What you're talking about is a barrier to entry. I mean, I'd start by saying that of you enumerated examples, some (such as computer or console games) do not have a very high barrier to entry; I would actually say, based on the fact that I need to mute chat on any on-line game I play, that the barrier to entry for computer and console games isn't very high.
You can mute someone in computer games quite easily. You can blacklist them, too. There's no real cost to the mutee/banee... until you try to get involved in higher-level, proper team play or even when you've just got a few cold kills under your belt. Then effort must be put in and real skill gained. And then most of those trolls and hackers stop playing because its no fun playing against their own. They just slapped down $60 for that only to stop playing a few weeks later because they've been effectively ostracized because people really tryin' to 'git gud out here and aren't going to suffer foolishness.
(I'm being generous saying they paid for the game, by the way. A lot of em' just pirate because they haven't got money in the first place or aren't interested in the buy-in via real skill instead. Cost is too high man, they're not gonna bother).
But the bigger problem is you seem to be saying that the barrier to entry of "cost" is what keeps "jerky people" out of certain activities.
*I hope that's not what you're saying. That's why I bolded the parts of your comment that I was responding to.
Individual financial wealth IME is strongly correlated with effort, risk and mindset. That's why I use it as a filter in the face of imperfect data. People don't like it but its effective. People who are
doing stuff not only have this as a higher stat but are also likely to have workable social ability as a minimum. That "don't ask, don't get" type life ain't for me, personally.
People who play RPGs I've found tend to not be about making their real-life
actually better. Every group I've hosted quickly self-selects, however. That's why I end up with awesome players who make GM'ing worthwhile -- they're ultimately the ones who ostracize those not trying to level-up in real-life because it comes out one way or another.
Are you saying poor people make bad GMs? I've met just as many, if not more, socially awkward jerks in the suburbs as I have in poor areas. In fact having lived in both types of places , I'd say it is easier to get by being socially awkward in fancier neighborhoods than poorer ones. One thing that kind of bothers me about a lot of gaming forum discussions is there seems to be a somewhat elitist attitude toward being educated, skilled and successful. Those things are great but they are not what make you a good and worthy human being.
I've had more than a few players who were doing shift work. And each one that became even a semi-regular in my games were actively trying to get themselves out of that. Without getting too specific, one guy back in the day who was born lower-class (like myself) was taking programming classes while doing a food industry job -- in the last sessions of mine he was in, he let me know privately he'd bagged a junior salaried web dev job which paid him much better and gave him that crucial leg up he needed. He was modest about it but I was genuinely happy for him.
(I know how that life is, it's a soul-killer and I was
ruthlessabout getting out of it -- that's why I hold people to a high standard on this)
I don't care if you know you know your salad fork from your dinner fork. I'm likely to stab 'ya with both if you make a hussy-fit about the proper use of them. The thing is, I'm a bit of a stony fleshcave so being elitist without personally earning that right at your level AND on petty excrement is going to rub me the wrong way.
That's not what I asked; you're begging the question.
You've explained why you think there are more jerks in our hobby than others. My question was: are there more jerks in our hobby than others? I'm not sold on the premise that there are. Without establishing that the premise is true, explanations for the premise are rather pointless.
You're moving the goalposts. That's just bad faith. Especially for a discussion that from the outset is primarily anecdotal (as most like these are). In fact, inquiring into hard numbers requires providing your own set first for others to dispute, if that's how you're going to play it.
And, in terms of how human perceptions and memory works, negative experiences tend to leave an outsized impression. One bad GM is only counterbalanced by a stack of good GMs.
I'd say it's the other way 'round. In my experience, it takes one great GM to undo several bad GMs. It takes a truly awful GM for there to be an equalizing effect, however. But we're severely lacking in the great GM department across the board.
Can't say it's a problem in my case *wink*
(I need to stop -- hahahahah)
I'll just leave this here.
[pic]
I gotta say, it really is true in my case. Backed up by a dozen after-game discussion over the years of players confiding to me that others were being anthropomorphic gluteus maximuses. Never had a complaint from a player that wasn't immediately shut down (nicely or otherwise) by other players because they were full of excrement.
There are games that consistently bring out people's darker sides.
I had a player once who chopped a guard's head off who was about to raise the alarm when she bungled a stealth roll. Totally callous and ruthless -- I told her she had to make a Humanity roll for it (surprisingly, she succeeded). She was like "yep, totally makes sense". People can be dark as anything but I've found that has nothing to do with their jerkiness.