Have gamers ever been tolerant?
- Thread starter Tiefling
- Start date
Bragg Battleaxe
First Post
I think this is just evidence of the basic human dislike of opinions that differ from our own. The problem is that the terms "roleplayer" and "powergamer" aren't defined in Webster and they mean very different things to different folks. I try not to use these terms because they can be inflammatory even when they are not intended to be. Someone has said this before, but if you were to sit in on any number of gaming sessions in which we all participate, I think you would see that most people tend to play in much the same way. I think players who hate rolling dice and care nothing for the "power" of their characters are very very rare, just as those who care for noting BUT power are.
Henry
Autoexreginated
Tiefling, Usenet (in particular rec.games.frp.dnd, a group I used to visit from 1996 to 1999) is the place to go to see elitism and name-calling in true action. It's the reason I fled from there not long after Eric opened his boards.
Grumpy Celt's cynicism aside, you are going to have prejudice in any group larger than one in whom you know everyone personally. Generalizations and preferences easily come to a human psyche. I don't believe we're all "inherently hateful", but humankind is inherently amoral. If something strengthens our world-view, chances are we're going to take it.
Incidentally, gamers being intolerant extends back BEFORE 1974 - ask Gary Gygax or Rob Kuntz. I imagine there were plenty of warhorses back then who thought that "everyone besides them were playing wrong."
Grumpy Celt's cynicism aside, you are going to have prejudice in any group larger than one in whom you know everyone personally. Generalizations and preferences easily come to a human psyche. I don't believe we're all "inherently hateful", but humankind is inherently amoral. If something strengthens our world-view, chances are we're going to take it.
Incidentally, gamers being intolerant extends back BEFORE 1974 - ask Gary Gygax or Rob Kuntz. I imagine there were plenty of warhorses back then who thought that "everyone besides them were playing wrong."
There's even a monument to such intolerance in Arneson's Blackmoor.
If you believe Gygax, the Egg of Coot is not a reference to him (as is commonly believed, E.G.G. and "Egg" and all), but is supposed to be a reference to Greg Scott, a store owner they knew who looked down on wargaming that wasn't about modern military miniatures warfare, which was "manly".
So...elitist attitudes have always been ingrained in the hobby.
Last edited:
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
Mr. Celt, I respectufully disagree. 
Maybe it's just me, but there's a lot of things that I don't prefer or wouldn't like that I still wouldn't stamp out if given the chance or power. Like, say Forgotten Realms...not my cup o'tea, but I wouldn't smash it because there are others who like it.
And as for being tolerant just being something held up to make you feel better about yourself...eh...maybe. But I actually believe it and it makes other people happy to, so no harm done and only good comes of it.
I think I'm done here.
Maybe it's just me, but there's a lot of things that I don't prefer or wouldn't like that I still wouldn't stamp out if given the chance or power. Like, say Forgotten Realms...not my cup o'tea, but I wouldn't smash it because there are others who like it.
And as for being tolerant just being something held up to make you feel better about yourself...eh...maybe. But I actually believe it and it makes other people happy to, so no harm done and only good comes of it.
I think I'm done here.
Tiefling
First Post
Hmm. Supermassive post time.
I guess. I like to think that gamers are a pretty smart crowd, but so are literature and music people, so I guess it makes no difference.
Oh, I don't doubt it. That's the main reason why I don't often visit other forums.
True. I haven't seen as much of it, but that might be because I don't hand out on the Rules forum.
Fine with me . Not to start a political dicussion, it's just that PCness, when not taken to extremes, seems pretty good to me.
I'd like to think that I like nothing more than to enjoy the game. I dunno, maybe I come across like that, I'm really just would like it if people "played nice."
Actually, that's another one of my buttons. Being 14, I've been rejected by several prospective groups because I was too young for them.
I would agree that some behaviors in gaming are immature, but to me that generally means a proliferation of naked elf babes or a pressing need to always be in the spotlight. Power-gaming isn't part of it.
Why's that? If they're having fun, why should they be encouraged to "grow out of it?" I think it would be great if they "grew into" role-playing while still having fun when power-gaming, but "grow out of" naturally implies not just getting into something else but leaving what you already have, which seems odd to me.
What do you mean by "played well?"
Very true. I think creamsteak touched on this as well.
Why? I mean, either way you're pretending to be someone who you aren't in a land of magic and elves and demons. Why would pretending to become as powerful as possible and slay evil things and gain treasure in that world be any less mature than pretending to develop the personality of your role and socially interact with the people in that world?
Why? Why not play D&D? With D&D you can do it with other people, and you (through the DM) have greater control of the world and how you play.
Well, this is getting into playing with people with conflicting playing styles. I don't ask people to have fun while playing a style they don't like - I wouldn't either. I just ask that you live and let live - let other people play how they like and don't accuse them of immaturity or inferiority.
Was it? Certainly "munchkin" is less offensive in general, and it's often used in a manner that isn't offensive at all (describing someone who hogs the spotlight or breaks the rules for personal power, for instance). But having seen it so often used as a word for discriminating against people with a different style of play, whenever I see it I kind of cringe. And if it's used discriminantly against others, to me it seems just like any racial slur. Just because one is more offensive than another doesn't mean that they're incomparable.
rounser said:
I guess. I like to think that gamers are a pretty smart crowd, but so are literature and music people, so I guess it makes no difference.
Wormwood said:
Oh, I don't doubt it
. That's the main reason why I don't often visit other forums.NoOneofConsequence said:
True. I haven't seen as much of it, but that might be because I don't hand out on the Rules forum.
Celebrim said:
Fine with me
. Not to start a political dicussion, it's just that PCness, when not taken to extremes, seems pretty good to me.I'd like to think that I like nothing more than to enjoy the game. I dunno, maybe I come across like that, I'm really just would like it if people "played nice."
Actually, that's another one of my buttons. Being 14, I've been rejected by several prospective groups because I was too young for them.
I would agree that some behaviors in gaming are immature, but to me that generally means a proliferation of naked elf babes or a pressing need to always be in the spotlight. Power-gaming isn't part of it.
Why's that? If they're having fun, why should they be encouraged to "grow out of it?" I think it would be great if they "grew into" role-playing while still having fun when power-gaming, but "grow out of" naturally implies not just getting into something else but leaving what you already have, which seems odd to me.
What do you mean by "played well?"
Very true. I think creamsteak touched on this as well.
Painfully said:
Why? I mean, either way you're pretending to be someone who you aren't in a land of magic and elves and demons. Why would pretending to become as powerful as possible and slay evil things and gain treasure in that world be any less mature than pretending to develop the personality of your role and socially interact with the people in that world?
Why? Why not play D&D? With D&D you can do it with other people, and you (through the DM) have greater control of the world and how you play.
Am I tolerant? If a munchkin is behind the DM shield and it isn't a one-shot adventure or convention game, probably not. I need to know the DM has at least a reasonable motivation for his NPC villains. Less experienced DMs (read immature) might not even think that far into their NPCs.
The DM really carries the tone of the game, whether role-play or power-game. Most find their middle ground and can please most players most of the time. When it comes to extremes, there will always be more conflict. Thus, munchkins invariably suck away what I like about D&D
Well, this is getting into playing with people with conflicting playing styles. I don't ask people to have fun while playing a style they don't like - I wouldn't either. I just ask that you live and let live - let other people play how they like and don't accuse them of immaturity or inferiority.
Ashtal said:
Was it? Certainly "munchkin" is less offensive in general, and it's often used in a manner that isn't offensive at all (describing someone who hogs the spotlight or breaks the rules for personal power, for instance). But having seen it so often used as a word for discriminating against people with a different style of play, whenever I see it I kind of cringe. And if it's used discriminantly against others, to me it seems just like any racial slur. Just because one is more offensive than another doesn't mean that they're incomparable.
Last edited:
Theron
Explorer
As mentioned, before there was RPGing, there was wargaming. And even then, there were the splits. Avalon Hill fans vs. SPI fans. Fans of a balanced, playable game vs. fans of a hard-core simulation. Fans of miniatures vs. counter and board players. WWII fans vs. any other period of history fans, ad nauseam.
When RPGs came along, they suddenly had a new target and stopped beating on each other (for a while). A lot of us, having come to the new hobby from the old already had certain predispositions installed in our characters. Arguing about things was one. Arguing over ambiguous rules was another. A brief reading of the original three books in a box should be sufficient to point where this is going. I can remember a host of ridiculous arguments from my early days*, many of which were exacerbated by the fact that there were, effectively, three versions of D&D to interpret at the time - The original box, Basic D&D, and the first two books of AD&D (the MM and the PHB), which were coming out at roughly the rate of one per YEAR. Add to this the descriptions of other people's games we heard at the local shops, or read about in Dragon or White Dwarf, and you have a host of bones of contention. Throw in unofficial stuff like Judge's Guild and Arduin Products, mix in a tad of the cognitive dissonance between the rules and the fantasy we enjoyed reading and the stream got even murkier.
So, being the argumentative and vindictive types we were pre-disposed to be from years of arguing "opportunity fire" rules in Panzerblitz, we went to it with gusto. And along the line trained a new generation. Who, in turn, trained another.
*The worst argument I ever remember was a DM who wouldn't let the players roll their own dice. That one nearly turned into a fist fight.
When RPGs came along, they suddenly had a new target and stopped beating on each other (for a while). A lot of us, having come to the new hobby from the old already had certain predispositions installed in our characters. Arguing about things was one. Arguing over ambiguous rules was another. A brief reading of the original three books in a box should be sufficient to point where this is going. I can remember a host of ridiculous arguments from my early days*, many of which were exacerbated by the fact that there were, effectively, three versions of D&D to interpret at the time - The original box, Basic D&D, and the first two books of AD&D (the MM and the PHB), which were coming out at roughly the rate of one per YEAR. Add to this the descriptions of other people's games we heard at the local shops, or read about in Dragon or White Dwarf, and you have a host of bones of contention. Throw in unofficial stuff like Judge's Guild and Arduin Products, mix in a tad of the cognitive dissonance between the rules and the fantasy we enjoyed reading and the stream got even murkier.
So, being the argumentative and vindictive types we were pre-disposed to be from years of arguing "opportunity fire" rules in Panzerblitz, we went to it with gusto. And along the line trained a new generation. Who, in turn, trained another.
*The worst argument I ever remember was a DM who wouldn't let the players roll their own dice. That one nearly turned into a fist fight.
shadowthorn
First Post
Y'know, I think we all have the potential to be elitist, in our own way. It's easy to slap a label on a particular person or group, and then denigrate them because their ideology/methodology is different from our own.
I think this tendency has been ingrained in humans since the very beginning; it's a survival skill to be able to recognize that someone is not from your tribe - and thus may be a threat. The tribal mentality, with its quick distinctions and inflated differences, is still with us. If you ask me, that mode of operating is a little outdated - or perhaps too simplistic - for modern society. However, outdated or not, it's a part of each and every one of us, and we practice that way of living every day, all the time.
I don't believe that any gaming style is really superior to another - be it powergaming, min/maxing, munchkin, drama queen, what have you. Any of the roleplaying "styles" can be taken to extremes. What really matters is whether a given individual fits in well with the group he plays with. If they prefer LARP and the new guy/gal prefers dungeoncrawling, the new person will not fit. That doesn't make the group's playing mode superior, and more than it would make a group of dungeoncrawlers superior to a LARP-er who doesn't fit in.
Despite our natural urge toward dichotomy, few issues are black & white. There is no one "correct" way to play D&D (or Vampire or Chainmail or whatever); there are a million ways to play every game, and they're all correct in context. What matters is the ability of the group members to determine their playing style and work together.
That said, a given group is not obligated to accept every applicant. Some folks just won't fit your group; and there might even be a couple of people who don't belong in any group, but those individuals are more rare than you think. No matter how munchkinny, smelly, uncouth - that person is not beyond reach. Unfortunately, the time required to help another person develop better social/hygiene/whatever skills usually deters us from doing so.
I think this tendency has been ingrained in humans since the very beginning; it's a survival skill to be able to recognize that someone is not from your tribe - and thus may be a threat. The tribal mentality, with its quick distinctions and inflated differences, is still with us. If you ask me, that mode of operating is a little outdated - or perhaps too simplistic - for modern society. However, outdated or not, it's a part of each and every one of us, and we practice that way of living every day, all the time.
I don't believe that any gaming style is really superior to another - be it powergaming, min/maxing, munchkin, drama queen, what have you. Any of the roleplaying "styles" can be taken to extremes. What really matters is whether a given individual fits in well with the group he plays with. If they prefer LARP and the new guy/gal prefers dungeoncrawling, the new person will not fit. That doesn't make the group's playing mode superior, and more than it would make a group of dungeoncrawlers superior to a LARP-er who doesn't fit in.
Despite our natural urge toward dichotomy, few issues are black & white. There is no one "correct" way to play D&D (or Vampire or Chainmail or whatever); there are a million ways to play every game, and they're all correct in context. What matters is the ability of the group members to determine their playing style and work together.
That said, a given group is not obligated to accept every applicant. Some folks just won't fit your group; and there might even be a couple of people who don't belong in any group, but those individuals are more rare than you think. No matter how munchkinny, smelly, uncouth - that person is not beyond reach. Unfortunately, the time required to help another person develop better social/hygiene/whatever skills usually deters us from doing so.
To quote Pete from The Muppets Take Manhattan, "Peoples is peoples." What you are seeing isn't new to gaming, by a long shot.
Also, the internet has an odd effect on discussion, because it removes people's faces. Without a face, and without inflection, people seem to be a little more hot tempered. More willing to be opinionated. Less concerned about what the other guy will think or feel. The discussions are more impersonal, and that has deleterious effects on behavior.
Imagine - Two people meet in a gaming store and discuss some facet of the game upon which they disagree. How often do you expect the conversation will come to insults? How often will it come to such here, or in other internet discussions?
Also, the internet has an odd effect on discussion, because it removes people's faces. Without a face, and without inflection, people seem to be a little more hot tempered. More willing to be opinionated. Less concerned about what the other guy will think or feel. The discussions are more impersonal, and that has deleterious effects on behavior.
Imagine - Two people meet in a gaming store and discuss some facet of the game upon which they disagree. How often do you expect the conversation will come to insults? How often will it come to such here, or in other internet discussions?
