78
\$\begingroup\$

I've recently had the dubious pleasure to have been told both that the high visibility of RAW-centric optimising online is an illusion and nobody actually plays that way in a real game, and that old-school playstyles are obsolete and nobody actually plays that way except from irrational attachement. The different users were equally convinced they were speaking truth, despite the impossibility of both being true.

Although I'm personally sick of trying to talk people out of One True Wayism about how people do play, let alone how people should play, my personal annoyance is nobody's problem but mine. However, both these recent discussions were had in the context of what should be allowed on this site, and that's not personal anymore. Trying to bend this Stack to favour any single subculture in RPGs is not cool.

I would like to be able to, in the future, hand a link to someone trying to limit who this site is for with One True Wayism. This is not so much about answers advocating for a playstyle — playstyle-based perspective is valid and expected in answers (when backed up, and/or with a good frame-challenge), and when they aggressively swerve into One True Wayism they typically get voted into the ground. So answers are generally fine. It's slagging playstyles or One True Wayism in comments — where accusations of "badwrongfun" usually happen — or when an answer starts badmouthing a different playstyle, that I want to be able to point people to this page to politely ask them to knock it off.

I ask the community to affirm that we embrace the plurality of how RPGs are played and value the input of diverse views, but none exclusively.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ It is not at all impossible that both those statements are true; the two playstyles described are not by any stretch of the imagination the only two possible states to play the game in. There are many, many other conceivable ways to play, which in turn means it’s possible that only those ways are being used and the two described situations are not. Not necessarily that I disagree with your overall point (and both statements are untrue unless, maybe, we assume they only meant the absolute extremes of those two options), but “the impossibility of both being true” isn’t actually impossible. \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan Nov 22 '14 at 14:53
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @KRyan These are statements about all RPG players everywhere, not a group. No, of course they're not impossible to both be true of a certain group. But they're not preceded by such a scope limiter in this paraphrase, and they weren't originally either. That is the crux actually: that people believe their small slice of the community is representative. We've seen how limited many RPG players' horizons can be in how often askers underestimate the breadth of existing RPGs; this is the same problem manifesting relative to playstyles. \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Nov 22 '14 at 18:35
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ I was speaking from a pure logic/theory perspective. I agree with you otherwise. Sorry, provably not a useful comment \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan Nov 22 '14 at 19:02
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ But so am I. ∃x and ∀x are very different. The claims above are (in part) something like ∀x (x is a roleplayer ∧ ¬(x plays RAW-centricly)), but you're saying they're compatible when it's ∃x instead of ∀x. Sure, that's trivially true, but ∃x is not on the table here. If ∃x were what people were saying in these assertions about the community and what the site should represent, I'd be deliriously happy. It is in fact what I'm asking for. \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Nov 22 '14 at 19:10
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ When you say that there is an “impossibility of both being true,” I read that as saying that the two statements are logically contradictory and cannot both be true at the same time. Which isn’t the case; one or both could be true (they just aren’t). \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan Nov 22 '14 at 20:29
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @KRyan They can't be both true ∀x. "(All roleplayers have moved on from the 'obsolete' old-school playstyle and adopted 'modern' optimisation-based play) ∧ (All roleplayers still play like in 1980 and nobody plays how online charop makes it seem like people play)" is a straightforward A∧¬A. \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Nov 22 '14 at 22:02
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ And that, right there, is the false dichotomy I was originally objecting to: the two options are not exhaustive. It is possible to roleplay while exercising neither playstyle. For example, just about anyone playing Fate. And since that is possible, it's possible that all roleplayers choose to do so, and thus no one plays in a manner that is either old-school or optimization-based (though this is not, in fact, the case). \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan Nov 22 '14 at 22:05
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I see what you're saying. The context is that both were stating that to negate the other view. To each proposition, add "and the other guy's statement is false". Each are also blind to the fact that these aren't two ends of an axis, but two points in a plane (or space of greater dimensionality). Put it in the context of the site's constant RAW-vs-rulings conflict. \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Nov 22 '14 at 22:15
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I sense my name not being mentioned. For the record, I do believe that there are lots of people out there in the real world who try to play BtB, but that this is something we all grow out of as we become more confident in making our own decisions as GMs. I do feel that BtB is very heavily over-represented for various reasons on-line, not just here. I would like the site to be more open to the idea that sometimes the BtB answer is "make a ruling on the fly; here's an example". do think it poisonous to the hobby to expect players to stick religiously to 256 pages of rules, however. \$\endgroup\$ – Nagora Nov 23 '14 at 11:22
  • 9
    \$\begingroup\$ @Nagora That is a fine belief to have, but not one to insist is true for everyone when confronted with others' experience to the contrary. \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Nov 23 '14 at 18:44
  • 9
    \$\begingroup\$ I don't necessarily have the energy to go on a crusade or anything, but I feel like the freeform roleplaying community isn't treated very well here either; the assumption in many freeform communities is that it's wrong to twist your character's actions to suit the narrative, and that the highest ideal to hold by is keeping the character "in-character", but you ask anything about that here and you're told derisively that that's "my guy syndrome" and always evil. \$\endgroup\$ – Yamikuronue Nov 24 '14 at 2:01
  • 9
    \$\begingroup\$ @Yamikuronue It's a fine line to walk, playing a character true to themselves while avoiding disrupting the overall playing. It's true that in freeform the line is drawn differently; I'm uncomfortable with how much My Guy Syndrome and "Making the Hard Choices" are cited as gospel here, especially in those cases. But it's a skewed sample too, because we only hear about it when it's part of a problem; yet, that limited sample's high visibility makes it seem like playing true-to-character is disregarded as valuable. I don't have any answers there, but I agree it's a bit too much sometimes. \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Nov 24 '14 at 2:33
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @Yamikuronue (and SSD): If you have a concern about that, that may well be worth bringing up on its own, showing the community the problematic behaviour and how they could behave differently. See how the Fate Gremlin got handled, for instance. There will be some struggle and back and forth on the matter, though, so doing so might take some fortitude, persistence and patience to discuss. \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener Nov 24 '14 at 4:30
  • \$\begingroup\$ @doppelgreener Maybe I will someday, but I don't have the energy now with the holidays going on \$\endgroup\$ – Yamikuronue Nov 24 '14 at 12:06
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ my only comment to this is that certain games tend to lead to certain playstyles, where WoD is Role Play heavy, D&D can definitely lead to more Power Gaming. Doesn't mean it's exclusive, but the systems themselves are geared towards certain things. \$\endgroup\$ – xenoterracide Dec 1 '14 at 1:16
36
\$\begingroup\$

Some resources: Challenging the frame of a question.

First, we require that people Be Nice. Insulting other play styles isn't being nice.

Second, if you are going to dissent in an answer, make sure to restate your assumptions. People may not share (or agree with) your model of gaming. Being clear in why you are answering in that particular way.

Third, consider weak-man and steelmanning arguments. Consider SSD's comment on homebrew or optional rules:

If someone comes to us confused about how something is supposed to work, answering with homebrew is fundamentally not answering the question. To answer non-BtB you need some connective tissue in the answer between what they're asking and the off-book advice, usually by answering BtB to solve their basic confusion, and only then offering the homebrew/etc. as a superior alternative, explicitly.

If you can demonstrate an awareness, sympathy, and understanding for the other perspective, answer it formally, and then go "But, I've also had even better experiences this way" your persuasive message isn't "you're dumb. Right thinking people do it my way." but rather "Hey, here's your specific answer demonstrating expertise and empathy with your problem and playstyle, and here's an even better thing that you might not have considered."

Fourth, There are many games and many game philosophies and many traditions. We simply require rigour and expertise. It's likely that your expertise is valuable, especially if you've interacted with different schools of thought. We acknowledge that there are many games and many ways to play the game. The ultimate arbiter of the requirements of the question is the querent, and it's our job to make the best possible answers to solve the particular situation the querent is in. If you have a great answer to a different question (i.e. one that subscribes to your weltanschauung (worldview, see relativism)), pose that question instead. Encouraging the querent to elucidate their worldview by asking them to edit their game style into their question, on the other hand, is quite encouraged. (Remember, good information goes into questions and answers. Comments evaporate. Comment arguments are burned by the gods with prejudice.)

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ What is BtB? By the Book? \$\endgroup\$ – turoni Apr 16 '18 at 7:41
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @turoni: Yes. The quoted comment is on a meta answer that was edited to expand the acronym: "BtB (by the book, aka RAW)" \$\endgroup\$ – V2Blast Jun 10 '18 at 0:27
33
\$\begingroup\$

This is much like the questions we get on religious sites about whether one sect should be excluded or given preference to another. The SE policy on this for religious sites is that all sects are created equal for the purpose of the site and if you really can't get on board with that, then you can find the door.

That said, one of the things that the religious sites do, that we've only semi-adopted for this site is to make questions tightly define what sects/doctrines they are about (in our case playstyle) and then delete answers that don't conform to that (in addition to shutting down discussion and arguments about who is right and who is wrong).

Here's the thing though, specifying a playstyle is pretty much completely optional here. That's in large part because it's not always relevant, a lot of the time your style of play is pretty evident from the game you're playing, or the kinds of question you ask.

This means that answers (And often comment discussion) ends up being a mishmash of playstyles and often only some or even none of the answers/comments match with the playstyle of the author. This is a problem.

However, this isn't a site about religion. It's a site about a hobby. Telling people they are wrong is OK here. And sometimes, the answer to someone's question where they are detailing a problem, is, in fact, "hey, you might try a different style of play, because it sure looks like the way you're playing is making you all miserable, try this instead."

So here's the guideline I'm going to propose:

  • All play styles are welcome.
  • Answers and comments should not disparage another play style, even if they are discouraging of it.
  • Warnings that a playstyle may not be appropriate for a game or setting are OK, but should be well supported, and restricted to answers (this is a frame challenge, essentially).
  • Differing playstyles is not an excuse to ignore this site's guidelines on questions or answers.
\$\endgroup\$
  • 11
    \$\begingroup\$ Unlike Presbyterian and Catholic - which are well defined religious sects - playstyles are not well defined. that may be a project in and of itself.. outside of the scope of the site. \$\endgroup\$ – Tritium21 Nov 22 '14 at 2:07
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ These are excellent bullet points, +1. And yeah, to @Tritium21's point: part of the difference/problem is that people are often largely unaware of the diversity. A Baptist might truly believe that their way is right, but will only do so in full knowledge that other sects exist. Here, we often have problems with people denying that other playstyles even exist, or asserting that they're strictly inferior to their own in a technology-progression sense. \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Nov 22 '14 at 2:15
  • \$\begingroup\$ @SevenSidedDie you'd be surprised. Not to get too technical on the religious side, but there are plenty of groups where their existence or viability are in fact questioned...Christian Atheism is the one that comes to mind on existence. \$\endgroup\$ – wax eagle Nov 22 '14 at 4:00
  • \$\begingroup\$ @waxeagle I had to look that up! (That describes some people I know, thanks for the term.) Yeah, I can see how there could be debate/denying, then. \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Nov 22 '14 at 4:33
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ @SevenSidedDie -- the Baptists might rib on the Lutherans, and the Lutherans might chuckle at the Baptists, but both groups co-exist pretty well -- the same cannot be said of many people who subscribe to a view of "The One True Way to RP" \$\endgroup\$ – Shalvenay Nov 25 '14 at 2:41
18
\$\begingroup\$

We are all roleplayers, and there is a lot of room in this tent for the many ways we play. We have no need for comments that suggest there is one universal "true" way to play RPGs, disparage other playstyles as "wrong", or erase our or others' preferred ways of playing by asserting or implying that they don't exist; regardless of whether the motive is combative malice or just innocent ignorance of the wider world or RPGs.

(Group hug!)

\$\endgroup\$
  • 7
    \$\begingroup\$ Unfortunately, often this sentiment is accompanied by a conviction that inclusion should mean ignoring tested Stack guidelines for quality and scope regardless of content. Could you edit this to somehow reflect that a spirit of inclusion doesn't override the general site standards we expect all content to follow? \$\endgroup\$ – BESW Nov 22 '14 at 1:43
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @BESW I made it more specific… does that avoid the issue, or does it really need to mention Stack quality control stuff? My concern there is that people who honestly believe that other ways of playing are invalid or self-deluded will use "but I'm correct and Stack guidelines support correctness" as a bludgeon. \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Nov 22 '14 at 2:11
  • \$\begingroup\$ @SevenSidedDie Well, in the second paragraph of your question you make this about stack exchange quality control: that it's not cool to assert the site should adhere to one particular play style. \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener Nov 22 '14 at 2:15
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ @doppelgreener That's just the assertion that One True Wayism is inherently damaging to our utility. I'm not really clear on what kind of damaging inclusivity I'm being asked to take a stand against though. We don't appear to have a problem with damaging inclusivity anyway, so I'm not sure it needs addressing? \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Nov 22 '14 at 2:22
  • \$\begingroup\$ What you espouse here and what you've said in the past don't match up: rpg.stackexchange.com/a/40907/4075 \$\endgroup\$ – user4075 May 1 '15 at 8:02
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Clara No, that's pretty much identical to what I espouse here. \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie May 1 '15 at 15:26
8
\$\begingroup\$

Since you're trying to keep this question focused on comments and site discourse, I'll stick to that. Brian has already adequately covered our expectations of answers. (It was probably pretty helpful he brought that up, even if you don't intend this question to be about answers.)

Yes, we embrace a variety of playstyles. Active use of the site, and diverse reading, pretty much guarantees we'll be confronted by it.

Our variety of games has shown us this.

The variety of games here shows us there's many play styles, and each game may have its own ideal varieties. The dichotomy of "RAW-centric vs old-school" is only really relevant to the D&D-likes, which is a vanishingly small portion of RPGs available.

There are games in which RAW is not opposed to improvisation and judgement calls, but must necessarily coexist with it: Fate and Roll for Shoes are such games, which offer a toolbox of mechanics the group must discuss how to apply.

So have social issues.

Some of us pay attention to the , and tags. These show us where play styles, or social dynamics arising from them, can lead to breakdowns or problems.

For example, there's the "DM trumps book!" question: a player who preferred to use the rules joined a group that preferred house ruling stuff. Neither style was unhealthy for the individuals before the joining, and nobody was playing wrong but the clash of these two styles lead to an unhealthy situation.

We've also noticed that it's easy for people to assume their local experience is representative of gaming worldwide. This is particularly endemic to the D&D crowd — but as one of our own members wrote, there are so many unique D&D playstyles that it is easy to say there is, in reality, no such thing as D&D.

The 'correct' playstyle is a person's own preference.

Everyone has preferences for certain ways to play their games. There is no superior/correct style. Nobody naturally progresses to one universal style: people just progress toward their own preferred playstyle, provided there's others they can play that way with, and provided they're aware that playstyle is an option.

There is no healthiest playstyle, except for the one that works best to make the player happy and fulfilled.

The D&D community here includes people who for years have played by RAW and surrounded themselves with people who play that way. It also includes people who for years have played by heavy application of house rules, and surrounded themselves by people who play that way. That's fine. This is their preference. None of them are playing wrong.

So, all that said:

  • The site has made us plainly aware of many playstyles. We acknowledge and embrace them.
  • If you try to argue that your way is the One True Way, do not expect much agreement.
  • Playstyles are still subject to criticism when appropriate, and can be advocated.
  • None of this is an excuse for breaking our rules on arguing or discussion in comments. As usual, if you have a disagreement with an answer, channel that energy into writing a better answer. Take part of it to advocate why your approach will work well, and if you wish, take a part of it to dissuade people from using this other approach that will not work well.
\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ We probably want a bit in here that's "Just because we accept your view in an answer is no excuse for breaking site rules on arguing or discussion in comments." \$\endgroup\$ – Brian Ballsun-Stanton Nov 27 '14 at 5:48
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Brian I thought I was missing something - added. (I might still be missing a few somethings.) \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener Nov 27 '14 at 6:07
  • \$\begingroup\$ Perhaps "prove the quality of your play style by providing a better answer?" ... I dunno. I prefer "don't" instead of "take it to a chat room" \$\endgroup\$ – Brian Ballsun-Stanton Nov 27 '14 at 6:35
  • \$\begingroup\$ @BrianBallsun-Stanton SevenSidedDie is trying to make this about site discourse rather than answers, hence the first paragraph. \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener Nov 27 '14 at 7:23
  • \$\begingroup\$ Yes. And we should channel all dissenting discourse into answers, since there aren't many other useful places where it's constructive. ... unless I'm missing something? \$\endgroup\$ – Brian Ballsun-Stanton Nov 27 '14 at 7:25
  • \$\begingroup\$ @BrianBallsun-Stanton true enough. I'll do some editing when I get home. \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener Nov 27 '14 at 7:26
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @BrianBallsun-Stanton The one place where comment-dissent might be useful is when an answer is egregiously engaging in One True Wayism... and votes are rallying around it. We have enough people on each side of the RAW/RAI/rulings tricotomy that a flame-provoking answer can get a lot of support. But! I am now quite happy with the response to this meta that I feel confident a gentle, "hey, this wording is unnecessarily divisive and could be improved while retaining its point, here's a meta about it," can be constructive, and not kick off a comment storm and get itself insta-deleted. \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Nov 27 '14 at 17:48
  • \$\begingroup\$ Ah, see, I don't view that as comment-as-dissent, so much as comment-as-rule-enforcement. The wording that I'm most likely to use is: "Aruging in comments is prohibited. If you have a better answer in a different way of playing, please provide it as an answer. For more details, see (this Q)" \$\endgroup\$ – Brian Ballsun-Stanton Nov 27 '14 at 23:03
7
\$\begingroup\$

There is no such thing as "wrongfun."

That's it. We're done, thanks.

What, you want more? Sorry, there's not much discussion needed. SE is about answers to questions. If you ask a question about a particular playstyle, that's one thing... but categorically, SE isn't about supporting or refuting any given playstyle.

Feel free to petition for an "old-schoolRPG.stackexchange.com" or a "RAW-optimizers.stackexchange.com" or "slapstickRPGstyle.stackexchange.com" and hey... if you get it, then you can have your answers optimized to that playstyle. Otherwise, ask about what you want to know. If an answer doesn't fit due to the playstyle at your table being relevant, update the question.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 6
    \$\begingroup\$ Nice and concise. :) ... But since you spelled "badwrongfun" wrong, I am honour-bound to start a big internet fight about it. ;) \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Apr 30 '15 at 21:23
  • \$\begingroup\$ Hmmm.... Really? I'm pretty sure there are ways to have fun that are absolutely bad and wrong. For example, one might enjoy indoctrinating youth into racist bigotry, and a playstyle that prioritized the perpetuation of racist ideology is definitely something I would consider bad and wrong. Are you trying to indicate that we shouldn't judge that to be evil? \$\endgroup\$ – Please stop being evil May 31 '17 at 19:37
6
\$\begingroup\$

To be very clear here, the role of a comment is not to challenge the frame of an answer. If you disagree with an answer, provide a better answer. If you have improvements to suggest to an answer, by all means, leave a temporary comment (and it'd be totally awesome if you could clean up after the answer was improved.)

Challenging an answer because you have a different style of play will get your comment deleted. It starts arguments and reply chains, and really all the bad feelings that can go into comments do go into comments due to these sorts of disagreements.

Again, argue by answering an answer better, argue by downvoting (silently, if you cannot or will not suggest improvements), but don't argue in comments.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ Hmmm, too bad this post isn't stickied as an FAQ. Conscise, short, and correct. (Or maybe it is and I just missed seeing that?) \$\endgroup\$ – KorvinStarmast Jun 6 '17 at 21:48
-5
\$\begingroup\$

The problem with your question is that it looks at answers in isolation. If I, to pick a completely random example, say that focusing on roleplaying your character and what you as that character wants to do is and answer to "How do I play in a system with rules that aren't written down?" then that can be seen as "one true wayism" but I'm consciously trying to balance out the overall site bias towards rule-based solutions.

The important question is the mix of answers, not that one particular person is consistently answering in their own style; otherwise you end up with the sort of bland mess of nothing that Wikipedia is. I don't want to read two-page answers where the person has felt they had to weigh every option and justify every statement in the light of 100 other options they didn't choose. I'm an adult and I know people are posting personal opinions and that's fine.

There are many approaches to roleplaying and the lack of discussion here makes some of those approaches more amenable to being posted. The sort of loose, subjective approach that many people mean by "old school" is never going to fit in as well in a format where each answer has the appearance of objectivity (by dint of discussion not being allowed).

So, my answer is: the site accepts a plurality exists but it is strongly biased away from more free-form styles simply because of SE's limitations as a format.

I'm content that the voting should reflect this; that's life. What I find really annoying is the sort of stuff that appears in comments, and the way in which comments are purged outside of meta-. Indeed, I think the site would be SUBSTANTIALLY improved by turning the answer comments off completely, as they serve no useful purpose that I can see.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ Funny, I always felt that the bias was in the opposite direction. It would seem likely to me that neither of us is actually in a position to objectively judge the bias of the site. \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan Nov 23 '14 at 15:04
  • \$\begingroup\$ @KRyan Can you be more specific in what you see as the bias? \$\endgroup\$ – Nagora Nov 23 '14 at 15:41
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ To be blunt, no, I cannot, not without starting a larger fight than I have the time to get into right now. \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan Nov 23 '14 at 16:06
  • \$\begingroup\$ @KRyan OKay, well I'll assume you mean there's too much advocacy of free-form ad-hoc rulings, which is ridiculous but I can't really see any other interpretation of being "opposite" to what I'm saying. \$\endgroup\$ – Nagora Nov 23 '14 at 16:44
  • \$\begingroup\$ This is actually not about the content of answers, usually. Perspective is valid (when backed up) and expected in answers, and when they aggressively swerve into One True Wayism they typically gets voted into the ground. So answers are fine. It's in comments that I want to be able to point people to this page to ask them to knock it off. \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Nov 23 '14 at 18:46
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ This answer did help me refine my meta question though, thanks. I think there may be a good meta conversation to be had around post content as it relates to playstyle, playstyle assumptions in questions and answers, why certain kinds of answers get flak, and how to frame the same answers for better reception. We could use more visible representation of the non-RAW-centric community, but that has to come organically from well-received answers rather than some kind of community policy declaration. \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Nov 23 '14 at 19:03
  • 12
    \$\begingroup\$ I would argue that answering a question of "how does this work?" with anything like "It works like this..." and then providing an answer totally outside what the rules suggest, is not answering the question. And such answers should follow the challenging-the-frame meta: answer it based on the rules first (where "based on the rules" doesn't have to mean RAW-legalese, but at the least something indicated by the rules, not pure on-the-spot ruling), followed by a "But I suggest you go beyond the rules here, and exercise your creativity/rights as a DM/whatever, and..." \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan Nov 23 '14 at 19:29
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ @KRyan That's my understanding of the advice in the frame-challenge meta too. It also contains advice on how to phrase such a challenge well, but the main point is, yes, answer the question first at least. (Unless your frame challenge is really awesomely written and stands despite avoiding the surface question, but those are rare and the community may not agree on its awesomeness; them's the risks.) \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Nov 24 '14 at 2:42
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ I was actually going to upvote this until the last paragraph suggested turning off answer comments. Many of my answers have been improved by people leaving constructive comments. Of course those useful comments often get deleted, leaving you with no evidence it happened. \$\endgroup\$ – DCShannon Dec 2 '14 at 2:53
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ 'The sort of loose, subjective approach that many people mean by "old school"' -- I still can't get my head around this. What I call "old school" is RAW-centric optimization, it's just that it was done to the RAW of AD&D 2nd ;-) And no doubt to people 10 years older than me, that's "new school" and "old school" is sticking to D&D, Traveller and Empire of the Petal Throne. \$\endgroup\$ – Steve Jessop Dec 5 '14 at 14:54
  • \$\begingroup\$ @SteveJessop Old school is not RAW-centric optimization. RAW centric optimization is new school, at best, but it's a method and it can be fun. \$\endgroup\$ – KorvinStarmast Mar 2 '17 at 2:15

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .