From trying to get people to play games (Empire of the Petal Throne for example) I have found that gamers can be some of the most close minded people I know.
Not that they are _more_ close minded, just that they have been Put to the Test and failed to deliver.
I don't know that system.
I only play {the most popular system that day}.
That doesn't let me play a {specific racial or class}.
...
Is it just my small exposure or is there a lot more talk than action when offered to try something new?
=
Gamers are like sports fans. Very tribal of their preferences and hostile towards anything they don't "approve of". This of course carries over into things other than games, as we've seen.
I'll try any* game at least once.
...
*=obvious exceptions apply : FATAL, RaHoWa, Maid, etc.
The ones I know, not very as far as games go.
How open minded are gamers? Try calling Fiasco a true role playing game here and see how that goes.
When I was in my teens to my early 20s, I was pretty willing to try any new game. Most of my peers at that time were the same way.
Over time I noticed many of the gamers in my group quit wanting to try new games. For most of them it happened mid 20s. Most of them developed an attachment to one system and wanted their game time to be focused on that. They didn't see the need to learn something different just for another game.
I'm somewhat similar. My interest in new games probably petered out late 30s. I accumulated and learned a lot of different games. I've reached a point where I feel it's impractical to invest money and study time into something new for that kind of entertainment. That said, there are quite a few games on my to-play list. I'm open to variety within that list, but I'm not going to jump into something outside of it.
Quote from: Certified;822056How open minded are gamers? Try calling Fiasco a true role playing game here and see how that goes.
FIASCO is a true role playing game. It meets all the necessary requirements for being a role playing game.
I've tried lots of things over the years; I have a very good idea what I like and what is complete shite.
Well, I am finding that, the older they are, the less likely they are to want to learn something entirely new. They will play variants of systems sharing the same basic "language" (i.e., if I like 3.5, I'll play Microlite). I'M the stickler for certain sub-genre's--for example I just don't dig a ton of "weird" races in any fantasy campaign, for various narrow and personal (maybe stupid) reasons--I just can't grok why anyone wants to play a lizardman, for example, 'cuz all they're doing is playing a human in lizard-skin. Had a player want to be a pseudo-dragon once (why? WHY?). I just don't think that way, so I nix some systems if that's a feature, only because I don't want to pretend we're not human, when we're all acting like humans, or demi-humans, anyway. Personal prejudice, I know.
Thinking about it now, maybe this is because of the investment in time it takes to start playing an RPG-- creating characters, etc.
Quote from: cranebump;822065Well, I am finding that, the older they are, the less likely they are to want to learn something entirely new. They will play variants of systems sharing the same basic "language" (i.e., if I like 3.5, I'll play Microlite). I'M the stickler for certain sub-genre's--for example I just don't dig a ton of "weird" races in any fantasy campaign, for various narrow and personal (maybe stupid) reasons--I just can't grok why anyone wants to play a lizardman, for example, 'cuz all they're doing is playing a human in lizard-skin. Had a player want to be a pseudo-dragon once (why? WHY?). I just don't think that way, so I nix some systems if that's a feature, only because I don't want to pretend we're not human, when we're all acting like humans, or demi-humans, anyway. Personal prejudice, I know.
This is what I've found. Trying different rpg's isn't like trying a new food- there's a time investment involved. The older you get, the less free time you have, and the that time becomes more precious.
Quote from: Greentongue;822047From trying to get people to play games (Empire of the Petal Throne for example) I have found that gamers can be some of the most close minded people I know.
Not that they are _more_ close minded, just that they have been Put to the Test and failed to deliver.
I don't know that system.
I only play {the most popular system that day}.
That doesn't let me play a {specific racial or class}.
...
Is it just my small exposure or is there a lot more talk than action when offered to try something new?
=
I think it is a general geek culture thing. We decide we like something and then really, really like it. I don't think all of us are that way, but I know I personally have that tendency.
Quote from: cranebump;822065Well, I am finding that, the older they are, the less likely they are to want to learn something entirely new.
I haven't really seen that. I know it's a popular stereotype though (ageism, when are the SJW going to go stand up against that prejudice?).
When I was first playing RPGs there were the kids who wanted to play anything/everything and the kids who absolutely refused to play anything but D&D... and were openly hostile towards any other system. I figure the vast majority of stodgy old guys who won't explore are the same ones who wouldn't try new games as kids.
I revolted against D&D early on... and was goggle-eyed at all the new games I was seeing in the stores.
I see the same thing today, at 45. Some guys I play with are wide open to trying new flavors, others never have ventured out much past their initial system.
I'm happy to try just about anything. I might not want to run it, and I do have my favorites (not all of them 'old'), but as long as the games I know and love are still on the menu somewhere I'm fine with exploring... I like trying new stuff.
Now... maybe those guys who wouldn't budge off of D&D back then continued to play RPGs regularly whereas a lot of the more adventurous guys moved on to other sorts of pastimes. Resulting in the stodgy ones over-representing now.
I've met a number of guys who seem like they've been stuck in a gaming rut for decades... to where I'm not sure they even enjoy the game anymore but just can't imagine what else they'd be doing on Saturday nights.
As a parallel tangent I'll say that I haven't found gamers to be nearly as imaginative as they like to claim they are... always pulling from the same narrow band of source material and being fairly conservative in what actually happens at the table. "Let's watch this new historical fantasy from Finland!" "No thanks, it's got subtitles... besides, I'd rather just watch The Princess Bride again for the zillionth time"
Quote from: Greentongue;822047From trying to get people to play games (Empire of the Petal Throne for example) I have found that gamers can be some of the most close minded people I know.
Not that they are _more_ close minded, just that they have been Put to the Test and failed to deliver.
I don't know that system.
I only play {the most popular system that day}.
That doesn't let me play a {specific racial or class}.
...
Is it just my small exposure or is there a lot more talk than action when offered to try something new?
=
Oh, 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.
I am always kind of stunned when people suggest it's Not OK to decide what entertained you like. If I don't want to play a game about robot mobsters, why should I? That's it a reflection on your desire to do so. Your fun does not depend on everyone liking what you like.
This may have something to do with the truism of "if it ain't broken, don't try to fix it." If people are content with what they have, there's no reason to take a risk unless the new thing really excites them.
If you're excited by a particular system, is it possible to lend the books to a player or two to check it out and see if they get excited about it? If the game is based on a particular kind of setting, you might even get them to read the literature.
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.
I 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.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;822085When you ask someone to switch to a new system, you're asking for a time investment.
Not so much asking them to 'switch' as just give it a try... even that can be like asking for their first born child.
It's not much of a time investment to sit down as a Player and try something new once in a while. Players are notorious for not being willing to read the rules or setting material... which is fine by me, if I want to run a game I'll fill them in as we play.
I pushed back when my old group wanted to play 4e... but I was willing to try it if for no other reason that to shore up my complaints against it. It didn't involve any 'time investment' on my part... unless you count the handful of sessions we spent playing that instead of something else.
Why wouldn't you count the sessions spent playing as a time investment? I've run into this all the time and not just games, movies, books, TV shows, anything someone makes their own Personal Jesus entertainment wise often gets upset, even offended if you tell them it doesn't look like something you'd be interested in and accuses you have being "close minded" as if I don't know my own tastes well enough to make a decision based on observation and past experiences.
It comes out sounding like "You can't decide you're not interested in, for example, seeing this movie without seeing the movie." which is kind of ridiculous. No one consumes every single piece of media they encounter, plays every game and listen to every bit of music. The time spent on making myself do something I'm not interested in time I could spend doing something I'll enjoy or experiencing new things that I am interested in. No one has infinite time.
Quote from: Simlasa;822088Not so much asking them to 'switch' as just give it a try... even that can be like asking for their first born child.
It's not much of a time investment to sit down as a Player and try something new once in a while. Players are notorious for not being willing to read the rules or setting material... which is fine by me, if I want to run a game I'll fill them in as we play.
I pushed back when my old group wanted to play 4e... but I was willing to try it if for no other reason that to shore up my complaints against it. It didn't involve any 'time investment' on my part... unless you count the handful of sessions we spent playing that instead of something else.
I love trying new systems, and I have a financial interest in people trying new systems, but I just can't hold it against someone if they want to stick to d20 or GURPS when that is what they've been playing for ages. If they don't want to try something new, I think it is unhelpful to guilt them into doing so.
Quote from: ArrozConLeche;822081This may have something to do with the truism of "if it ain't broken, don't try to fix it." If people are content with what they have, there's no reason to take a risk unless the new thing really excites them.
That's pretty much how I see it. I know what I like and I don't need a lot of variation to be happy. Admittedly not the most exciting attitude, but it works for me. We can't all be eccentrics and inventors, and they generally don't have much time or motivation for regular gaming anyway.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;822093I love trying new systems, and I have a financial interest in people trying new systems, but I just can't hold it against someone if they want to stick to d20 or GURPS when that is what they've been playing for ages. If they don't want to try something new, I think it is unhelpful to guilt them into doing so.
This makes you a good dude in my book:)
Quote from: Simlasa;822088It's not much of a time investment to sit down as a Player and try something new once in a while.
I would dispute this. I try new systems all the time, but it always requires additional amount of time to do. If you are a gamer and play once a week with your friends, and you've been playing the same system for a long time, then when someone asks you to try a new game, they are requesting an investment of your time in a new system. It is fairly easy to try a new game, but I can see how someone who just wants to get in their weekly session, might not want to blow it learning a new game they have little interest in. Five hours at the table playing a new game is absolutely a time investment. Everyone has a different threshold for how much they are willing to risk on a new system. Some folks are cool trying 1 system every week, others are okay trying new systems once in a while, and some found what they like and don't see any reason to spend five hours on something new.
Gamers are people.
I try to keep it down to about 3 systems that I'll run at any time, simply because I don't want to try and remember the minutae of rules for more systems than that.
Still, I'm happy to try out pretty much any RPG as a player.
I've found games tend to fall into two groups: those who find a game they like and generally just play it and those who like variety and tend not to stay with any one game for long ("long" is pretty variable, however). Those in the second group are generally far more willing to try something different than those in the first group. Different strokes for different folks.
Back when I was younger had had a lot more free time (and available cash) I could satisfy my desire to play D&D and still had time and money to try try other games. Some weeks I ran D&D, some other game, and played in yet another. Now I am lucky to free up one afternoon/evening a week to play and want to spend that time running one of my fantasy worlds using a old school D&D system because that's what I know I really enjoy. I also lack the time I once had to learn new systems and the medical bills mean I have to greatly limit my game buying. I have neither the time or money to try things that I don't thing will interest me at least as much as what I'm currently playing/running.
As an "old gamer" - I don't think age has a thing to do with it other than garner experience in different ways of task resolution, and having the experience and critical skills to know what you like and why.
Ironically I've come to the idea it doesn't matter one shit if someone likes/doesn't like a game: it's more important to get GM's that are passionate about running a game they like, and selling it to players. Period. If they don't like it - then there's no game.
Who's having fun now?
I have plenty of games my players refuse to play - so we don't play them. Some for perfectly fine reasons, others for stupid reasons. Where the rubber hits the road is where people are willing to put their preconceptions aside and just go for it.
A corollary of this is: we need more people to GM. And a passionate GM is better than a limpdick GM who does it "because no one else will." If I'm playing I want a GM that's gonna sell me on his shitty make-believe world, and show me in-game why it's actually awesome. I try to do that with every campaign I run.
It helps I'm a system whore too.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;822093If they don't want to try something new, I think it is unhelpful to guilt them into doing so.
I certainly wouldn't advocate that... but I remain skeptical that trying a session or two of a new game is much of a price to pay when your gamer buddy buys the thing and want's to give it a whirl.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;822049I'll try any* game at least once.
...
*=obvious exceptions apply : FATAL, RaHoWa, Maid, etc.
Hmm, I'll have to say I'd give Maid a try with a bunch of hot chicks as the players.
To the OP, gamers are narrow close-minded fucks like everyone else, just about different things, and with many that includes type of game, specific game, specific narrow limited aspect of the one game they only play.
My response always is "Ok, will let you know when we play it, but we probably won't."
Quote from: Simlasa;822125I certainly wouldn't advocate that... but I remain skeptical that trying a session or two of a new game is much of a price to pay when your gamer buddy buys the thing and want's to give it a whirl.
Well one or two sessions is an average of between 4.5 and 11 hours of my time as a player. Lets conservatively call that 6 hours. 15 years ago I used to bill out at about $100/hour. Since then I've acquired a graduate degree in my field and 15 years of industry experience. So I should be billing out at a significantly higher rate. But for the sake of discussion let's use the 15 year old rate of $100/hour. Asking me to spend $600 to do something I don't have much interest in doing sounds like a fairly high price to pay to indulge someone else. What's that buddy done for me lately?
Quote from: Simlasa;822070I haven't really seen that. I know it's a popular stereotype though (ageism, when are the SJW going to go stand up against that prejudice?).
Well, I'm 52, so I'm commenting on my contemporaries. I run both a youth group and an adult group. The youth group will jump on anything. With the adults, the main word is "entirely." They'll run variants on the D&D theme and mechanics, which includes a LOT of games. But I do think that mainly due to time constraints, jobs and such, that getting into anything complex or radically different just isn't something everyone is up for.
Have you noticed that people play the same type of character every time?
While maybe not "themselves", at least basically "my fighter" or "my elven thief" instead of a completely different character than the last couple.
In my youth I labored under the impression that people like me that gamed were open to new ideas and cultures. Over the years I just came to see "Tolken reskined" and people replaying their favorite character.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying there is anything Wrong with it, just an observation.
=
The groups I have DMed for have been pretty open to trying new games.
But.
Theyd really prefer to stick to one game once things get rolling.
When I was the club master for the group in my hometown though we changed games fairly often. About once every 3-4 sessions. Mostly cycling between Robotech, Beyond the Supernatural, Marvel Super Heroes, and Torg.
Quote from: Simlasa;822125I certainly wouldn't advocate that... but I remain skeptical that trying a session or two of a new game is much of a price to pay when your gamer buddy buys the thing and want's to give it a whirl.
I don't know upwards of 10-12 hours of my time that I could be spending doing something I want to do or need to do is a pretty significant investment to in order to cater to someone else's whim. They didn't consult me before they bought the game, after all, just assumed I would be there and if they really want to play I'm not the only gamer in the world, they can get together with some others. They don't have to have me there to play.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;822049I'll try any* game at least once.
...
*=obvious exceptions apply : FATAL, RaHoWa, Maid, etc.
i have been meaning to pick up racial holy war for an insight into the minds of the authors for villain ideas.
if i told my players i would never run maid i think i would be flayed, drawn and quartered
Quote from: RunningLaser;822067This is what I've found. Trying different rpg's isn't like trying a new food- there's a time investment involved. The older you get, the less free time you have, and the that time becomes more precious.
and then you retire and suddenly you have all this free time again
Quote from: Greentongue;822144Have you noticed that people play the same type of character every time?
While maybe not "themselves", at least basically "my fighter" or "my elven thief" instead of a completely different character than the last couple.
In my youth I labored under the impression that people like me that gamed were open to new ideas and cultures. Over the years I just came to see "Tolken reskined" and people replaying their favorite character.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying there is anything Wrong with it, just an observation.
=
nothing wrong with having a type at all i will occasionally play something difrent but most of my characters are neutral good human wizard. of course i do make a few changes in personality but values will stay mostly the same.
Quote from: Bren;822136What's that buddy done for me lately?
Maybe something like host/GM games for the group for a few hours every week for the past few years... maybe when he didn't feel like it, maybe when he wished the group was playing something else.
I used to belong to a wargames club and there was a general mindset that if someone showed up with a new game and wanted to try it out we oughtta, at some point, give it a try. Just a polite custom that I'd benefit from if I happened to show up someday with something new I wanted to try out.
Sometimes yeah, "Hey, this game kinda sucks! Let's play X next time."... sometimes, "Hey, that was better than I expected! Let's play again next week!"
Maybe I'm mistakenly assuming you're friends with the guys you roleplay with...
Quote from: Greentongue;822144Have you noticed that people play the same type of character every time?
While maybe not "themselves", at least basically "my fighter" or "my elven thief" instead of a completely different character than the last couple.
That'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.
I consider myself open-minded, but I also know what I like and at this point in my life it doesn't take an in-depth exploration of something for me to know whether I'd enjoy it or not. A short description will do.
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.
No thanks. Randomness in chargen can go fuck itself.
Quote from: Kiero;822200No thanks. Randomness in chargen can go fuck itself.
So much for open-mindedness.
Quote from: Greentongue;822144Have you noticed that people play the same type of character every time?
While maybe not "themselves", at least basically "my fighter" or "my elven thief" instead of a completely different character than the last couple.
In my youth I labored under the impression that people like me that gamed were open to new ideas and cultures. Over the years I just came to see "Tolken reskined" and people replaying their favorite character.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying there is anything Wrong with it, just an observation.
=
Some do, some don't. Gamers come in all shades and hues. I know gamers who play the same basic archetype, no matter what the game, I know some who deliberately try to play something new every game. I know some who base their characters on characters from TV shows/films/books etc they happen to be enjoying at the moment the game starts. And I know players who just like to roll up some stats and let the character develope naturally over the course of a game. I don't see anything wrong with any of these approaches.
Quote from: Beagle;822201So much for open-mindedness.
if hating random stats is close minded i dont wanna be tolerant
Quote from: Greentongue;822144Have you noticed that people play the same type of character every time?
Some do. Some don’t. It's not too surprising that different people differ in their preferences. It would be an unusual thing if they didn't.
Quote from: Simlasa;822190Maybe something like host/GM games for the group for a few hours every week for the past few years... maybe when he didn't feel like it, maybe when he wished the group was playing something else.
Then he should have manned up and owned his own choices rather than thinking that his choice to be Mr. Pleaser obligated other people to do what he wants them to do.
Maybe they felt they were sometimes obliging the GM by showing up to play in his games rather than doing some other thing they enjoy instead. That doesn't obligate the GM to keep running something he doesn't enjoy. Similarly the GM running something he doesn't enjoy doesn't obligate them to play something he thinks he would enjoy more.
QuoteI used to belong to a wargames club and there was a general mindset that if someone showed up with a new game and wanted to try it out we oughtta, at some point, give it a try. Just a polite custom that I'd benefit from if I happened to show up someday with something new I wanted to try out.
Sometimes yeah, "Hey, this game kinda sucks! Let's play X next time."... sometimes, "Hey, that was better than I expected! Let's play again next week!"
Since that was the social expectation of the group that was what people expected. Sounds like you aren’t playing with that group and this new group has different social expectations. It’s ironic that you are complaining about them not being open to something new when you, yourself, are not open to their social expectations. It's also interesting that your example of what you prefer is club play not than a closed group of friends. Might have something to do with the club having different social expectations than the closed group of friends has.
QuoteMaybe I'm mistakenly assuming you're friends with the guys you roleplay with...
Maybe you are mistaking your expectation of what being friends means with some universal truism. Just because people are your friends it doesn’t give you a right to expect them to do what you want regardless of their desires. That is an expectation one might have of servants, not friends.
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.
Quote from: Kiero;822340The 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.
I can't really make a judgment on WFRP, but I'll take your word for it. And if your game is meant to be heroic, and the ability to be that is driven by having the choices or numbers you want, I would certainly think you'd have to go that way. Now, that said, I do respectfully disagree that the random rolls really tell me what I'm going to play in most D&D systems. Unless there's a stat min or some such, you really CAN play anything--again, depending on specific system, of course. Note that I'm not saying you should. I think where you see a constraint, I see an opportunity. However, had I something specific in mind, I might see things differently. I'll admit you can likely account my views on this as a product of the fantasy systems we play.
I should probably add that, for the Superhero games we run (and we've run a lot of them), the systems we use are, by default, point buy systems. But that's because Superheroes can operate from such wildly different templates and in their execution of what they do, vary in many ways. However, we've done some random stuff there, too. Since you CAN be pretty rad with just about anything Super, it works out. Might be different, given a different system.
Quote from: cranebump;822326He 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).
If RPGs don't require that all (or nearly all) players are imaginative, then talking about imagination doesn't get him anywhere.
QuoteErgo, those who play a lot of RPG's could be said to be more imaginative than your average person.
Traditionally the bulk of the imagination is required of the GM. So those who play RPGs may well be no more imaginative than the average person. They may just happen to channel what imagination they do have into playing RPGs instead of playing fantasy football, writing fan fiction, acting in community theater, or some other hobby.
I'm not saying players aren't more imaginative than average. I think most of us would like to think we and our friends are more imaginative than average. But I have no data and don't have a strong opinion about that one way or another.
Quote from: Bren;822344I'm not saying players aren't more imaginative than average. I think most of us would like to think we and our friends are more imaginative than average. But I have no data and don't have a strong opinion about that one way or another.
I getcha. No way to quantify. Sort of
feels true, but it could be all the "imagination" is just our social maladjustment and general kookiness. :-)
Quote from: cranebump;822510I getcha. No way to quantify. Sort of feels true, but it could be all the "imagination" is just our social maladjustment and general kookiness. :-)
Yes. :)
Or it is a story we tell ourselves to make us feel better about our choices and position in life. Had you asked me the same question when I was in my teens or even my twenties, I likely would have thought gamers were more imaginative. Now? I don't really care about the answer and I think the question is unimportant.
As a GM I work with the imaginations I have, both mine and those of the people at the table. Whether we are more imaginative or less imaginative than some unquantifiable average is uninteresting and irrelevant to play since the rest of the world that makes up the average aren't sitting at the table with us.
"Don't be so open minded your brain falls out."
I think the bigger issue is of a narrowed pool of players. Lots of people, especially over the years, tend to reduce their campaign tables to one or two. Thus rotating games is going to interfere with squeezing out the fun of what currently has momentum. It also gets to a higher desire for character micro-management (creation, mortality, etc.).
Now, schedules being what they are, I am not going to say one must up their game table groups. However, with more tables and different circles of people, it helps the adventurous scratch that itch. Similarly holding a stable of characters for a campaign frees up a variety of characters from any particular adventure arc or scenario.
I'd like to consider myself way more on the open & flexible spectrum of RPG play. I feel it helps my creativity and scratches more of those itches without having them bleed into the same campaign or arc. I understand people knowing what they like and staying in a (rather staid, to me) comfort zone.
But then I'm similarly adventurous when it comes to trying new things in just about everything else in my life — my interests are very broad. (However, I do have my blind spots. For example, having tried most physical activities, I found that I hate just about all of them. Sports of all stripes is just not for me and my time is limited on earth.)
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 should game with me! I'll imagine your socks off! (Which reminds me I need to follow up on my next Open Call for my D&D 5e (mostly) RAW PbP here...)
My player group is quite open-minded and willing to trust me on the games I want to run.
Variety is the spice of life. I play tons of games. I've run or played dozens of different RPGs. I am also an avid board gamer and video gamer. I cant imagine wanting to play just one kind of game much less one specific game. There are too many cool games out there. I will play an RPG system for a few months or even years and then move on to something else. I've taken away ideas of how to approach other games from those I've played which I feel is enriching.
I acknowledge I am pretty unusual in this. My geek tribalism isn't around a game, but around games as a category.
This means I get to do some gaming every day. What could be better?
My players will try something new as long as they have to put in absolutely no effort or time away from the table.
So then the question becomes how keen am I to learn a new system, walk every player through character generation, and handle all mechanics and rules look-ups during play.
People that want to run games make proposals and pitches, those that are interested in them play. As a group are interests are pretty diverse but individual players know what they like and what sounds interesting enough to try. There's only a couple that I'd say are up up for anything and some have limited interest outside of certain genres and styles.
This isn't a gaming thing. It's a human thing.
Not one of you would dare tell me that I was closed-minded, for instance, for liking the colors purple, blue, silver and black and not being particularly jazzed about orange, yellow or brown.
Not one of you would dare tell me that there was something wrong with me liking steak and potatoes, and not being into Thai food.
Not one of you would dare get on my case for being a hockey and soccer fan, and being relatively indifferent about NASCAR and basketball.
Not one of you would dare yell in rage that I just wanted to listen to classical music, folk and classic rock, and that I had zero interest in C&W and less than zero interest in hip-hop.
(Well, some of you might: there are assholes everywhere in the world.)
I am a grown adult, and I'm allowed to have preferences. I am allowed to enjoy tea and dislike coffee. I'm allowed to enjoy SF and have little use for romance novels. I'm allowed to worship at a Unitarian Universalist church and decline to go anywhere near a Pentecostal or Baptist church. I'm allowed to sing in a university chorus focusing on classical music, and decline to sing in a barbershop quartet.
I am not going to seek anyone's approval for, or brook anyone's interference with, these choices.
And in like fashion, I play point-buy; I won't touch random gen. I have a strong preference for GURPS. I'll play fantasy, supers, pulp and low-yield SF; I won't touch horror or espionage. I like plenty of RP; I'm indifferent towards hack-n-slash.
QuoteI am a grown adult, and I'm allowed to have preferences.
QuoteI am not going to seek anyone's approval for, or brook anyone's interference with, these choices.
Yup, and you're allowed to suffer the consequences of refusing to compromise on those preferences when you're with a group of adults with different preferences.
You can do lots of things by yourself but RPGs generally require a group... which means 'my way or the highway' probably ain't gonna work out too well.
For myself, I'd rather play a game I'm only marginally interested in (Pathfinder) than stick to my guns and proudly stay home alone, reading my copy of Noumenon (weird game no one wants to play)... because in the end it's more about the people at the table and having a good time with them than it is about getting my way on some bullshit game preference.
Quote from: Ravenswing;823379Not one of you would dare tell me that I was closed-minded, for instance, for liking the colors purple, blue, silver and black and not being particularly jazzed about orange, yellow or brown.
No, but we'll make fun of you for your blue text fetish.
I don't see sense in doing something for allegedly for fun if you aren't enjoying it. For example, I don't like Dungeon Fantasy. I've tried it before, never liked it. Why would I want to spend hours doing something I don't like and don't want to do when I could be doing other things I would enjoy while the group does something they enjoy when they want to play D and D. I could show up, roll some dice and hang out, possibly being an unintentional buzz kill or spend my recreational time doing something more fun. I can hang out with those friends some other time.
What consequences am I suffering? Not playing a game I don't enjoy or maybe doing other things aside from gaming with other people than a particular segment of the gaming crowd around here? Gaming isn't my only social outlet or interaction. Its just something I like to do and the people I do it with are often my friends but not my only ones. And they don't play in every game either
Quote from: Nexus;823401I don't see sense in doing something for allegedly for fun if you aren't enjoying it.
I suppose not if you're really not going to get any enjoyment out of it at all... because it's not precisely the game and style of play you like.
If I limited myself that way I'd hardly ever play. I'd still run games... but the chances of finding groups playing exactly the games I want, the way I want to play them... is pretty much nil.
I've had better luck online... but even then, it's usually a random assemblage... there are ALWAYS compromises that I either choose to make or walk away from.
It's not that I won't quit a group if I'm not having fun... but my sense of fun has a lot more to do with the other people at the table rather than what game we happen to be playing.
Getting to play my favorite system won't mean crap if the guys at the table are duds to be around... and if they're a fun group I get along with them then just about any game is going to be entertaining. At least that's been my experience.
Quote from: Simlasa;823408I suppose not if you're really not going to get any enjoyment out of it at all... because it's not precisely the game and style of play you like.
If I limited myself that way I'd hardly ever play. I'd still run games... but the chances of finding groups playing exactly the games I want, the way I want to play them... is pretty much nil.
I've played in games that aren't exactly what I want many times. But there are some things I don't like at all playing and pitches that haven't sounded fun. so why waste my time?
It's not a binary "My way or the highway" situation, but there are things I'm not going to do. I don't see there anything wrong with that.
QuoteIt's not that I won't quit a group if I'm not having fun... but my sense of fun has a lot more to do with the other people at the table rather than what game we happen to be playing.
Getting to play my favorite system won't mean crap if the guys at the table are duds to be around... and if they're a fun group I get along with them then just about any game is going to be entertaining. At least that's been my experience.
I'm not going to game with a bunch of assholes regardless of the game and a nice group can make the social aspect of gaming enjoyable regardless of the game but for me, at the end of the day, getting together to game is mostly about the game. I've been around some fun groups but games I didn't enjoy but that didn't really make up from the poor experience with the game.
Quote from: Nexus;823409I don't see there anything wrong with that.
Nothing 'wrong', no. Just different priorities than me, I guess... I put the 'socializing with friends' part far above the 'game' part.
QuoteI've been around some fun groups but games I didn't enjoy but that didn't really make up from the poor experience with the game.
Yeah, see... I've never had that experience. It's always been the people that have been the make/break element.
Quote from: Simlasa;823413Nothing 'wrong', no. Just different priorities than me, I guess... I put the 'socializing with friends' part far above the 'game' part.
Whereas I don't put them that way around. I can socialise any old time, game night is for gaming. Any socialising is incidental, not the purpose of the activity. Again, same if I get together with a bunch of people for a kick-about, the football is the priority, not the chatting.
Quote from: Simlasa;823413Nothing 'wrong', no. Just different priorities than me, I guess... I put the 'socializing with friends' part far above the 'game' part.
Yeah, see... I've never had that experience. It's always been the people that have been the make/break element.
As you said, different priorities. When I'm playing the focus in on the game for me. Socialization is a part of it but that's based on the game. If they're cool people, I can hang out with them in different ways and do something I find fun. Or just hang out.