or has same expectation toward gaming.
Just like your martial arts analogy, it actually perfect. Some just train for fun, some to excercise, some to develop character and disciplibe, some to defense themselves and some to compete in sport. They are all valid, but none are sole correct choice.
Yet some train to be better at harming others, to violate others, to find excuse to fight, to con people, to brag they did, to valid their flawed philosophy.
These are harmful goal and motive that are "wrong" to pursuit. No one single right way does not mean no wrong way. But also does not means everyone should aim to be champion or listed weapon.
It means you should find, or made, a group that match your level. If you feel too small for a pond you should seek bigger pond or dig one yourself, not complaining how other fishes are too weak or the pond is too small.
You could, and should, encourage them to try and grow bigger, stronger. But you have no ethic right or moral high ground to pressure them or guilt tripping them into doing so. Least by internet validation.
Thank you for your comment.
The first half of the video I can agree with, but for me to follow you further I would need a more clear definition of what “roleplay” is from your perspective. Also, critically evaluating if something is good or bad / better or worse requires knowing what the goal of the thing is. My goal when playing TTRPG’s is not deep character immersion. If that excludes me from what you view as a TTRPG, then I’m okay if we are separated. In the same way I have no interested in learning the flute (despite it probably being very rewarding to those who learn it), I am quite content knowing how to play guitar and piano.
It's not that it excludes you; it's that it closes the door to getting more out of what role playing has to offer us as people.
Wow what a great video. Having everyone admit this is impossible of course. This is the biggest reason to vet your players.
Couldn't agree more. Glad you enjoyed it!
You are excellent at something most of us in this sphere of RPGs are not: brevity!
I would have taken probably 30 minutes to say everything you did in 5. I think this warrants a video response because there's some really valuable stuff here about why we even care about RPGs in the first place.
I appreciate it! 🙏 Tag me in the reply; I'm looking forward to it.
While I broadly agree with the points being made here, I think it's worth remembering that the 'there's no wrong way to play' attitude came into being as a reaction to the extreme opposite. We had, arguably, a couple of generations of highly pretenscious gate keepers who not only imposed a lot of attitudes, but did so with out any particular insight, imposing them largely as a matter of convention and common preferences.
We should definately nurture and respect the drive to generate art, but at the same time we need to make sure we don't recreate a distain for finger painting.
Finger painting, yes. Glue eating, no.
@StagRPG No real need to get derisive about it. There's nothing actually wrong about just screwing around with friends.
@@BunniRabbi I'm agreeing with you to the extent that fun is fun. The difference is saying fun is the sole focus, or only value of playing. So I'm cool with the fun players. I'm not cool with the "only fun" players.
@StagRPG I am, but likewise they need to accept that there are other kinds. To that end, I feel like we should encourage terminology that distinguishes the two sorts of players, in order to facilitate communication when setting up games.
"Are you a roleplayer, or nah?"
You can make whatever noise you wan with whatever musical instrument, but I won't invite you to join my band.
Excellent way to put it.
The amount of musicians who don't know this is small !
Point 5 - Agreed. ... with a caveat.
It is my experience that even the most reluctant to role play find themselves playing a role at one level or another with time and encouragement. My friend Kenny has poor reading and comprehension skills, and yet, he loves to play the game(s). He has his preferred classes, etc, and embraces them. And more often than not, when things are deep and intense at the table, his character shines.
The longer he played, the less questions and confirmations he required, but they still happened.
I've had more than a few players who, for one reason or another, would not or could not (or both), engage in any role play that most of us would accept. He was often blunt, using one word replies whenever possible, and asking questions out of character. I'd 'softly' remind him of that. He played for about a year and never understood (more than likely, he struggled with feeling 'stupid' or 'weird' while speaking as character while in character) why the rest of us got so immersed.
Yeah, it's tough to vet folks retroactively.
@@StagRPG Sometimes it's more than that: For example, I have found myself at various points in my life, in gaming deserts if you will. There were simply a very limited pool of players to pull from. What do you do then? Simply not play? Or, do you sit down with people and play?
When I was young, I lived in a small town, with two friends, one who liked RPGs, the other liked War Games. So, I learned to play and run both. Occasionally we'd get a 'new kid', but the pool was still very limited until we reached High School.
I also ran games while doing a little time. I don't like talking about that part of my life, but I've had cold faced killers (convicted ones mind) sharing my table. One even bought the 4th edition rules, about 10 books at one go, tried to DM for awhile and then asked me to do it instead.
So, yeah....
@@yourseatatthetable yeah, the season of life I'm in means I play solo 99.9% of the time, but I take your point.
@@StagRPG It's been a bit since I last played solo. 3 or 4 months I think, but it's mainly playing for videos showing the game I've spent 20 years working on. I really miss running play-by-posts on DnD beyond, but after WoTc bought it up, I dropped my membership. I've tried finding other platforms but haven't had any luck so far.
I would love to play fully immersed in roleplay someday, but the level of skill and the relaxed nature friends play like means they do very simple face-value roleplaying, and combat akin to a videogame, looking at what the sheet says they can do, and doing strictly that.
Yeah, I'm in a similar situation where I have zero ability to commit to any kind of schedule. (Hence my framing this channel as a solo endeavor) Tough to get out side our circles, isn't it?
Agh, I know your pain. I try to explain in terms of “look, imagine you could design any mods you wanted for the game on the fly. You don’t have to wait for someone to code it”
Sometimes that helps them get the form
There is a scattering of people interested in taking the immersion a step further. They typically have to meet online ...
You may be angry now. Good
Based
BIG MAD
1:40 They are valid expressions, but the quality and expertise gap is astronomical. That's what we keep saying, your experience at your table when you play just for fun is 100% valid and if that's what you want then keep doing it, it's just that it's mostly not roleplay and that's objective.
In other art forms we have some conventional terminology and varied contexts for these different practices. We need something like that for rpgs. Like the way we understand that professional artists are doing something different than when people are making art as a hobby.
@@BunniRabbi adventure gaming would be a good term for the relaxed, just for fun approach to RPGs I think
@EteraRPG I don't know, I think the more serious rpg play is often enough centered on adventure too, so I don't know if that would stick. That being said, if you have an rpg not focused on an adventure I do think that's more likely to be in that non-casual catagory.
@@BunniRabbiThat’s part of what we’re trying to do with the 1D-4D classification model. Have a framework for what dimension you’re playing in, and at least encourage people to write social contracts.
@flamezombie1 Terminology that contains a pejorative implication is less likely to be accepted. I do appreciate the idea of taking on the contract idea.
It’s a game - just a game. Games have rules and structure. but there is nothing at stake at your game except the enjoyment of the players. We DM must find that sweet spot between guardrails, rules, structure and sanboxing.
I see it kind of like: "This big old gold nugget is a paperweight. Just a paperweight." Sure. You can treat it that way, but you might be missing a lot that it has to offer. Yeah, I'm not saying it's not a game; but there's a lot more to games than meet the eye.
@@StagRPG D&D is just a game and gold is just a rock.
“It’s just hours of your life”
Saying there is no wrong way to play is semantically identical to saying there is no way to play. If a game is anything at all, then a game is nothing but the sum of its rules.
🤝
@@LLMTest1024 I'm not reading all that but I know what it says after the first sentence. It just goes to show both the general illiteracy of gamers and also how many other so-called game designers don't actually know what a game is.
As to story. There is no story. A story is something that is told from a particular point of view to describe a series of events. What happens at the table is events based on player and NPC actions. The game has no story. Stories are told by players after the fact. No two are the same.
@@LLMTest1024 The experience is the point. The story is what they tell after the experience. The story is not the focus.
@@StagRPG So you agree with me now? Great.
There is no experience without following a rule. It's experiencing the outcome of a process. Anything else is just making things up. And just making things up is not an experience and not a game.
I think so? The comment management for UA-cam is atrocious, but I'm not immediately saying you're wrong? Does that count? X^D
Some people want to dance. I want to Tango.
But we can all participate in dancing as a social activity and moving our bodies to the music. But not everybody can Tango.
At least in Roleplaying. I'm a horrible dancer. But I created this analogy to show the distinction in skill when it comes to roleplaying, and what I'm aiming for when I want to join a Roleplay session.
This way, I can proverbially "sign up" to the "right" dancing class.
Amen!
Spot on... Good luck because nobody ever listens to me when I say this sort of thing. The rules bring structure; they give both starting points and means to progress, pretty much in any direction you'd like. So, on one hand you can, indeed, play your game any way YOU want to play it, but it's still a game, with rules; with structure; with purpose.
It's similar to the 'absolutists' role-players. i.e. people who are pushing the rules and structure aside to embrace their concepts of total immersion.
It doesn't help that it's hard to expression our opinions without cheesing off self-proclaimed purists.
I like looking for those few magical systems that are super capable while staying out of the way of the experience. Traveller being one; same mechanic for everything, basically. Not a lot of "which minigame should I be using right now?" It's all 2d6 over 8+ in the vast majority of situations. Simple.
@@StagRPG I played the first edition back in the late 70's, early 80's when I wasn't running Space Opera. I enjoyed the character creations system that Traveler uses.
Wait...So you mean we shouldn't waste everyone's' time by goofing off for 3/4s of the session. Or. adding inclusive everything isn't just another waste of my life...?
-N.I.P. (Non Interested Player)
"What would my character do right now?"
"What is my character even doing here?"
-G.N. (Game Novelist)...
"You smell frustration and hear metal grinding on your agency as you turn around you see the train as it slams into you and carries you off to the next encounter. What do you want to do? Go ahead and roll a d20 and tell me what you get."
-Good Times. Same time next week? ...
A goal of anyone's session should be the attempt to stay in harmony with the table, tone, and setting. Results should be memorable.
@StagRPG ...my computer was on dark mode or something. When I went to comment the text was blended into the background...couldn't see it...once that was established, I edited.
Good video by the way. Entertained I was.
The problem with this framing is that it's only a problem in your perspective... which is fine, but when you're at table that enjoys goofing off and you're the one sitting there being sour about it, it should be a sign that their table isn't for you, not the other way around.
@Jo_youwhatmate ...I agree. I was joking around about the things that I like and don't like.
99.9% of games are exactly that. Jokes and Safe words.
-The atrocious example is yet another way people endure RPGs.
-The suggestion at the end is the nugget of info worth anything that should be usable for any situation.
Like my comment, jokes are not universally funny. For example...you probably wouldn't come see my set. You vetted me.
Vetting is the most important thing before you commit.
There can be anomalies that happen but mostly you want to know what you are signing up for. Love is not blind when your eyes work.
Full disclosure...I am a giant advocate for "different groups do different things" and argue for that fact. There is no "right" way to do things. There "is" though the way that "i" like to try to play.
Sorry for dropping an insult to your intelligence...("insult to your intelligence" is not saying your dumb...its actually a complement that you are smart and my comment was dumb and it forced you to correct me.)
@Jo_youwhatmate Not today, Satan.
Awesome analysis. You validated feelings I've had but been unable to articulate.
I would love to see an expansion of point 5 and your thoughts on how that works. Being the character while having no real sensory input would really difficult if you couldn't ask the GM questions.
Might have to do a video about that; thanks for the suggestion!
Some people just want to have a silly goose time and that's also okay. Find the group that likes what you like if you are really seeking this kind of deep role-play immersion. That's not always practical for some people. If your group is chill you should always be able to say "I want to run a game that goes really hard on role-play and interesting stories and sets a certain tone do you want to play that kind of game?
TTRPGs inherently have an extremely high bar to becoming something that could be considered art. For one thing it borrows so much from various fantasy worlds and existing fiction in order for session preparation to be manageable for the DM. And I think secondly it does not generate income - and therefore the time available to invest will always be limited and the priority secondary to other things.
I like that the game doesn't feel elitest, but it's also clear that having certain talents (improv etc.) massively improves your ability to play some facets of RP.
I guess I feel you are both right and wrong at the same time it really depends on your goals when playing the game. I don't think a lot of people are trying to quantify the quality of their performance when they play. They are just trying to have fun.
I'm not saying people who have fun are wrong. I'm saying the people who claim "it's just for fun" are wrong because they're ignoring a lot more that TTRPGs have to offer.
Perma-DM here (have been DMing for the past 6-ish years by this point, across 3 campaigns) (I am specifically going to be referring to D&D 5e here, and I am not too well versed in other systems, and lack the ethos)
Kind of an L take here in this video. I'll address your points one by one
Self Defeating Logic: This argument tends to be pedantic, it is like the paradox of tolerance where "a truly tolerant society cannot, itself, tolerate intolerance". Such linguistic paradoxes don't exactly have any substance behind them.
The False Promise: Roleplaying, like other forms of art, have value that is always relative to the artist, and to the observer. Much like how a 6 year old's hand-turkey might be seen as more valuable by that kid's mother than a painting by a 3rd year art student, even if the average observer might have a different evaluation, and may critically analyze the latter as "better". But in D&D, the observers of the roleplaying are the DM and the other players, not a wider audience (unless it is something like a Critical Role situation). This begs the question. Even if the roleplaying is subpar (based on either arbitrary or relative standards), why should the player *need* to improve? While I do think that the game is generally more fun when the roleplaying is good, it entirely depends on the play group. Some players don't want to put in the work to improve, and that is okay so long as they aren't trying to join some game with an emphasis on immersive roleplaying. Some players just want to show up on a Saturday afternoon and play some D&D and hang out with friends for a few hours while cracking jokes and talking about their week. This is fine. It doesn't make the D&D any less "valid".
Perspective Taking: Method actors are PAID to do act. D&D players aren't PAID to play (again, not really counting Critical Role). Actors have a market pressure to improve their craft. I am experienced in this style of roleplaying (to the point where I once was able to have a heated debate in-character, defending an idea with cohesive arguments that I myself disagreed with irl). But while every DM has the right to choose who sits at their table, but I wouldn't want to ever put that kind of pressure on one of my players (for a similar result to the analogy, you would need to have a player's spot at the table be contingent on their skill in immersive roleplaying). I kick players only rarely, and only for real problems, not because they aren't as engaged as some of the other players or myself.
The Intelligence Gate: I don't see your point. Sure, not everyone can be an amazing roleplayer, and as you said, that is fine. But how does that prevent people from improving if they want to?? I actually find that the opposite effect happens. The Mercer Effect (Last time bringing up Critical Role, I promise). So many new D&D players that saw Mercer DMing during the pandemic, expect most D&D games to be like that, not realizing that they have professional writers, and voice actors there that are PAID to act.
The Way Forward: I don't see the issue with the players staying at that kid level. Like you said, they are running around "having fun" (which is the primary goal for D&D. If the game is not fun, it fails to be a game). I do acknowledge that some approaches are better than others, but there is not a one-size fits all. Every game should be tailored to its players, to maximize the fun for them. For example, one could have a D&D game that is all about combat, with basically no roleplaying with progressively harder and harder bosses that take high level strategy and coordination to defeat, while another campaign might have very little combat, focusing more on roleplaying and character-driven narratives. Some will have a focus on exploration of a world, some will have a combination of the 3. Notably, not every player should be at every table. But there should be a table for every player (so long as someone is willing to run that table)
In conclusion, I defend "Play how you want" because it IS true (so long as everyone is having fun at a table appropriate for the game they want to play). The opposite of fun is boredom. Boredom arises when the game becomes a chore. If a player wants to improve their roleplaying, it should be a pursuit they take on their own volition, not because of a social pressure, as that can make it a chore. If you say that better roleplaying makes the game "better", I will ask you: "Better for whom, specifically? The player that improved? Perhaps, if they were capable of such levels of roleplaying and are able to do so without it becoming a chore. Better for the DM? Maybe, but the DM's fun ALWAYS comes secondary to the players' fun.
Feel free to reply. I am definitely willing to have a civil discussion.
Thanks for the reply.
You are living breathing embodiment of Dunning Kruger effect ;)
This is my favorite comment so far. Thank you old and sad.
Bad grammar while insulting your intelligence. I love it.
Probly w 50 yrs of experience. Lets not talk about stockholm syndrome xD
Great video!
Thanks @bigbadrpg!
Point 4 - The Keeney's of the world.
I'm unfamiliar with the reference; a google brought up plumbing equipment.
@@StagRPG Kenney is a guy who played at my table for about 4 years until circumstances forced me to move. I met up again with him a couple of years ago, but life is still getting in the way of having a regular session.
I use him to explain 'The Kenny's of the world." People who want to play; want to game; but struggle. Some struggle do to reading issues or comprehension issues, others struggle against the various stigmas often put on our hobby. They spent years being told it was 'weird or dumb or stupid'.
Some players are special needs; others are verging on special needs; you know? I watched Kenny reading the core books and it was painful, and yet, he kept reading and asking questions. How do I do this: How did you do that! But eventually, his confidence grew and so did his role playing.
It took time and patience and a willingness to be given the chance to play and to grow.
Thanks for the context, I appreciate it.
But there are people out there who 'wouldn't waste their time' on the Kenny's of the world. But then, maybe its just me and I'm wrong and they're right.
I don't believe that there is a 'right' or 'wrong' way to play, and yet, I am a stanch believer in 'the games have rules, structure, and purpose. Use them.'
What I often seem to fail expressing or getting across to 'some' people, is that while I embrace full immersion, I will never 'ban' or 'refuse' someone who wants to play; wants to learn; and is trying to do both, you know?
What makes many RPGs special as a game, is in the very fact that you can sit 10 Game Masters' down at a table and get 10 different views and implication of said rules. From strict to nearly non-existent, and if that table's occupants are having fun; are engaged in 'their play', then how is that wrong? And if you and I and Crispy and a couple of others played a deeply immersive game, had fun doing so and were engaged while at the table, then for our table, the system worked as we wanted it to do so.
Of course, this is all my opinion... such that it is.
@@yourseatatthetable Which I appreciate you sharing! 🙏
Hey, I have come to politely disagree.
I fully agree that the sentence: “there are no right way to play TTRPGs” may insinuate that there is neither a wrong way to play TTRPGs.
So let me rephrase the sentence.
“There is no one right way to play TTRPGs.” There fixed it.
I agree that your idea of TTRPGs is fun, I love role playing, but I also know it isn’t for everyone. Not because they cannot comprehend the idea, but if they are not comfortable with it or other any reason.
My favourite type of game is the one where you roleplay, and then, by accident break character, notice that it’s a human being in-front of you, and then roleplay again. Like Adventures of Azarim or Tales of The Misfits, by Viva La Dirt League.
But in the end, I will also leave my own opinion on the best way to play. With a carefully crafted story, unique homebrewed creatures and the one rule that vetoes any other: if even one player finds a subject uncomfortable, that subject shall not come up.
I understand that life isn’t always easy, and some days you want to play as the character, imagining this grand world that you escape into. And other days you just want to meta game a tiny bit to feel badass and in control of something in your existence.
One isn’t less right because of the title of the game, one doesn’t give its players a worse experience.
I tell you, the GM is the one that makes a good or a bad experience. The GM and then the players, and who knows, maybe we will roleplay.
Thanks for reading.
Best regards- Benjamin
I appreciate you being cordial. The thing I want to point out is that you are changing what I said, and then disagreeing with that.
What are your thoughts about the things I said, as presented?
While you presented some good points, when you say there's an objectively best way, or optimal way to play, you're also making a quite bold statement, and I say I agree that that's a pretty good way to play, I also recon that it may not be for everyone. Some people may be deeply interested in the character building and optimization, tactical combat and so on. Other people may be interested in power and prestige in the game world, or riches, or anything else. While we may say there's an higher tier of play, the one of immersion, living in the fictional world by means of your character, for some people that could be a lesser goal, or even not fun at all, for some reason or another, and I find it difficult to argue against this.
For comparison, let's say someone likes walking, but then someone says martial arts are best, because you not only get better physically, but you also become more agile, flexible, and able to defend and attack yourself, but then the first person just want to walk, or ride a bike, or even play golf or some other not so complete exercise. Who are we to judge? How can we objectively tell the " right way" to play? We can only rank the ways to play if we first established a criteria, but then, each person could have it's own criteria to judge how games should be played, in order to have access to some kind of experience. I had a relative that loved to play a card game that was, to me, so boring and endless, and too much reliant on luck, other people love play bingo, and that to me is just a 100% luck thing with extra steps, but make people think this is a great way to spend an evening. So, I'd say there's no wrong way to play, but there's definitely best ways to play according to what you want from a game.
I would say optimal is getting the most value out of an interest. Fun is absolutely in there. Plus there's a whole lot more that 99% of people leave on the table. (Pun intended.)
If someone says "We're just here to have fun" then I'm out. We're here to have fun AND explore the power of perspective taking and experience the magic of imagination that comes from embodying a character. This video is my way of separating the wheat from the chaff, so to speak.
I don't defend "play as you want", but you make a flawed assumption that TTRPGs should be about "real role playing"
The term "role playing game" was controversial when it first became popular. D&D and other games didn't originally use that term, and when it became popular, many complained that "I'm not 'role playing' when I do this. I'm playing a strategy game, I'm playing an open ended adventure game, but I'm not 'role playing" my character beyond deciding their actions"
It's not an assumption. It's an argument.
@@StagRPG
No, it is an assumption. Every argument in the video is based on the assumption that this underlying premise true, yet at no point is an argument made to defend this assumption.
In TTRPGs you take on a "role", and from that perspective you are always "role-playing", but for the the majority gaming systems it has never been about full out "real role-playing" like you describe.
To suggest that your style is factually "better" is rediculous, and if you want to go down that path, then you would need to create a video that explains WHY and HOW your style is better than other options.
@@aliquida7132 I appreciate your input.
@@StagRPG I love when you give your stance and then they tell you that that actually isnt your stance.
"So you're saying. . . ." CathyNewman.jpg
I feel that many of the points in this video assume an inherit absolutism in the topics that it refutes. I do not think those points are commonly assumed to be contextualess holy mandate. In fact, I think most reasonable people understand that collaborative social activities are not meant to be so freeform that any expression whatsoever is equally valid. I have never seen anyone suggest that. Perhaps with the exception of children.
I know that may sound like an insult, but genuinely that is the one example I can think of where this would be applicable. Have I misunderstood the target audience for this video? If so, I apologize.
You have.
@StagRPG then my apologies.
So i 100% disagree with this but i think its because you are thinking of a specific person/people/situation that i dont know about. Currently, it kinda sounds like your saying a lot of things that are true to "prove" what your trying to say but without proper context it just sounds like
"The way i play is the correct way and you are wrong for doing anything different".... In a creative space...
I look forward to watching your video response.
@StagRPG so there is no reason for this video? You just saw this be said, came up with an interpretation, didn't talk to anyone about it, then made a video against it? If there is more context I would like to know, otherwise the only proof I need is the fact that I and my friends are having fun.
I appreciate you taking the time to comment.
This video is gatekeeping 101. IT has no clue about how TTRPGS are shared storytelling experiences and not video games. It requires none of the simply winey complaints you're putting on. It's not like a martial art, it's more like Calvenball or jazz. It's about having fun and experiencing a game together with people. If you want a specific experience you can find a group with that, but it's not mandatory and what other people do at their table doesn't affect you. The essence of play is how you want. In this video, you mentioned how playing how you want damages the play, but do you understand that demanding players to play how you want is more limiting to what can be experienced. Is a group that likes the combat encounters and travel mechanics less of a party than one that wants more social interactions and checks? So if I have a group that wants to shortcut travel time because they don't like it, what do I say? Nope, gotta play by the exact rules and do things you find boring to the game because it's important for some reason, and could make Rolling Stag sad that we don't play right. If players don't want to "roll play" by acting out roles and instead describe them like writers, I have no problem with it. The player is still engaged. There is no requirement to LARP. The whole point of all of these games from Gigax's original Chainmail and D&D to Cyberpunk RED, or DaggerHeart is to have fun telling stories with people you want to spend time with. If you can't see that, then you might be the one hurting the game.
In essence, just because you don't like the notes someone plays, doesn't mean it's not right for another band.
Encouraging folks to discover more that their hobby has to offer is what it is.Thank you for your comment.
@@StagRPG That isn't what you're doing though. You aren't saying "Go see how others play and if you like it" you're saying "There is a right and wrong way to play" and the only example you give of a "right" way to play is talking exclusively in character without asking questions of the GM, and let's be real that does not work for a *lot* of people and a *lot* of games
I really like your Jazz analogy here. I think it is a particularly good analogy because while there are some rules they're more like loose guidelines and there's more focus on in the moment creative expression
@@spydrmrphy1429 ...your typo "roll play" is perfect in your comment.
Some people, I assume you, are total fine with a mix match of people who have different styles of play and are ok with the outcome.
Others like to harmonize more and vet their players so they can have a different outcome.
I saw someone say "gate keeping"...this is not that. If you are looking for a singer for your country band, you don't search or accept a pop singer. Your looking for a specific thing for your specific purpose.
If your ok with how you play then good, keep on.
If you want to try something different, try focusing on staying in character and hiding mechanics as much as possible. Storytelling can evolve for you with different looks.
It's crazy to me when someone hears what they want on this subject and takes ultra offense and concludes elitism instead of suggestion.
Some people butter the top side of their bread...some people butter the bottom side.
@@Ritten_Lies "saw someone say "gate keeping"...this is not that. If you are looking for a singer for your country band, you don't search or accept a pop singer. Your looking for a specific thing for your specific purpose."
The example you use is gatekeeping as well. You've set an expectation of what is proper and exclude what you don't want. This is the reason people have session zero events, and why bands have tryouts. You can restrict who can join to build the group that you want. Where this becomes a problem is when you start imposing that restriction on the hobby as a whole. When you state that there is a right way to play it excludes everything else form what you're calling acceptable. By implying a way of play is bad, implies that the people doing it are bad. This is gatekeeping because the statement is if you don't play in this fashion you are playing the game wrong. My point is a different playstyle is not wrong, just not right for you. It's not up to anyoneone other than the group playing to determine the correct way to play their game.
Ignore this man.
I would watch a video response explaining why folks should ignore me.
@@StagRPG Dont mind him. He just isnt sure how to challenge his own stance.
The premise you start off with is false. None of the
Saying "There is no wrong way to play" isn't a literal statement. What they are really saying is that "there isn't just one right way to play."
Not having rules is the literally the opposite of imposing rules, saying they are the same would be nonsensical. The absence of something can not be the same as the presence of that thing.
Saying that "morals are subjective" is an example of "self-defeating logic" is incorrect as it is one of the only two logical conclusions a person can reach in regards to morality. The source of morality is either subjective or it is objective, it can not be both. Either position is an absolute because of the fact that it must be one or the other, there is no other option.
The premise I'm starting off with is the preponderance of systems that say having fun is the goal.
You can only get so broad in your philosophical pondering before they lose all meaning. What do you mean to say is the correct way to play ttrpgs? Most of the “no wrong way,” idea comes from the fact that the most prolific rpg (Dungeons and Dragons) has like 900 pages of “core” rulebooks.
Most of the debates about “how to play,” center around rules minutiae, the use of paraphernalia like miniatures or VTTs, or the endless “railroading v sandbox,” debate.
So, what are you advocating for?
How far into the video did you get?
Might as well as be quoting Rush with their line "If you chose not to decide you still have made a choice".
And which I say "DUH!" Everyone knows that. You aren't giving new insight into the world. No one is sitting there like "OMG You can't call the rule that you can play the way you want a rule, how dare you!"
"You aren't giving new insight into the world." Physician, heal thyself.
My dude, TTRPGs are a hobby that people do for fun. It doesn't have to be a big artform where people are "Striving to improve their roleplaying skils." Relax.
"Don't look at the finger, or you'll miss all that heavenly glory." ~Bruce Lee, Enter The Dragon
@@StagRPG God you're pretentious.
Even if you were right, you haven't engaged with the idea that people who say "it's for fun" are missing more that TTRPGs have to offer. I'm not saying it's never fun. Not am I saying you can't have fun. I'm saying the people who make fun the highest value are wrong.
@@StagRPG Everyone gets something different out of ttrpgs, and "Fun" is just as valid as anything else. For a lot of people ttrpgs are as much to socialize and relax as they are anything else. Not everyone wants to try to be Dimension 20 or Critical Role, and that's okay.
@@morganlewis885 Critical role is to rpg as porn is to sex. I'm not advocating for that. Nor am I saying playing can't be fun. I'm saying fun is not the highest/best/most/only thing that rpgs have to offer, yet 99% of the hobby have made fun their sole focus. Ok, but they're missing out on a whole lot of other rad extras.
This is so dumb
Not an argument.
@ neither was any of the crap you were spouting 🤷♀️
@@lerpderp69 I look forward to your video reply.
@ why reply with a video when I’ve already said everything I’ve needed to already? 🤷♀️
Because you get ignored until you're invested enough to make a video.