Gaming across the generation gap

[Teflon Billy]

Golly gee whillikers, have I ever been told off.

(Yes, I am a lawyer...one who has heard of things like sarcasm.)

I wasn't being sarcastic at all. Taking commentary out of context is a hallmark of a crap lawyer.

Or were you suggesting that you were being sarcastic when you came out swinging with a poorly made argument?

Weak.

If you have such an intolerance for the younger generation of gamers, they'll never learn the ways in which YOU think they could improve.

I don't care if they learn to improve. In fact, look back at the post you quoted yet again, where I said...

...I have a waiting list for players, so "Fresh blood" can go hang for all I care...

...it becomes clearer that you didn't really read my post at all; you just kind of chimed in and tried to "Take me to task" for a bunch of stuff youdidn't bother to read, barely understood, and utterly failed to communicate.

By disengaging yourself from the process of passing the torch, you're ensuring they'll never improve their game. Extrapolate that to enough GMs, and the hobby will be hurt in the long run.

See above.

Personally, I prefer constructive engagement. Negative habits get excised, rather than being allowed to run rampant like weeds. Firm but gentle suggestions- in private- can correct bad behavior pretty quickly if done with respect.

You can prefer whatever you like. But you weren't stating a preference for your behaviour, you were attempting to criticize mine, and you were doing so by distorting my comments to serve some love you seem to have for Suburban Mall-Gangsta culture.

And "Golly Gee Whillikers" did you ever drop that ball.

I pity your clients if this is what you bring to an argument .

 

[Teflon Billy]

I prefer to spend my gaming time gaming, not babysitting. I won't exercise any more compassion with another gamer, than I would with any one who wasn't a gamer. Gamers do not deserve some sort of special treatment. I fail to see any sort of moral imperative. Teflon Billy isn't committing some grave injustice by choosing to spend his free time having fun, rather than engaging in teaching others 'how to play'.

Man...that's well-said.

 

[S'mon]

I pity your clients if this is what you bring to an argument .

I've always pitied Danny's clients.

 

[Graf]

Don't have a strong opinion about age.

But I will say that every gaming group should get into the habit of meeting prospective players -before- they game and decided whether or not they'll work out. Ideally a few emails and then have dinner.

My group did that and things went fine until we had one potential player that wasn't so good. And the group admitted they thought he wasn't going to be good but nobody wanted to be the bad guy and say no to him (OK, I did, but I was overruled).
That was the begining of the end.

In short, you're gonna spend a lot of time with anyone you game with. If you can't tolerate their personality or they aren't "cool" (in the sense of being fun to be around); do them and yourself a favor and cut it off.

 

[fusangite]

If you have such an intolerance for the younger generation of gamers, they'll never learn the ways in which YOU think they could improve.

By disengaging yourself from the process of passing the torch, you're ensuring they'll never improve their game. Extrapolate that to enough GMs, and the hobby will be hurt in the long run.

Actually, the overwhelming evidence from my experience and that of my friends is that people learn lessons about how to game in a more sophisticated, adult way by figuring things out for themselves, not by being mentored by older gamers. If that worked for you, that's great. But most of us became better and more mature GMs and players through a combination of trial and error and the passage of time.

I put my original gaming group together when I was 15. It was a decade later before we started gaming with a new crew of people. We grew up as players and GMs by playing together and we found that learning experience a good deal more fulfilling than I would imagine being mentored by older players to be.

RPGs are an ideal "roll up your sleeves" hobby where you get in there and experiment, try new things and see how it goes. And I think it's that kind of learning to which players are most receptive.

Personally, I prefer constructive engagement. Negative habits get excised, rather than being allowed to run rampant like weeds. Firm but gentle suggestions- in private- can correct bad behavior pretty quickly if done with respect.

Yeah, 16 year old me would much prefer to figure stuff out for himself than receive the "firm but gentle" suggestions of some guy in his 30s who can't assemble a group of players his own age.

 

[Ycore Rixle]

But you weren't stating a preference for your behaviour, you were attempting to criticize mine, and you were doing so by distorting my comments to serve some love you seem to have for Suburban Mall-Gangsta culture.

And "Golly Gee Whillikers" did you ever drop that ball.

I pity your clients if this is what you bring to an argument .

Ouch. I know the whole Know Billy, No Peace thing and all, but, well, peace, man. It's all good.

I can't speak for Danny, but when I raised my points earlier in the thread, I was just saying that playing a fershnizzle Drowizzle with a +2 flaming amulet of bling is not stupid per se. If it doesn't work for your group, then someone trying to force it into your group is rude, no doubt. If it makes other people at the table uncomfortable or diminishes their fun, then yeah, it's not right. Nobody should play if they're not having fun overall, and everyone at the table should play within the agreed-upon-by-all conventions of the campaign.

My point is that I can see how hip-hop ghetto characters can be good for the right group; I've enjoyed tables with such characters. To each his own, though. That's one of the great things about D&D; it can be enjoyed in so many different ways.

The other thing that prompted me to respond was that you're a pretty respected guy around here, Ennie Judge Template, and so on, and when you say that most kids play stupid, that has the potential to influence a lot of people. I was just speaking up for my side, which is that I don't think most kids play stupid.

 

[fusangite]

I can't speak for Danny, but when I raised my points earlier in the thread, I was just saying that playing a fershnizzle Drowizzle with a +2 flaming amulet of bling is not stupid per se. If it doesn't work for your group, then someone trying to force it into your group is rude, no doubt. If it makes other people at the table uncomfortable or diminishes their fun, then yeah, it's not right. Nobody should play if they're not having fun overall, and everyone at the table should play within the agreed-upon-by-all conventions of the campaign.

My point is that I can see how hip-hop ghetto characters can be good for the right group; I've enjoyed tables with such characters. To each his own, though. That's one of the great things about D&D; it can be enjoyed in so many different ways.

The other thing that prompted me to respond was that you're a pretty respected guy around here, Ennie Judge Template, and so on, and when you say that most kids play stupid, that has the potential to influence a lot of people. I was just speaking up for my side, which is that I don't think most kids play stupid.

Take your pick: either
(a) basing D&D characters on modern adolescent popular culture is a perfectly legitimate choice; or
(b) basing D&D characters in modern adolescent popular culture is an inferior form of play

If (a) is true then TB hasn't insulted anyone and you have no bone to pick with him. If (b) is true then you agree with TB's insults of the the proclivities of many adolescent gamers. Pick one.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I wasn't aiming to "Take you to task" TB.

I don't give a rats ass about you personally, but you framed most of the major, common arguments against younger players so beautifully with nice, easy to snip headers. I was using them as GENERAL points of discussion. Had you payed closer attention to my original post, you might have noticed I ONLY used the headers- not your commentary below them.

If I HAD decided to take you to task, not only would I have included the relevant commentary, I also would have included your name with each header, as I do elsewhere...like thus:

Teflon Billy
But you weren't stating a preference for your behaviour, you were attempting to criticize mine, and you were doing so by distorting my comments to serve some love you seem to have for Suburban Mall-Gangsta culture

Um... NO.

I have no particular love for Wiggas, but no hate for them either. I pointed out that many campaigns in the 80's and 90's suffered from "Metal-tosis" and that THAT was really no different than what youngsters are doing today with bards named Fitty Copper or whatever...

It doesn't bug me, but if it bugs my fellow players, I talk to the "offending" player about it. 99% of the time, the problem dissapears. I have yet to have a repeat offender. I HAVE, however, seen folowup "response" PCs played by other players. Example...one player had a PC mage based on the personality Bluto from Animal House. The next campaign, another played a samurai based on Belushi's SNL character. Another player had Belushi make a 3rd appearance as a bard dressed in black...

TB, you also missed the obvious levity of that portion of the post when I used jargon of that era. You may not have found it funny, but it was there. Fer sure, dude.

And I never stoop to name calling, especially when quoting. That's as juvenile as your complained-about fart jokes, perhaps moreso.

Hope that clears the air. If not...oh well- its not like I'll be losing sleep. Your combative attitude in this thread gags me with a Bohemian Ear Spoon.

BTW, S'mon...I pity my clients too.