dfrpg elements in standard fantasy rpg format

[Mrmdubois]

If I answered that, I'd be doing what I dislike.

Saying what a game is about, in my experience, is generally a way to tell people who play differently that they're doing it wrong.

What attracted me to DFRPG is the excellent mechanical structure and the possibility of truly perfect balance through the use of Aspects.

Actually he did answer, it was just a refusal to attempt to pigeonhole the game or its players.  It may have not been the kind of answer you were looking for though.  I didn't expect it, but I found it acceptable.

I kind of doubt I would do well with the Bartle Test either.  I'm less apt to tinker with rules than Sanctaphrax but generally my biggest kick out of a game is to make characters and settings.

Also, you're overall tone is becoming less reasonable and more insulting, while I haven't seen anything derogatory from Sanctaphrax.  This invalidates your arguments on an emotional level.  First rule of debate, if you lose your temper you lose.  Also, this is a forum for recreational activity and discussion, there's absolutely no point in taking any if it seriously.

It's already been stated the confusion is now cleared away, so that should no longer be a focal point of discussion, neither should any further debate trying to figure out what kind of player Sanctaphrax is because that's a question  that has also been answered.  Maybe you should backup and try to find a real point of disagreement.  I think though that this has mostly moved away from the point of the original discussion by delving into whether or not people are playing right, defining words correctly, and etc.  Which is completely unnecessary for deciding if your original posts are a valuable tool to players coming from a d&d background.

[Sanctaphrax]

not this nonsense again it seems that what I kindly called as just possibly being "willful blindness" earlier was too mild.  It is also blindingly obvious that you are not reading the thread.  A failure to read the thread & what is being said in even recent posts seems to be the source of all your confusion.

...

Since you again failed to be specific in what you can do with  your character in the game that involves "some meta level" that does not either involve socializing, killing, exploring, or achieving things.  You have shown no interest in clearing up your confusion again.  So I'm not sure if you expect a serious answer, or are judt going for a higher postcount.

I am reading the thread, tetrasodium. I might be missing something, though.

My point is not that there's something I do in games that doesn't involve any of the categories.

My point is that classifying me as any of the categories would be wrong because none of them encompasses what I like about gaming, and that the test is grievously flawed when applied to tabletop gamers.

Read: there is nothing in particular that I enjoy doing with my character in-game. Pretty much every in-character aspect of the game is moderately fun for me.

(Though I feel I should point out that the Socializer category is mostly not about things you do with your character in the game, so far as I can tell.)

My confusion has for the most part cleared up, as I said. I asked one direct question, though, which I haven't seen an answer to. Here, I'll dig up a quote for you.

Fortunately, I think most of my confusion has been resolved now. Later replies have been illuminating.

Just one question: were you trying to tell me that I shouldn't be questioning the validity of this scale?

And if I was going for a higher post count, don't you think my posts would be shorter? I could divide this one into three, no problem.

[KOFFEYKID]

I'll just list a few things here that came up when I was reading some (not all, because it's long and I'm lazy) of this thread.

• There is no wrong way to play as long as everybody is having fun.
• As to System X is for Game Type Y: I agree, to an extent, if only because mechanics (in my mind) have to absolutely support the feel of the game you are trying to run. Running an all vampire based game in D&D 3.5 is likely to be tedious and not fun, but you can do it. There are however better alternatives for that particular theme of gaming. This is why FATE is so amazing, it has a very adaptable chassis.
• If you feel that the Laws of Magic are too scary in the DFRPG game system then I recommend keeping the Laws intact but altering the mechanics by which those laws are levied against players. This is a much better solution, I think. It keeps the integrity of the setting while allowing your players more leeway.
• I dont think I would be able to take that test either. I dont particularly enjoy one type of thing or another in games, what I enjoy is my character. That is to say, who my character is becomes the primary concern/activity/goal, what he or she can do and how well he or she can do it is just there to justify why my character is whoever he or she is.
• I hope your efforts to give examples of the various elements of magic are useful but I also don't think it is necessary.. I agree about the not sticking spirit under divine (again, Sponsored Magic covers this, you dont need to have evocation or thaumaturgy, you can just have sponsored magic and be "a cleric of ??") for a few reasons. Mainly because it implies that "arcanists" cant deal with issues that tie strongly into spirit magic which is just nonsense since spirit magic covers such mundane (heh, mundane magic?) things as veils (invisibility) and Magic Missile type effects.
• I agree that it sounds like some of your players just aren't into the whole Tabletop RPG experience, you might give the worst offenders a chance to read some of the books. It will likely help out on multiple fronts (a good grounding in the setting, the way magic works, the morality, and if they dont want to read it you know they truly aren't interested.)

[blackstaff67]

Out of curiosity tetrasodium...how many of your players expressed an interest in the books or had already read a few of them before signing on to play?  As far as My campaign is going, I set it in Northern Indiana/southern Michigan and told all my players they were going to play mortals, told them they were going to play with -8 refresh (Chest-deep) and that they were going to be residents of the region, so only a couple large towns and lots of smaller ones.  Two wizards, one werebear and one righteous believer playing bodyguard to the two wizards...and everyone (ALL former D&D players) are having a blast.  I think its your players, you might be giving them too many options.  That said, -8 refresh lets you take some kewl powers without going crazy with backgrounds. 

P.S.  How many players does your group average?

[blackstaff67]

and personally, if you're having trouble trying to justify bringing the group together, have them start off at the strip mall or other public place late at night and then have things go Kablooey--hexenwulfen, wyldfae, a crazed sorceror's experiment gone wrong--and then each player will be trying to do something, if only survive.  They'll all hae a common thread or reason to come together and stay together. 

Finally, use the story cards.  Everyone should want to part of someone else's story, and that one was rather fun for us.