Are Kids interested in Pen & Paper RPGs?

[Simon Atavax]

It's pretty easy to come to random conclusions when you're not really looking at any facts, or studies, and just randomly observing things.

Which is kind of what you're doing too, huh?

 

[Scribble]

Which is kind of what you're doing too, huh?

In what way?

 

[Fifth Element]

Addendum: My daughter is almost seven, and my wife and I don't let her anywhere near video games. She also watches almost no television save the odd movie on DVD. She reads constantly, and loves writing and drawing.

My daughter is nearly eight, and plays tons of video games, and watches lots of TV....and reads every night, and is constantly doodling and writing (often while watching TV). She finds Drawing Comics is Easy quite inspiring, apparently.

I'm delighted that most of the kids she will be competing with in the years ahead are destroying their cognitive abilities with video games and television

LOL. My 4-year-old son has absolutely remarkable hand-eye coordination for his age, partly (at least) due to the video games he plays. Super Mario World on the SNES is a favourite.

These kids of mine have remarkable imaginations, and are constantly coming up with new games to play. The idea that video games and TV stifle imagination and cognitive abililities seems very strange to me, both in relation to my children and due to the hours upon hours of TV I used to watch when I was younger.

So my experiences differ from your observations. And I know I'm backed up by the research as well.

 

[Fifth Element]

I have no doubt there is some crossover and that bright young people also play video games but at the end of the day any hour doing one activity is an hour that cannot be spent on another acitivity so it is unlikely that the young people who read the most also play video games the most and unlikely that the young people who play video games the most also read the most.

Given the great number of possible activities that one could spend your hours on, I don't see why these two can't be highly correlated. If the other kids spend most of their time playing basketball or going out with girls (!) I can see where the readers and videogamers can be basically the same group of people.

 

[Fifth Element]

I think that some of what gets lost in these discussions is that when you guys were kids who played RPGs, you were HUGE NERDS.

So don't ask what kids collectively are up to today. Obviously they aren't spending all day reading books and imagining things for their later RPG sessions. Only HUGE NERDS do that.

So ask what the HUGE NERDS are up to.

And you'll find that some are playing video games and some are reading books and some are wasting time on 4chan and some are drawing pictures of dragons. Same as it always was, just updated for the year 2009.

"You must spread some Experience Points around before giving it to Cadfan again."

 

[Toben the Many]

I understand your perspective but I think you are being a bit selective about who gets eliminated from your overall picture and it is skewing what you view as the results.

Fair enough. Let me clarify - I am indeed speaking in broad generalities. I am definitely painting with a giant brush. Of course, there are children who go to piano practice, play sports, take horseback riding lessons, and still are prolific readers. No doubt.

I am, however, asking you to agree that if any single person has five free hours in a day to spend on any activity they wish, one who chooses to spend those full five hours on reading and not playing any video games, is going to be spending more time reading than a single individual who spends three hours reading and two hours video gaming.

Absolutely. In terms of children, it's been my experience that 90% of parents out there care about their offspring and therefore have rules and regulations on their households. Thus, most of my students have limits as to how much they can play video games, and therefore they're unable to play video games for 5 hours a day. However, even many of the students I do have who are given that amount of freedom will often choose to read for part of the day or read for a few days before going back to a game.

Again, I am speaking broad generalities. The kids that I see that do nothing but play video games all day have been pretty rare in my experience, mainly because - as I said before - 90% of parents that I meet actually care about their children.

So, let me revise my statement in this way: In my experience, children who play video games a lot or prefer that form of activity also tend to read a lot and prefer read as one of their many activities.

I think that some of what gets lost in these discussions is that when you guys were kids who played RPGs, you were HUGE NERDS.

So don't ask what kids collectively are up to today. Obviously they aren't spending all day reading books and imagining things for their later RPG sessions. Only HUGE NERDS do that.

So ask what the HUGE NERDS are up to.

And you'll find that some are playing video games and some are reading books and some are wasting time on 4chan and some are drawing pictures of dragons. Same as it always was, just updated for the year 2009.

Yup. That's all I was sayin'.

Sure, but the point remains. Anything and everything needs moderation, so that fact that "something needs moderation" doesn't make it inherently bad.

The same can be said about just about anything people enjoy. When people enjoy doing something, they want to continue doing it. (Or are you implying you believe video games have a physical addiction quality?) If someone does that thing to an excess negative reactions can/will occur.

If someone likes to read and they continue reading, oh no they're reading instead of spending that time outside running. Now they're becoming fat, and will die of a heart attack... Sure they used their imagination-but at what cost? Reading is bad for you!

It's pretty easy to come to random conclusions when you're not really looking at any facts, or studies, and just randomly observing things.

Remember, D&D causes us to all become occultists and devil worshipers , who plot to kill our families and friends right?

Without any kind of real facts or study, your observations are pretty much just stereotyping something you seem to dislike.

Great points all the way through. The data out there basically says that kids are reading now more than ever. Indeed, we have the highest literacy rates that we've ever had before in our history. As far as amount that we play video games, I don't have the data on that, but I'd wager that it's quite high as well.

 

[francisca]

<anecdotal>
I'm sure some are. Some won't be. WoW is the definition of fantasy roleplay today, and dice, minis, and books won't draw a certain segment of the youth population.

Others, however, might enjoy it quite a bit. My 7 and 10 year old do, no doubt from listening to me blather about how fun it is, and they've discussed it with some of their friends and they sound interested too.
</anecdotal>

 

[Simon Atavax]

These kids of mine have remarkable imaginations, and are constantly coming up with new games to play. The idea that video games and TV stifle imagination and cognitive abililities seems very strange to me, both in relation to my children and due to the hours upon hours of TV I used to watch when I was younger.

So my experiences differ from your observations. And I know I'm backed up by the research as well.

Actually,all the research backs up me.



(This is why I love using "research" in a discussion like this one--anyone can say it! Wheee!)

 

[Fifth Element]

Actually,all the research backs up me.



(This is why I love using "research" in a discussion like this one--anyone can say it! Wheee!)

I take it from your post you assume I'm being flippant. I ain't. (And I didn't say all the research either.)

Really, the only thing easier than this is a "kids these days" argument.

 

[Mercurius]

Cool idea. I listen to the Fear the Boot podcast (can I say that here? ) One of the episodes a while back talked about a teacher who would use the old Traveler world generation rules in class. He would then turn around and use what they created in his games. Everyone wins.

But really cool idea.

I figure my ESL classes might just get a huge kick out of Dread. We're about to play Catan again next week. I love getting paid to play Settlers of Catan.

Nice to hear other teachers are converting, ah I mean, teaching students using RPGs.

Mercurius though, I think you are really, really underestimating the creative power of video games. Long gone are the days when you pretty much did nothing but button mash your way through hordes of side scrolling baddies. Everything is optional now.

Heck, even look at WOW, the much dreaded WOW. Look at the amount of time people spend making videos of their characters, dressing the part, planning all sorts of activities and whatnot within the game. There are constant decisions to be made, many of which have very little to do with the basic grind of the game and everything to do with aesthetic choices.

And that's ignoring the huge popularity of games like Civilization and whatnot.

See, everything you describe sounds rather second-rate in terms of creativity and imagination (Mallus goes into this a bit). I apologize if that sounds elitist, and I suppose that it is, although I do recognize the value of what you are talking about, and that it does employ imagination.However, I feel that it is not on the same scale as, say, creating a fantasy world or writing a book or painting or composing a piece of music.

Back to the Coleridge quote, what you describe sounds like "fancy" but not "imagination." My concern is not that people engage in fancy, but that they replace imagination with fancy, or don't develop imagination because of excess fancy.

This relates to a similar issue with TV and movies. I'm looking forward to Cameron's Avatar movie because it is finally a new science fiction idea brought to life in a big way. It isn't just a rehash or a reboot or a re-envisioning of something that somebody else already came up with.

I think there's an inherently reductive quality to RPG's that affects most, if not all players, not just those who focus on the wargame-like part of D&D. The game mechanics chafe against the fictive dream (pardon me for using that phrase).

True. But I also think it is possible not to denigrate the imaginative stuff, if the stats are seen as descriptive rather than definitive. This is why I prefer the "DM Fiat approach" to the "let's-find-the-exact-rule-that-fits-in-every-situation approach."

The problem is, when you're seeing Thor in all his Nordic glory, it's hard not to also think of his hit point total, once you know it. And prolonged D&D play practical forces you to know things like that. Players invariable must engage with the game's mechanics.

Good point, but again I think it depends upon the people playing and whether they are able to separate the two (crunch and fluff, essentially). We're really talking about right-brain aesthetic/imaginative vs. left-brain analytic/rational, and I think RPGs appeal to both (which is why we all love them!). Different individuals (and games) emphasize one more than the other, but it takes both to have an RPG.

The other problem is that most players seeing Thor probably see the Marvel comics version, or some similar derivative, pastiche, or synthetic pop version. Don't mind me, though. I'm just naturally critical of the attempt to portray D&D as a paean to the imagination. The imagination found in the game isn't usually of a high calibre, it's the the begged, borrowed, slapped together, jury-rigged sort. Imitations of imitations. Terrible cliches made personal, and therefore special. I love the acts of imagination that get committed in the name of D&D, but I'm under no illusions about their quality.

I hear you and agree to a certain extent. I certainly agree about the problem of having a huge backlog of media images to reference whenever something is mentioned. When we think of Frodo Baggins who doesn't think of Elijah Wood? J.R.R. would be apoplectic. This becomes even more problematic when history starts being understood through media, so that the movie 300 IS the Battle of Thermopylae for a whole generation of folks.

(Again, I'm not totally against anything here, I just think there are huge problems with the "rough beast slouching towards Bethlehem" that we've created, to quote Yeats).

And I do agree that RPGs, by and large, do not represent the cream of the crop of imaginative creations. But there are glimpses of it. I certainly feel that fantasy and science fiction literature can be the greatest fiction of all, that in many ways mainstream "literary fiction" is a beast long-dead, that the greatest ideas are coming through specfic. Sure, this is a very small percentage of it, but it is there.

The same goes, to an extent, with RPGs. You might not find artistic masterpieces in RPGs but you will find ideas of pure genius and deep inspiration. When it comes down to it, for me the greatest art is that which inspires the greatest sense of wonder and beauty. And some ideas in RPGs are truly wonder-inspiring (although less often beautiful).

Sure, but the point remains. Anything and everything needs moderation, so that fact that "something needs moderation" doesn't make it inherently bad.

The same can be said about just about anything people enjoy. When people enjoy doing something, they want to continue doing it. (Or are you implying you believe video games have a physical addiction quality?) If someone does that thing to an excess negative reactions can/will occur.

If someone likes to read and they continue reading, oh no they're reading instead of spending that time outside running. Now they're becoming fat, and will die of a heart attack... Sure they used their imagination-but at what cost? Reading is bad for you!

It's pretty easy to come to random conclusions when you're not really looking at any facts, or studies, and just randomly observing things.

Remember, D&D causes us to all become occultists and devil worshipers , who plot to kill our families and friends right?

Without any kind of real facts or study, your observations are pretty much just stereotyping something you seem to dislike.

My sense is that you are showing little to know discrimination here, as if reading, video game playing, spinach and donuts are all "basically the same thing." All should be allowed, yet all should be moderated. But what does that mean? Is there no difference between spinach and donuts, or D&D and WoW?

We can agree that all should be allowed, in moderation (or almost all). What we don't agree with, I think, is what moderation is, and in relation to different activities and substances--as well as at what point does moderation go into something harmful. Too much spinach causes harm (I know someone who had kidney stones that may have been caused by eating too much leafy greens!); too much water gets you drunk. But the point at which water causes harm is a lot greater than tequila. And so it is, I believe, with reading (for example) vs. video games.

But it is a non-argument to equate computer games with reading or TRPGs simply by virtue of the fact that all three have been reviled by someone at one point or another. This would be like saying, "Assault, smoking crack, and reading the Catcher in the Rye have all been banned at schools and we all know that Catcher in the Rye is a classic and basically harmless, therefore all are okay in moderation."

I'm all for finding "real facts and studies" but the truth is that all facts and studies can be shaped or understood (or spun) to fit one's pre-existing perspective. It is the basic principle of seeing what we want to see. On the other hand, without real facts and studies what else can we go on but our own observations, judgment, and intuition?

As I see it, facts and studies are useful but should not be definitive. They say something but they don't say everything. How much they say, well, if a study says a lot it is a good study. But it is very tricky and I reserve the right to default to my own common sense, judgment, conscience, intuition and my untainted-by-WoW imagination

So my experiences differ from your observations. And I know I'm backed up by the research as well.

What research? Someone please provide a link.