Quote from: tuypo1;822206if hating random stats is close minded i dont wanna be tolerant

*menaces you with the traveller chargen rules*

Sometimes it really does come up with interesting characters I would never have thought of on my own.

But all of this is why I tend to sneak around the borders of gaming, get people who are interested but too new to have settled into their ways. Generally less drama and gnashing of teeth when new games come up, but more likely for someone to have a life and conflicts.

Quote from: MrHurst;822220*menaces you with the traveller chargen rules*

Whoa! Easy there big fella!

That is a hefty weapon to menace people with!

Quote from: Beagle;822193That's why random elements during the character creation are so helpful - it gets people to think outside of their usual comfort zone and the self-imposed restrictions. Repetitiveness  always becomes boring, both for the player in question (who might not even recognize this) and for the rest of the group as well. If the players become too fixated on playing the same character with minor variations, it's time to roll stats in order.

Very much agree. Most players I've played with have no problem with it. Not sure where all the "NEVER!" venom comes from. It is a dice game, after all.

Quote from: cranebump;822224Very much agree. Most players I've played with have no problem with it. Not sure where all the "NEVER!" venom comes from. It is a dice game, after all.

The stuff that happens after chargen is a "dice game" as you put it. The primary lever and window upon the game (ie my character) is entirely within my gift. I play what I choose, within the available options, not what the game designer's construction deigns to grant me based upon luck.

I don't come to a game thinking "I have no idea what I'm going to play, I'll see what arises". I come to a game thinking "in this setting and premise, I'd like to play this sort of character".

There is nothing random about it, because there are entire swathes of characters which don't appeal to me at all. Non-humans. Non-adults. Casters or magic/power-focused characters. Non-combatants. I will not enjoy a game where that is my character (or for that matter where any of those are the whole of the premise constraining the choices thus).

EDIT: I should note my whole group don't go in for random. Our last genuinely random game was WFRP2e, and we didn't do random starting careers (though everything else still was). Since then it's either been opting for the non-random choices in games where you can (D&D4e, 13th Age, ACKS), or playing games based on point buy (M&M1e) or fixed allocations (DFRPG, myriad nWoD). Only one person out of five likes random chargen, the rest of us prefer not to, or actively dislike.

Quote from: Beagle;822201So much for open-mindedness.

Knowing what you like and what you don't like isn't lacking open mindedness, especially if you tried something before and haven't enjoyed it.

Quote from: jeff37923;822077Oh, fuck this.

"Someone doesn't want to play My Favorite Game so obviously they are close-minded! Probably a bigot too!"

Before weeping and wailing, try thinking about other possible reasons why people may not want to play a game.

Verily.

Often its more a problem of. "I am tired of having to learn a new system every few weeks/months." Or with a single company. "Why the hell do I have to learn a whole new system just to play in the same god damn setting?"

And other reasons to baulk.

All it takes is one "cult of the new" fanatic or edition treadmill to sour someone on trying new things when its wall to wall new things. Especially if you happened to like one or two of the things presented. But the GM or whomever keeps hopping to the next and the next and the next.

My first GM was like that. Pretty much every week was a new game system. AD&D was when I joined, and we didnt even get through the adventure and next week it was TMNT, then about 2 weeks later Paranoia, then a week later DC Heroes, and so on.

Over that time the gaming group dwindled about a player every changeover and eventually I ended up the one hosting. Id switch to a new system only after a campaign had run its course or the players agreed something just wasnt clicking with the system.

1)  Gamers are people.  Trying to paint all of 'em with a broad brush, aside from saying "gamers, in theory, are people who game," is pretty silly.  How open-minded are women?  How open-minded are lefties?  How open-minded are people who listen to music?  You sound silly.

2)  "Open-minded" and "close-minded" have some connotations that have nothing to do with just trying a new game.  Someone isn't bigoted or prejudiced if they like a different flavor of ice cream than you do, and the same is true of them maybe not liking your new favorite role playing game.  Go easy on the hyperbole, maybe?

3)  Some people don't have the time or inclination to invest -- their money, their hobby time, or both -- in a new game.  That doesn't mean they're close-minded, necessarily.  It could be that the game just doesn't appeal to them, it could be how someone's trying to sell them on the new game, it could be that they just really like another game.

Quote from: Critias;8222611)  Gamers are people.  Trying to paint all of 'em with a broad brush, aside from saying "gamers, in theory, are people who game," is pretty silly.  How open-minded are women?  How open-minded are lefties?  How open-minded are people who listen to music?  You sound silly.

2)  "Open-minded" and "close-minded" have some connotations that have nothing to do with just trying a new game.  Someone isn't bigoted or prejudiced if they like a different flavor of ice cream than you do, and the same is true of them maybe not liking your new favorite role playing game.  Go easy on the hyperbole, maybe?

The idea in my mind was that people that played games that require/exercised their imaginations would "have more imagination".

Obviously I was wrong.
It goes hand in hand with the "you can't do it if it isn't in the rules" mindset.

While I may be "the bad guy" it still surprises me when I encounter it.
=

Quote from: Greentongue;822271The idea in my mind was that people that played games that require/exercised their imaginations would "have more imagination".

Obviously I was wrong.
It goes hand in hand with the "you can't do it if it isn't in the rules" mindset.

While I may be "the bad guy" it still surprises me when I encounter it.
=

You are wrong, in the sense that you still fail to understand the point Critias and others have made.

Here's the syllogism you want us to think should apply.

1) Playing RPGs requires imaginative people therefore all players of RPGs are imaginative people.

2) Imaginative people are willing to try new things therefore imaginative people will try any new thing, specifically the thing that Greentongue wants them to try.

1) and 2) imply 3) players of RPGs should try anything, specifically they should try the thing Greentongue wants them to try.

• Statement 1) is not true. While playing RPGs requires some imagination and playing RPGs certainly works better if the GM, at least, is imaginative, there is no requirement that the players are notably more imaginative than the average person.

• Statement 2) is not true. I'll ignore the premise. It may be true, it may not. However the conclusion does not follow from the premise, even if it is true. Being willing to try (some) new things does not require being willing to try any or all new things.

• Since neither statement 1) nor statement 2) are true. Statement 3) just does not follow and we can ignore it as unsupported nonsense.

The syllogism you seem to actually be applying is one of the most common geek social fallacies. The one that requires good geek friends to do everything together despite personal preferences to the contrary.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;822085I do think people are too quick to whine when gamers don't try a new thing. Personally I just see the reluctance as an outgrowth of both the thing I mentioned in my previous post (which isn't bad on its own, it is what motivates people to do things like learn everything they can about a topic that interests them) and the fact that systems take time to learn and master. When you ask someone to switch to a new system, you're asking for a time investment.

I'm just tired of the whole hyperbolic attitude of, "If you do not think like I do or like what I like than you are a hideous human being!" It is like people are trying to shame others into joining their herd.

Quote from: jeff37923;822299I'm just tired of the whole hyperbolic attitude of, "If you do not think like I do or like what I like than you are a hideous human being!" It is like people are trying to shame others into joining their herd.

Yeah, this kind of question really depends on who you ask.

Group A thinks gamers are a bunch of close minded, knuckle dragging neanderthals.

Group B thinks gamers are just like everybody else, warts and all.

Group A tends be louder than B, and meanwhile the rest of us are busy trying to figure out what the hell every-bodies going on about, and hey did you here about Blades in the Dark*?

*Swear to god that was an actual conversation I had with a friend. We were discussing some SJW BS that had us laughing when suddenly, "hey so there's this kickstarter..."

Quote from: Bren;822289You are wrong, in the sense that you still fail to understand the point Critias and others have made.

Here's the syllogism you want us to think should apply.

1) Playing RPGs requires imaginative people therefore all players of RPGs are imaginative people.

2) Imaginative people are willing to try new things therefore imaginative people will try any new thing, specifically the thing that Greentongue wants them to try.

1) and 2) imply 3) players of RPGs should try anything, specifically they should try the thing Greentongue wants them to try.

• Statement 1) is not true. While playing RPGs requires some imagination and playing RPGs certainly works better if the GM, at least, is imaginative, there is no requirement that the players are notably more imaginative than the average person.

• Statement 2) is not true. I'll ignore the premise. It may be true, it may not. However the conclusion does not follow from the premise, even if it is true. Being willing to try (some) new things does not require being willing to try any or all new things.

• Since neither statement 1) nor statement 2) are true. Statement 3) just does not follow and we can ignore it as unsupported nonsense.

The syllogism you seem to actually be applying is one of the most common geek social fallacies. The one that requires good geek friends to do everything together despite personal preferences to the contrary.

He didn't say RPGs required imaginative people. He said he assumed they were "more imaginative" than your average bear. He didn't assume all of them were (I don't think so, anyway). Begs the question, though: if the RPG's we're talking about require the creation of something from nothing, one would think there would be some imagination required above the norm, or at least motivation to indulge in such.  Ergo, those who play a lot of RPG's could be said to be more imaginative than your average person. Of course, motivation to do something doesn't automatically assume imagination. But I think I can get behind the idea that gamers are "more imaginative, generally speaking. I mean, 30+ years of doing this shit, and paying attention while I do it, bears that out, from an experiential point of view. I suppose there's some sort of demographic that can address the question, but a smarter person than me would have to find it.

That said, I'm with you on #2, because, as so many have already written here, "gamers are people" (well, MOST of the time).:-)

Quote from: Critias;8222613)  Some people don't have the time or inclination to invest -- their money, their hobby time, or both -- in a new game.  That doesn't mean they're close-minded, necessarily.  It could be that the game just doesn't appeal to them, it could be how someone's trying to sell them on the new game, it could be that they just really like another game.

It could be that they're just selfish pricks who take their ball and go home if they don't get they're way.
IMO not too far off showing up to a dinner party and complaining about the food... and demanding someone cook to their appetites.

Not all of course, but some people are coming off that way in this thread.

Quote from: Kiero;822226The stuff that happens after chargen is a "dice game" as you put it. The primary lever and window upon the game (ie my character) is entirely within my gift. I play what I choose, within the available options, not what the game designer's construction deigns to grant me based upon luck.

I don't come to a game thinking "I have no idea what I'm going to play, I'll see what arises". I come to a game thinking "in this setting and premise, I'd like to play this sort of character".

There is nothing random about it, because there are entire swathes of characters which don't appeal to me at all. Non-humans. Non-adults. Casters or magic/power-focused characters. Non-combatants. I will not enjoy a game where that is my character (or for that matter where any of those are the whole of the premise constraining the choices thus).

EDIT: I should note my whole group don't go in for random. Our last genuinely random game was WFRP2e, and we didn't do random starting careers (though everything else still was). Since then it's either been opting for the non-random choices in games where you can (D&D4e, 13th Age, ACKS), or playing games based on point buy (M&M1e) or fixed allocations (DFRPG, myriad nWoD). Only one person out of five likes random chargen, the rest of us prefer not to, or actively dislike.

It's human nature to want to control things. It is also human nature to enjoy surprise.  And you're stuck within the Designer's construct, anyway, even if you're selecting from his or her palette of choices. Assuming we're talking about typical D&D and such constructs, I would say it's a dice game because it uses dice in a vast majority of outcomes. Whether you buy and 18 or roll it, you're still subject to the dice for most of your outcomes (unless your party is heavier on RP'ing, but if you're point-buying, I would assume not necessarily?). I guess my take on it is, where'e the bother in accepting the dice rolls up front, as well. But then, I'm pretty casual about play, and so are the players I hang with, so that probably colors my attitude towards all that. Like you, I have a certain range or type of characters I like. But I'll play whatever, regardless of numbers, if I want to do it. I realize there are some modes of play and some systems where this is much more problematic than something like BFRPG or OD&D. I also realize some folks want more control. I never said those people were douche bags. I just said I didn't get the venom. I think one can politely refuse and play whatever they want. I don't expect everyone to agree with the way I play, certainly. I think it's good your group agrees on chargen. So does mine. I think that's what counts, right?

Quote from: cranebump;822329It's human nature to want to control things. It is also human nature to enjoy surprise.  And you're stuck within the Designer's construct, anyway, even if you're selecting from his or her palette of choices. Assuming we're talking about typical D&D and such constructs, I would say it's a dice game because it uses dice in a vast majority of outcomes. Whether you buy and 18 or roll it, you're still subject to the dice for most of your outcomes (unless your party is heavier on RP'ing, but if you're point-buying, I would assume not necessarily?). I guess my take on it is, where'e the bother in accepting the dice rolls up front, as well. But then, I'm pretty casual about play, and so are the players I hang with, so that probably colors my attitude towards all that. Like you, I have a certain range or type of characters I like. But I'll play whatever, regardless of numbers, if I want to do it. I realize there are some modes of play and some systems where this is much more problematic than something like BFRPG or OD&D. I also realize some folks want more control. I never said those people were douche bags. I just said I didn't get the venom. I think one can politely refuse and play whatever they want. I don't expect everyone to agree with the way I play, certainly. I think it's good your group agrees on chargen. So does mine. I think that's what counts, right?

The bother is that those rolls up front tell you what you're going to play. They remove my volition from the process entirely, and in a D&D setup they constrain my choices as well.

I'm glad we didn't roll careers in WFRP2e as you're supposed to, because frankly most of the starting careers are shit. Especially for a "heroic" game as we were playing.