If our Hobby has a problem, it is the difficulty of interpersonal communcation.

[William Ronald]

Great post, DethStryke!!
Heh. Why haven't you been in this thread before now?
I'd hate to be a Rules-Lawyer in one of your games.

Well put, William. As always. But check out Deth's post above. What do they call that? It's not dead-panning, nor sarcasm, nor parody. It's ?

I read DethStryke's post, and I think it is a gentle, but funny, spoof of your concern. We often have to bring the real world into our discussions of gaming, and it is often unavoidable. However, the rules work very well over here.

I do think DethStryke's post makes several important points. One in particular seems to get to the heart of many problems that I have seen in gaming groups:

I do agree with the spirit of your post, however, as many cannot separate observations from emotion, and divorce is not a flame-retardant topic.

I have known gamers who cannot separate observations from emotion. In a few instances, some people have viewed criticism of their in game actions or gaming styles as a criticism of them as persons. I view this as a problem as people can have very different gaming styles or interests in a game. Sometimes, groups should separate as not all members of a group have the same interests or enjoy the same things. (A sure sign that a group has problems is if the DM or some of the players are not having fun. Sometimes, these problems can be resolved and sometimes it is best to move on.)

 

[Hussar]

I've been reading exerpts from David Rushkoff's Thought Virus book and thought that this quote kind of links in here:

Thanks to the emergence of the Internet and its networked culture, a whole lot about our needs - both as consumers and as workers—has been put into perspective. Success has a variety of definitions and dimensions, and many of them are changing.

For instance, the most respected kids in the culture of computer games are not the ones who play the best; they're the ones who program the best. For they, even more than Nintendo champions, give the rest the players something to talk about, something to play with, and something through which they can connect with others. The driving force behind all of the authorship and creative energy of the networked age is the need to create what I’ve come to call social currency.

Networks are great, but until we can move through them ourselves, we’ll need proxies in the form of ideas, images, words, and other constructs that can be exchanged through our wires and screens. Even in the real, physical world, our engagements with one another are almost always predicated on something else. A party starts with a few good jokes to break the ice. "Invite Sam," we remind ourselves, "he tells good jokes."

Observe yourself the next time you’re listening to a joke. You may start by listening to the joke for the humor - because you really want the belly laugh at the end. But chances are, a few sentences in, you will find yourself not only listening, but attempting to remember its whole sequence. You’ll do this tentatively at first, until you’ve decided whether or not it's really a good joke. And if it is, you'll commit the entire thing to memory - maybe even with a personalized variation, or a mental note to yourself to fix that racist part. This is because the joke is a gift - it's a form of social currency that you’ll be able to take with you to the next party.

Just thought it kind of spoke to the issue. Being a good player isn't so much about being the best at the game, rather being the best player is being the one who can make the situation the most real for everyone playing, just as the heroes of the computing world aren't the ones with the highest scores, but the ones who make the best games.

Just a thought. And, admittedly, not much my own.

 

[DethStryke]

I read DethStryke's post, and I think it is a gentle, but funny, spoof of your concern. We often have to bring the real world into our discussions of gaming, and it is often unavoidable. However, the rules work very well over here.

Indeed. I thought it important to specify the rules and how they apply, but I saw no reason to attack anyone about a simple misunderstanding. The funny part is unavoidable for me, as I tend to use humor to "diffuse" what could be tense situations (which essentially telling someone over the internet that they are wrong typically is, regardless of how nice you are trying to be about it. ) While I was confident that my stance was correct rules-wise, I did read through the FAQ again to be sure.

And to answer Edena's comment, I typically don't get a lot of time to browse and comment on the boards. I'm also, contrary to what it seems here, not a rules lawyer. I felt it important to point it out not to be obnoxious, but rather to reinforce certain liberties that we all enjoy. Those who are new to the boards might read what you posted and think that to be fact (this is a testament to your visible intelligence and integrity). Those same people, who may otherwise offer a great insight to a discussion such as this, may refrain for fear of the Admin's wrath. That freedom of thought and speech I take very seriously. I know it seems small and insignificant when thinking in terms of a RPG message board. For these things i go by the saying: "Every raindrop doesn't think it's responsible for the flood."

But that's enough about that, lest I get off-topic!

I do think DethStryke's post makes several important points. One in particular seems to get to the heart of many problems that I have seen in gaming groups:

I have known gamers who cannot separate observations from emotion. In a few instances, some people have viewed criticism of their in game actions or gaming styles as a criticism of them as persons. I view this as a problem as people can have very different gaming styles or interests in a game. Sometimes, groups should separate as not all members of a group have the same interests or enjoy the same things. (A sure sign that a group has problems is if the DM or some of the players are not having fun. Sometimes, these problems can be resolved and sometimes it is best to move on.)

I think this is nigh unavoidable, unfortunately. Even those who typically take criticism well all have bad days or feel like a specific part of whatever is closer to their heart than usual. Hypocritical conduct is the real enemy in these cases, I suspect.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

Posted by SweeneyTodd:

There's nothing magical about being able to communicate with other people. I'd argue that outside of the hobby, it's not considered any kind of special, rare skill.

From Edena_of_Neith:

Ah, but ... as your post implies, within the Hobby it is considered a rare, special skill.
You seem to imply the DM, in particular, needs that skill in great amounts (not to mention a good work ethic!)
That is what I am saying too. Good communication skills are vital to the Hobby.

I'd rather phrase it this way: It's much easier to play a roleplaying game if the people in the group are functional, emotionally healthy people who are able to communicate. i.e., not damaged goods.

Or to put it another way: If you're going to perform group activities, you should have the social skills to do so. That's true for roleplaying, bowling, knitting, whatever.

I doubt our games would recognizably be "roleplaying" from your perspective, so I can't imagine my perspective would be that helpful to you. But the games we run don't require any kind of special work ethic on the part of the GM, because we distribute creative authorities (and responsibilities) across the entire group.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

and I would retort by saying that the level of divorce in America alone proves that not being able to communicate effectively with others IS a special, rare skill.

Point taken.

(And I think you're being too polite about Edena's backseat modding -- just ignore it.)

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

Well now ... I did say something about the atmosphere being poisoned by Gamers dissing Gamers ...

 

[beaver1024]

Maybe the simple explanation could be there are better quality entertainment options around that are better value for money?

 

[DethStryke]

Maybe the simple explanation could be there are better quality entertainment options around that are better value for money?

The operative word is "better". We could argue all year as to what better means to every person and never get close to reaching an accord.

This is a complex question which requires a complex answer because it is directly impacted by a vast number of individuals. Each person involved brings a new dynamic that is unique to them. Even if they are close to others in a particular view or stance, chances are they arrived at that view or stance from a different path which affects different parts of the situation for them. Just too many variables to have a simple explanation.

Regardless, most will find a common statement that gets close to the middle ground for everyone and simply throw that on as a blanket statement. In that case there will be plenty of people and situations that this does not relate correctly to, but it is far easier and faster to generate opinions that are "close enough" than those that are exact. The reason being, I believe, is that the value of answering the question is outweighed by the effort it would take to do so.