Are Kids interested in Pen & Paper RPGs?

[Scribble]

Believe me, I've thought of doing the research but don't have the time or means at this point. But it is research that needs to be done, imo.

In a way it is. And I think TV does "rot your brain" to some extent. This is not to say that I think people shouldn't watch TV but that it should be moderated.

Same is true for just about anything done in excess though. Cardiovascular activity has been shown to be very healthy, so you'd think that would mean marathon runners would be the healthiest people ever?

The truth is marathon running tends to be very bad for the body, and they have lots of health issues.

All things in moderation.

Are you implying that my dislike of video games is because I'm over 30 and no longer have the capacity to like new things?

No- I was wondering if the fact that each generation tends to have a thing that "spells the end of the younger generation" is related in anyway to the study I read.

To actually make the claim that one IS related to the other though would require some form of analysis.

Yes, and I recognized this in one of my posts above. I will mention that most of what you mention relate to the ability to process information in an almost mechanistic sense, but have nothing to do with a more aesthetic (or imaginative) kind of thinking.

Except for problem solving.

And again, at what cost? What are the negatives? In the long run we don't really know yet. But some of the short-term effects are pretty obvious, at least with hardcore computer players. My sense is that the effect of excessive play is rather similar to drug addiction.

Again that's what the point of the studies above were to determine. What the effects of gaming were. They weren't trying to prove good or bad, just trying to show the effects. A large portion of the linked effects were good.

You're making some pretty heavy claims with that drug addiction statement.

 

[Mallus]

I agree with the first part, and this is exactly why I take issue with video games because, I believe, they are antithetical to the healthy development of imagination, even working against it, replacing it with a kind of simulationist fancy.

You do realize that makes a great argument against almost all pen-and-paper RPG's, with their relentless, reductive quantification of the fantastic?

("A Pegasus flies at a speed of 6", "Thor has 215 HP", "Here is a map of Hell", The Fairy Queen as a Charisma of 22")

What is D&D if not a 'simulationist fancy'? Be careful how you answer, you might rile the simulationists !

 

[Inferno!]

Considering that the USPS is one of only a handful of government programs in the world that TURNS A PROFIT, there is a not inconsiderable possibility that they know what they're doing.

The USPS doesn't turn a profit and hasn't for years. The USPS is facing a $7 billion deficit in 2009.

USA Today - August 3, 2009
New York Times - July 29, 2009

Stamp collecting may very well be a wonderful hobby, but its factually inaccurate to suggest they know how to turn a profit. The only reason it remains at all is that Article 1, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, empowers the government "to establish post offices and post roads."

 

[Azgulor]

Yes, according to EN Worlder Azgulor -

http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/263992-new-rpger-born.html

And into combat miniature wargaming, too -

http://www.enworld.org/forum/publishers-press-releases/260384-creative-mountain-games-gencon.html

What he said!

 

[LFK]

I will leave out my disagreements with Coleridge if only because this isn't a peer-reviewed journal on literature :-D

Instead I want to look at this:

Sturgeon's Law, eh? I agree with this, but the quality of the video game or RPG is not really what I am talking about. I mean, I hear you, but that is not why I am "ragging" on video games.

One aspect of this is very simple and easy to grasp. When you play a video game or watch TV your imagination is passive; it receives but it does not create. When you read a book your imagination is receptive and active, it creates images. When you write your own work or create art you are being much more active (although there is a major activity of reception, but I won't go into that now).

I think quality is a major issue if only because it is equally possible to have a bad painting or a worthless book that fails to engage the imagination of the viewer, but the fly in the ointment, so to speak, is the reality of where the average person's creative potential is: not very good.

Why was Friends so popular? From a creative standpoint there was little about the show that was exceptional: generic scenario, middle of the road jokes and characters, decent delivery, and good actor chemistry. But that's all its audience needed. It engaged their narrative imagination without over-taxing, basically hitting the sweet spot for how deft the average brain actually is.

My point, ultimately, is that Video Games are no more worthy of our praise or derision as they're just one more way for our culture to express it's creativity, or lack thereof. If you did get these people to sit down en masse and play a tabletop RPG then they would live up (down) to the same creative standard set by mediocre primetime sitcoms, but it (sadly) wouldn't actually change much about their overall disposition towards creativity or the power of their imagination. While it is frustrating, media is symptomatic of the fact that most people just aren't that creative and never will be.

 

[Mercurius]

Same is true for just about anything done in excess though. Cardiovascular activity has been shown to be very healthy, so you'd think that would mean marathon runners would be the healthiest people ever?

The truth is marathon running tends to be very bad for the body, and they have lots of health issues.

All things in moderation.

Agreed, but this is a half-truth. All things in moderation but not all things equally. Moderating donuts means something different than moderating spinach. Or, if we want to be as extreme as possible, moderating crack vs. moderating water.

Again that's what the point of the studies above were to determine. What the effects of gaming were. They weren't trying to prove good or bad, just trying to show the effects. A large portion of the linked effects were good.

You're making some pretty heavy claims with that drug addiction statement.

Yeah, I know. There is a spectrum, of course, and I'm certainly not saying that video games are inherently addictive, but that A) many do become addicted to them, and B) serious "users" display characteristics similar to drug additions. At my school last year, for instance, we had a variety of computer gamers in terms of how much they played.

You do realize that makes a great argument against almost all pen-and-paper RPG's, with their relentless, reductive quantification of the fantastic?

("A Pegasus flies at a speed of 6", "Thor has 215 HP", "Here is a map of Hell", The Fairy Queen as a Charisma of 22")

What is D&D if not a 'simulationist fancy'? Be careful how you answer, you might rile the simulationists !

Funny. And I hear your point, but I think it really depends upon how you play, how the game is approached. I've met quite a few gamers who play D&D in a very analytical/tactical and even non-imaginative way. For them the game is all about the battles, the numbers, the dice rolling, etc. There is nothing inherently wrong with this, it is just that it precludes a lot of really good stuff. I mean, you have Thor and then you have his stats. If you only see his stats than he's a bad-ass that would put up a pretty good fight. If you see Thor himself, then you see this mighty elemental deity who wields a great hammer of thunder and lightning.

That's party of the beauty of RPGs, actually. They tantalize both the left and right hemispheres of the brain. Sort of like baseball, with its endless statistics but also rich history and drama.

I will leave out my disagreements with Coleridge if only because this isn't a peer-reviewed journal on literature :-D

Ah, but they may be central to this discussion?

I think quality is a major issue if only because it is equally possible to have a bad painting or a worthless book that fails to engage the imagination of the viewer, but the fly in the ointment, so to speak, is the reality of where the average person's creative potential is: not very good.

Yes, good point. But what do we mean by "good"? Why is the Mona Lisa "good"? Why is some art that is technically mediocre so much great than other art that is technically perfect?

I remember when 3E came out and everyone hated Todd Lockwood, calling his art soul-less; people would wax nostalgic for Erol Otus....now technically speaking Lockwood is miles beyond Otus; Lockwood is art grad school while Otus is junior high. But what was so evocative about Otus? Is it the "Golden Age of 12" factor mentioned in another thread? Is it nostalgia? Or is there something else there?

It is that "Something Else" that I am interested in, which I feel is what brings the imagination to life.

Why was Friends so popular? From a creative standpoint there was little about the show that was exceptional: generic scenario, middle of the road jokes and characters, decent delivery, and good actor chemistry. But that's all its audience needed. It engaged their narrative imagination without over-taxing, basically hitting the sweet spot for how deft the average brain actually is.

Yes, and it really worked for what it was. But it didn't go deep; no one watched an episode of friends and came away feeling like they had experienced something profound, that they had witnessed a great work of art. And I am not saying that all media needs to be "great art," but that we should recognize that there is a spectrum, and a place for all "locations" on the spectrum.

My point, ultimately, is that Video Games are no more worthy of our praise or derision as they're just one more way for our culture to express it's creativity, or lack thereof. If you did get these people to sit down en masse and play a tabletop RPG then they would live up (down) to the same creative standard set by mediocre primetime sitcoms, but it (sadly) wouldn't actually change much about their overall disposition towards creativity or the power of their imagination. While it is frustrating, media is symptomatic of the fact that most people just aren't that creative and never will be.

You might be right here, and I am probably somewhat of an elitist when it comes to imaginative creations. Not every fantasy novel needs to be the Silmarillion; heck, I loved the Belgariad--actually, the characters were a lot more enjoyable than Tolkien's, in many ways. They were certainly funnier. Ultimately my favorite kind of art is that which manages to run the gamut to some degree. Unfortunately it is very, very rare.

I think part of the problem is that the standards for imagination are set by television and film because they reach the widest audience. And they tend to have a gravitational effect: What you see on TV won't be terrible in that it will at least be professional and decently edited, but it will never be great because its greatness would be lost on the masses. Very very occasionally you can find a gem that is both accessible to many, but also deeply profound and "archetypally resonant." The Lord of the Rings is one such beast. Star Wars and Star Trek at their best are other examples. Harry Potter, unfortunately, is not.

 

[fba827]

I can honestly say that the die-hard video gamers amongst my students tend to be the biggest morons: shortest attention spans, least amount of creative ability, weakest critical thinking. And they are simply atrocious readers and writers.

I find this to be true in my experience with younger age children as well.

I know several (i.e. a large group of several of my cousins who are 16 and younger), they are in to the fantasy and scifi stuff when it comes to video games, movies, and tv. BUT they don't have the attention span for verbal exchange - they expect the flashy graphics to tell it all for them. To quote one of my cousins (who did not know I play D&D) "I saw my friend's brother play D&D once. It blows, all they do is sit around talking. And the losers at the game were all excited by it"

Also, when they can sit and play rpg video games and "gain a couple levels" in an hour, vs. sit around and gain a level every 4-ish hours... it is too "slow" for them. (as if comparing the advancement rate of levels in a video game is somehow comparable to the advancement rate in table-top games... but, whatever...)

So, yeah, the younger folks I've seen might share the same sphere of interests, but don't really have the attention span for pen and paper rpgs.

Though, obviously, there is no blanket generic case. Everyone is different. And hopefully there are still youngsters out there -with this sphere of interest- and -with the necessary attention span/creative thinking skills.

 

[Simon Atavax]

I know several (i.e. a large group of several of my cousins who are 16 and younger), they are in to the fantasy and scifi stuff when it comes to video games, movies, and tv. BUT they don't have the attention span for verbal exchange - they expect the flashy graphics to tell it all for them. To quote one of my cousins (who did not know I play D&D) "I saw my friend's brother play D&D once. It blows, all they do is sit around talking. And the losers at the game were all excited by it"

Heh. That says it all. Unfortunately.



EDIT: But I'll add something anyway. Last year I had a student in my Grade 12 History class who told me that when he went to university he wanted to study history. Great! He tells me he loves "historical films, television programs, and video games, such as Civilization."

Thinking I was asking a dumb question, I said, "Errr, what about reading?"

He winced. "I hate reading."

But boy, did he ever play video games. Sad.

(At this point someone will probably chime in with the "Decades of research supports this or that" meme. Heh heh.)

 

[MerricB]

(At this point someone will probably chime in with the "Decades of research supports this or that" meme. Heh heh.)

Hardin remained silent for a short while. Then he said, 'When did Lameth write his book?' 'Oh -- I should say about eight hundwed yeahs ago. Of cohse, he has based it lahgely on the pwevious wuhk of Gleen.' 'Then why rely on him? Why not go to Arcturus and study the remains for yourself?' Lord Dorwin raised his eyebrows and took a pinch of snuff hurriedly. 'Why, whatevah foah, my deah fellow?'
'To get the information firsthand, of course.'
'But wheah's the necessity? It seems an uncommonly woundabout and hopelessly wigmawolish method of getting anywheahs. Look heah now, I've got the wuhks of the mastahs -- the gweat ahchaeologists of the past. I wigh them against each othah -- balance of the disagweements -- analyze the conflicting statements -- decide which is pwobably cowwect- and come to a conclusion. That is the scientific method. At least' -- patronizingly -- 'as I see it. How insuffewably cwude it would be to go to Ahctuwus, oah to Sol, foah instance, and blundah about, when the old mastahs have covahed the gwound so much moah effectually than we could possibly hope to.'

 

[Stuntman]

I know several (i.e. a large group of several of my cousins who are 16 and younger), they are in to the fantasy and scifi stuff when it comes to video games, movies, and tv. BUT they don't have the attention span for verbal exchange - they expect the flashy graphics to tell it all for them. To quote one of my cousins (who did not know I play D&D) "I saw my friend's brother play D&D once. It blows, all they do is sit around talking. And the losers at the game were all excited by it"

Also, when they can sit and play rpg video games and "gain a couple levels" in an hour, vs. sit around and gain a level every 4-ish hours... it is too "slow" for them. (as if comparing the advancement rate of levels in a video game is somehow comparable to the advancement rate in table-top games... but, whatever...)

So, yeah, the younger folks I've seen might share the same sphere of interests, but don't really have the attention span for pen and paper rpgs.

Though, obviously, there is no blanket generic case. Everyone is different. And hopefully there are still youngsters out there -with this sphere of interest- and -with the necessary attention span/creative thinking skills.

I think it's just what interests them. Video games are very different than a tabletop RPG. Just because they are both sci-fi or fantasy does not mean someone interested in video games would be interested in an RPG of the same genre. I play D&D as well as video/computer games. One of the computer games I really like is Temple of Elemental Evil. I can gain a level in a matter of hours playing the computer game. One D&D campaign I was in took us 6 months to get to level 2. It's not about how fast you gain levels, it's what you want to get out of the game. When I play D&D it's more about the story, and getting together as a group. When I play computer games, it's about gaining levels and building your party. You can enjoy none, only one or both.

It just depends on the individual what interests you. It may also depend on age. The way I play D&D now probably won't interest me when I was a teenager. The way I played D&D then doesn't interest me now. Perhaps some young people who aren't interested in D&D at a young age may like it more when they grow older. I know as I grew and matured, what interests me has changed over time.