Have gamers ever been tolerant?

[Theron]

Actually, I think new gamers, regardless of age, are the best to have, because they haven't learned how to powergame yet. They are involved with their characters and don't get distracted with trying to figure out what level caster the evil sorcerer is because he could create a wall of fire.

Don't count on it lasting for long though. When running the niece (age 14) and nephew (age 13) through the Adventure Game, by the third scenario, both of them were already making numbers-based decisions on which characters to use, trying to balance "to-hit" chances with average damage ranges.

Now granted, the Adventure Game isn't really meant to be a ROLE-playing extravaganza, but they'd already grasped the basics of power (probably from years of playing the Pokemon CCG).

 

[William Ronald]

I think that a group benefits from having diverse opinions and talents. For example, some people in my group like to play certain character classes or have characters focus on social interaction. Others enjoy playing characters who are skilled in what they do, but are also role played well.

I think a sense of balance helps. For example, most adventures are designed for a party of characters with different classes, skills, and abilities.

Can people be intolerant of others? Sadly, they often are intolerant. However, I have gamed with people over 50 and under 18. I have seen good role players in both age groups. I have seen those who designed powerful characters and role played them well. Then again, I have seen poor role players and poorly designed characters.

Perhaps the key thing is to treat others with the respect you would wish for ourselves. To be different is not necessarily to be wrong. I have seen players go through different gaming styles. So, maybe the "role-players" and "roll-players" who disagree can try to talk to each other. They might learn something.

 

[Tiefling]

Teifling: In and of itself, tolerence is not a bad thing, but in and of itself neither is it a good thing. It is too closely related to apathy for me to make it a primary virtue.

I... suppose there's a strange sort of logic to that.

Too often, people who practice 'tolerence' are merely leaving when they are uncomfortable for all their claims of tolerence and respect they mean 'when you are comfortably over there'.

That's basically the same as saying "I don't like playing that way, but if you want to play that way good for you. I just won't be playing with you." And that seems perfectly acceptable to me.

I'm not sure it's wise to pursue the PC debate further, seeing as it's, well, political .

Certainly, being a recreation, RPG's are foremost about having fun. It's worth noting that among the most munchkin groups I've seen, the group had become so disfunctional that it ceased to be fun and players spent more time arguing and manipulating each other than they did playing the game.

But is that a result of power-gaming, or the personalities of those players?

"Being 14, I've been rejected by several prospective groups because I was too young for them."

Which is exactly my point. I've never rejected a player because of age or immaturity. While some of my groups have been fairly closed in the sense that we weren't advertising, that doesn't mean that we'd tell some 'kid' who was friends of someone in the group (pardon the experession) 'go away and grow up'. Older members tend to grow out of the top of groups as responcibilities accumulate, and they need to be replaced. To each his own is fine, but too often it is used to mean 'go away'.

That doesn't make sense to me. How could "We respect people who play game style X, but we don't play that way" be any worse than "We don't respect people who play game style X, and we don't play that way?"

"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."

Someone has already touched on this but in my experience power gaming is often done precisely to capture and stay in the spotlight, and power gamers are most likely to enjoy 'naked elf babes' and gratutious violence. It is an attempt, usually a childish attempt, to garner respect for oneself via making a character who is powerful. "See how cool I am because my character is so cool."

I'm sure that's true of some power-gamers, but I have trouble believing that it's a result of it.

The problem is that new players don't realize that sterotypes, derivitive copies of literary figures, and min/maxed characters without substantial (or any) personality depth aren't considered 'cool', and are frustrated when they aren't recieved well. In some groups this leads to an escalation of 'well if my character was more powerful, then they'd respect me' which leads to arguement, wheedling, whining, cheating, searching for shortcuts and so forth, all of which leads to more frustration. In better groups, someone shows the young player how to be cool, and the problem is solved.

That sounds like a problem with the player either simply not having experience or being in the wrong kind of group for them.

I think that there is a distinction that needs to be made when we say 'power gaming' between types of destructive Ego based gaming, and simply trying to create a character that can contribute meaningfully to party health. You don't have to create a weak character. You SHOULD give more serious thought to the ROLE than you do to the stats (unless this a tournament or something). The stats should reflect the role, not the other way around.

That sounds right. Certainly most people would have more fun if their character is contributing to the party.

"..and while I'm happy when 'munchkins' of any age have fun, I do hope (and encourage) that they out grow it."

Because a role player can engage in the full range of play that RPG's provide. A munchkin is locked into a single type of relatively uncreative play which doesn't contribute to the health of the RPG industry beyond increasing its customer base. I've yet to meet a munchkin that makes a good DM. Either there Ego gets in the way (my NPC's have to be better than your PC's), and even there fellow munchkins are unhappy, or else they give in and let thier players run the game Monty Haul style. Any one want to spend money to buy some munchkins 'setting'?

Oh, okay. I initially thought that you used the term "munchkin" to refer to power-gamers in general. Am I interpreting your words correctly when I believe that you're refering to someone who cheats, has to outdo the other players, etc.

"What do you mean, 'played well'"

Maybe you've yet to encounter it at your age, but sometime you need to just sit back and watch an experienced group of serious (about having fun) players play the game. I think it will blow you away and you'll never play the same way again. I was lucky enough to have this experience when a college aged DM took on us 12 year olds for a few sessions and brought NPC's to life with a vibrancy and immediatecy that our (enjoyable) dice rolling combat filled sessions had never known. We never played the same way again. Our PC's started talking to each other in character. We started thinking about motivations, histories, backgrounds, or place in the world, and my DMing went from 'There is an Ogre in a Hole.. roll initiative', 'There is a haunted castle full of undead...roll initiative', to somewhere on the road to where it is today when I put my full effort into it.

Brought into the right group, even a person with Asperger's Syndrome (and there are more than a few in gaming) can achieve sociableness, and that is I think one of the most extraordinary things about gaming.

Oh. I was just confused as to how it fit into "I for one do think that there is a difference between mature and immature play, and while I'm happy when 'munchkins' of any age have fun, I do hope (and encourage) that they out grow it. I do think that the game can be played well, because I've seen it and I've seen the difference."

This is one of those arguements where people will, at best, agree to disagree. To each their own.

When conflicts occur within a group it's easy to start calling people names of one sort or another, whether it truly represents them or not. It's simply a difference of taste. Not everyone wants to be "tolerant" all the time. Just like sometimes you don't want any chocolate in your peanut butter (Mmmmm).

People in general ARE tolerant, but everyone has limits, and once they find what they like, they tend to keep things that way. Hopefully, everyone else in the same game is also tolerant. As long as it doesn't spoil the fun for others, there is no conflict.

I think you may be misinterpreting what I'm saying. I don't mean that one should play with people whose tastes in gaming one doesn't share. I'm just saying that one shouldn't say that their tastes have less worth than yours.

Eh... I know I'm a role-player. I hardly power game. When PCs get too big for their britches (not through any fault of my own, they just get cocky and annoying) I cut them off at the knees and watch them bleed to death. I don't tolerate "munckin" gaming.

It's certainly your right to play this way.

I know power gaming when I see it, and I know it's immature. I can say this because I know it when I see it, and I don't care if I sound PC or not. Things are the way they are.

What's your reasoning behind saying that it's immature?

When I was an undergrad I found out that some guys in the dorms were gaming at the dorm next to mine. I knew right away that I would take over, long before I ever met the entire group. I sat in, silently laughed my butt off as I watched a wretched display of power gaming, and within 2 weeks I had them sucked into my campaign. Granted, the original DM didn't like that, OR the fact that I killed his character, and he pouted, crinkled up his character sheet and left the room, never to return. The rest of the group loved the game, and we still play today.

I'm sure I speak for everyone here when I say that you have succeeded at convincing me of your well-endowment.

There is a level of maturity found at every gaming table. That cannot be denied.

Oh, I don't deny that. I just deny that it's determined by the group's prefered mix of role-playing and power-gaming.

Was playing cops and robbers as a kid fun for you?

Didn't play it.

Naturally I didn't begrudge those who did, though.

To me it's the difference between space invaders and chess. Is one less mature? (Maybe mature is not a good word--try intellectually sophisticated) I sure think so.

Actually, I think the different styles just employs different kinds of intellect. Role-playing employs one's social and empathic intellect, while power-gaming employs one's numerical and logical intellect. But one could be very socially and empathically adept and yet still prefer to employ one's numerical and logical intellect through power-gaming, or vice versa. In other words, if you like to play one style, it doesn't neccessarily mean that you don't have the skills employed in another style.

Thank goodness. You play in your corner, and I'll play in mine. But, really, I know ONE person right now that I would absolutely refuse to game with, and I think it's truly rare to find someone that makes the game unfun. If you're unlucky enough to find this person, just stay away from them. It's that easy. And it doesn't have to involve name calling or bashing of any kind.

Good idea.

P.S. To those of you who I haven't responded to, I agree with you and/or I'm soaking up the information you're giving me like a well-tuned sponge.

 

[Ashtal]

Hmm. Supermassive post time.
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.

Good lord, YES IT IS. What you compared was apples and asteroids. Racial slurs are not the same as petty name-calling. There is a hatred, and a danger, and years of unrest and oppression behind them, that makes them an entirely different thing than being called a 'munchkin'.

If you can equate them, then your little sunshine capital of the universe musn't intersect with the real world that often.

Hence, don't do it again.

 

[Henry]

I should hope your question has been answered by now, Tief - both by discourse, and in some above cases, by example.

I'll bow out, barring any significant posting by another, and close by saying that tolerance is something that comes very slowly, if at all.

No life experience, be it politics, war, sport, hobby, economics, or religion - is not without internal conflict. Without it, humanity wouldn't be.... well, human.

 

[Tiefling]

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on that, Ashtal.

Hence, don't do it again.

You may have noticed that you added racial slurs to the profanity filter. Hence, I doubt you'll have a problem.

I should hope your question has been answered by now, Tief - both by discourse, and in some above cases, by example.

Indeed it has . I had not figured that this attitude extended before role-players and power-gamers even existed. Though, in retrospect, it seems obvious.

 

[Heathen72]

...there are "serious actors" who despise "hams" - forgetting that we need a good laugh as much as we need a good cry.

What, and a "serious actor" doesn't know how to be funny? What Codswallop! Having done more than my fair share of comedy and having worked with all types of actors (Both hammy and "serious") I can safely say that there is a difference between a comic actor and a hammy actor. What's more, a comic actor can approach his profession very "seriously" and still give you a good laugh.

Hammy actors are for the most part just plain selfish. They aren't interested in giving the audience a good time; they just want lots of attention. It's very self indulgent - They are basically masturbating (I acknowledge that this is a crude analogy but I feel it isn't gratuitous).

Yes, hammy actors can be big, and they can be extravagant, and this can be exciting for inexperienced actors to watch, because they are afraid of taking these big risks. Unfortunately there is no foundation of truth in a ham's performance - just exaggerated bad decisions. Good actors know when to be larger than life, and when to be extravagant, but they know when a scene requires subtlety and have that gift that most hams lack - the ability to LISTEN. Big Reactions are funny, true - but they are even funnier when they are an exaggeration of a good impulse and aren't just a stock rolling of the eyes, waving of the arms and so on.

Hams aren't interested in other actors, (they view them as walking props only there to make them look good) and their essential motive in performance isn't to give the audience a good time, but to receive their applause. The same goes for improvisation. The best work is achieved by performers striving to make their fellow performer look good. Truly generous performers are a joy to watch - and a joy to perform with.

Next time you roleplay, try this:
Take the focus off yourself, and your characterisation, and focus on giving your fellow players (and GM) as good a time as possible. Make them look good. If everyone did this everyone would have a better time.

 

[Celebrim]

*applauds spunkrat *

Hear hear! Encore! Encore!

Excellent post!

(It seems we should add the term 'power acting' to our lexicon.)

P.S: For the record I've been forced to resort to the same crude analogy when discussing munchkins, so I for one excuse you.

 

[Henry]

What, and a "serious actor" doesn't know how to be funny? What Codswallop! Having done more than my fair share of comedy and having worked with all types of actors (Both hammy and "serious") I can safely say that there is a difference between a comic actor and a hammy actor. What's more, a comic actor can approach his profession very "seriously" and still give you a good laugh.

And here we have the SAME PROBLEM. Please define a "hammy actor." Is your definition the same as mine? Most likely not, seeing as you have an inside perspective on the matter. But before you make sweeping generalizations as to what constitutes "good acting," or even "true roleplay," as one poster alluded to, please define yourself.

The more a person tries to define why their style is "better," the more pretentious the definition sounds, in my opinion.

 

[Heathen72]

Please define a "hammy actor."

Um.. I kinda did in my post. In fact the reason I posted again in the first place was because I felt I needed to clarify what I felt a ham actor to be! Read it again, if you are really interested in seeing what qualities I feel defines an actor as a ham.
Oh,and before you make sweeping statements about how ham actors bring light and happiness into the world, I suggest that you define what you think a ham actor is. While your at it, you might also try your hand at defining what exactly a "serious actor" is, because by yours (or Sigil's) "definition" they appear to be a curmudgeonly lot who have forgotten what it is to laugh.
Do you mean an actor who is serious? Or a person who is serious about acting? Or a jaded and close minded grump?

For your edification, here is a simple dictionary definition for ham:
Ham 3 (short for hamfatter, from "The Ham-fat Man," a minstrel song) : a showy performer; especially an actor performing in an exaggerated theatrical style.

As for defining myself, well not quite sure I see the need, but...
I have been acting for over ten years - at first amateur, then as a professional - in all manner of productions. (Tragedy, Shakespeare, Comedy, you name it.) Over that time I have also trained and performed as an improvisor (Theatresports, Commedia D'ell Arte etc.) and I was lucky enough to do workshops with Keith Johnstone.* I also have a BA in Arts in Performing Arts. As far as comedy goes, last year I directed / wrote / and performed in shows for The Melbourne Fringe Festival and the Melbourne International Comedy festival, the former winning best comedy. I feel this gives me some insight into the nature of ham. Not the whole truth surely, but enough to make the odd broad statement, should I feel so inclined.
I'm sorry if that sounds pretentious, but you asked.**


*Everyone should read "Impro" and "Impro for Storytellers" if you at all interested in GMing well "on the fly". They are both by Keith Johnstone, and they are both excellent.

** Besides, pretending is my job. And your hobby. So don't knock it.