No its not just a case of some people use it for search and destroy pretty much everyone. in fact the sort of role playing going on in the game is so limited it could be achieved with for example a telephone. Shall we now add all the telephones in the world to your total because a few people might be able to use it for some ultra-limited form of role playing?molonel said:
Computers beat up my role player
Patryn of Elvenshae
First Post
Shadeydm said:
Doesn't that basically describe, say, the first couple years of D&D that everyone plays, though?
I know it certainly applied to mine! (And, additionally, I know I got *much* cooler stuff while playing D&D than I ever did playing WoW.)
In fact, we used to joke about my DM's uncle's character
Shadeydm said:
What makes WoW not a roleplaying game, though?
That's what I'm asking.
You've said that sometimes the roleplaying element is minimal. Great. WoD players like to make fun of D&D players as basically being COMBATCOMBATCOMBATalittleroleplayingCOMBATCOMBATCOMBAT.
Gentlegamer
Adventurer
This distinction between our views is not philosophical; it is factual.molonel said:
My belief has nothing to do with me taking note of that fact that they are not.
I noted that this is the area in which number of players is relevant; that is, sans video game players. You're quite right that all thes players should be taken into account (adding them all up may give truth to your assertion); however, the fact that D&D is, and always has been, (without contest) far and away the market leader in the RPG industry suggests that the "other RPG" numbers will not add much to the total, comparatively. That is, using the numbers of D&D players from 1982 (or any prior era) to compare to the number of D&D players to the modern era is a useful comparison to gauge popularity of role-playing games.
I believe it is an accurate paraphrase of Ryan Dancey to say, "D&D is the RPG industry."
Ditto.
There are video games that are called "RPGs," yes, but they are not actually role-playing games any more than the Madden NFL series of games are actual football games.
Again, if you mean actual (tabletop) RPGs, we'll need to see the actual numbers . . . you may be correct. If you are lumping video games in with that term . . . it's not really worth trying to discuss this rationally with you.
Gentlegamer said:
Let me point something out to you. I've stated that my views are my opinions. I've acknowledged that other people differ in their opinions.
You, on the other hand, have weighed in with this:
Gentlegamer said:
A fact can be demonstrated and proven.
You have placed a higher burden of proof upon yourself, and then, failed to meet it.
I've simply stated my opinion.
Gentlegamer said:
But how MUCH of the market does it now comprise? That's the question. It is unquestionably smaller than it was.
But, then again, there are now more roleplaying games than ever before.
Let me parse that, because both meanings are equally true:
There are more tabletop games than ever before.
There are more roleplaying games of all varieties than ever before.
Gentlegamer said:
That is certainly an assertion.
Gentlegamer said:
Like I said, I've never seen anyone compile those numbers.
Gentlegamer said:
Well, rational discussions generally have a habit of challenging unspoken or unproveable assumptions.
Vocenoctum
First Post
Col_Pladoh said:So you have too much spare time on your hands?
Hard-core gamers have someone demonstrate the new system...like the GM!
J/K
Gary
The way it always worked back in the old days, the players would be wandering the store, see some cool cover, read some back cover text and decide that was a game we needed to play.
Then they would give me the book and ask to explain it to them once I finished!
I had lots of lazy players.
Gentlegamer
Adventurer
Assertions of facts are not opinions; that is, they can be correct or incorrect. An incorrect assertion of fact is a factual error.molonel said:
What you quoted are two separate statements. The first, that our difference on this matter is not philosophical, but factual. That is, philosophy has nothing to do with our disagreement. Our disagreement is whether video game "RPGs" are actually role-playing games (and in turn should be considered as part of the RPG market, number-wise). This is a question of fact. We have conflicting assertions of fact, not statements of philosophical outlook. That is what I mean by factual, not philosophical.
The second statement you quoted is related to the first. Belief has nothing to do with what we are disagreeing about. Our disagreement is on what the fact of the matter is.
It is encouraging that you understand this.
We have equal burdens of proof because your assertion is one that turns upon fact, not opinion of that fact. I admit that I have not cited criteria that differentiates video game "RPGs" from actual RPGs (though most anyone with knowledge of both industries should easily see the distinction, in my opinion); this too is a factual assertion that may be proved or disproved. It is not a matter of opinion.
I disagree, and do question it (though this is a factual matter that can be proven or disproved . . . I may be wrong); once again, the OGL is premised upon the demonstrated fact that D&D is the market leader and that any growth in the market adds to the market leader's share. Because of this, using D&D's number of players gives a pretty accurate view of the number of players of role-playing games in general.
I notice how you have shifted your terms. We began measuring number of players and now you are using number of games.
This is a completely different assertion than "there are more people playing role-playing games now than ever before."
The shifting sands of your argument and the imprecision of your terms may make this debate ultimately fruitless, in my opinion.
Compiling the actual numbers of players of actual role-playing games is how to uncover the fact of the matter (numbers that do not include players of video games). Your basic assertion may turn out to be correct.
And shaking out precision in the terms we use to make assertions.
[And of course, rational discussions cannot have habits, only tendencies, but that is probably just nitpicking.
]Similar Threads
