Have gamers ever been tolerant?

[Mathew_Freeman]

I used to be pretty much a powergamer in a role-players campaign. I was always desperate for better magical items, nastier spells, more levels etc etc etc. My characters were created with power in mind first, then I'd make up some lame history if I felt like it.

I realised after some time that everyone else was more involved and seemed to be having more fun than me. So I changed around.

However, if I'd been in the opposite situation, I probably would have changed too.

I've eventually settled on creating powerful characters, but making sure they have a personality, a reason for existing, some interesting character traits and a history. Why not push the two extremes together.

PS: It was fun to notice at GenConUK that the roleplayers were given their own floor, which was two floors away from all the card gamers downstairs...occasionally a cardgamer would wander up to see what was going on upstairs, look confused at all the paper and rule books, and swiftly leave again. Cheered me up, anyway.

 

[Theron]

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.

[Warning: IMPERFECT ANALOGY FOLLOWS - IF YOU DON'T THINK IT APPLIES TO YOU, I DON'T WANT TO HEAR ABOUT IT]

The anonymity makes being on the 'net a bit like being drunk in public. Some people are jolly happy drunks, some are sloppy, some are argumentative, some just sit quietly and listen, some become more gregarious, some wait for someone else to start a fight and then pile on, others just reach out and slug someone for no apparent reason.

 

[The Sigil]

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.

*chuckles* Or maybe it's just that we like to THINK we're a "smart crowd." And so do literature people. And music people. And so forth. If there's one thing I've learned, it's that "smart" people aren't always.

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."

Unfortunately, we're in a society where it's becoming less and less "cool" to play nice. Look no further than The Weakest Link if you want to see that. Society, unfortunately, praises the brazen, rude, and pompous. To "fit in" most of us try to be brazen, rude, and/or pompous.

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.

Interesting. I don't think I've ever had a group without at least one person under 14. Now, this does sometimes cause tension because a 14-year-old's concerns - and selection of knowledge from which to form "in jokes" - are not the same as those of older players - but I find that for my campaigns, I really enjoy having at least one "newbie" to the game or "young person IRL" in the group to balance out the jaded "20-years-in-gaming-means-I've-seen-it-all" types.

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.

Ah, but there are those that will argue that Power-gaming COMES from the need to always be in the spotlight. It's a chicken-and-egg thing. Are you in the spotlight because you powergame or do you powergame to be in the spotlight? I'm not saying this perception is right or wrong, but it IS there.

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.

After almost 20 years of gaming, I can tell you that tastes change over time as you acquire more real-world experience. Much as I hate to use a phrase you probably hear a lot, "you'll understand better when you're older." At 12, I was much less sensitive to the subject of abusing small children (because I saw that as me beating up my little brothers - which was a fun and enjoyable pastime) than I am now (where I have small children of my own and the thought of someone deliberately harming them is repugnant, to say the least).

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?

I think that goes back to changing tastes as you age. In general, younger people have a notion that they can "change the world." Not just the fantasy world, but the real world. This probably is a healthy and desirable thing. However, as we get older and realize that it's not that easy and that fighting evil does not mean hunting it down in its lair - because you're liable to get thrown in jail for trespassing and breaking and entering - and that it's not so easy to change the world (heck, it's not so easy to change a diaper!) that we adapt our goals to the smaller scale. I would love to change the world - but to me now, it's more important to make a lasting impact for good in my kids' lives. Is this loss of a desire to change the world at large a good thing? Maybe, maybe not. I do know that it does seem to happen, though.

Sometimes, though, it is nice to play in a fantasy world where defeating evil IS as simple as strapping on some armor, tracking it to a lair, and slaying it. There are times I wish I could do this IRL with some of the faceless evils attacking our society today.

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.

That is probably the most compelling argument I know of... D&D is my escapism. I see a world going to hell and know I can't do too much about it - I can't spread myself far enough. But in the world of D&D, maybe I - or my character - *CAN* make a difference.

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.

Problem is, as I said, that age tends to bring about a certain amount of change in thoughts and tastes. That means older people tend to categorize younger people as "immature" simply because they have not accumulated as much "life experience." Bah. We were all kids at some point - and some of us seem to want to forget that. That's another reason I like having some youth at my gaming table when I DM - I need that perspective to keep my own fresh and unjaded. Immature, to me, is someone who has had the experience and not learned from it. A child acting like a child is... a child. An adult acting like a child is... immature. And to be honest, most of the things we like to call "mature" (read: sex and violence) are really rather immature (it's the same things we found funny during puberty - can't we ever grow out of them? And why is that stuff considered "mature" anyway? To me, "mature" material means talking about old people - your definition of old may vary).

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).

In general, it's a spiteful and hateful term - the behaviors you describe are no worse than hamming it up, but there are "serious actors" who despise "hams" - forgetting that we need a good laugh as much as we need a good cry.

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.

I think the problem is that it's easier for a "munchkin" to disrupt a group of "role-players" than vice-versa. After all, the "munchkin" is more about action - and violent action - than the "role-player." After all, when a munchkin gets bored with the role-player's endless conversation, he simply says, "I pull out my sword and attack the <whatever>" and suddenly, the game is the type the munchkin enjoys and the role-player hates. It's much more difficult for the role-player who is tired of the munchkin's continuous combat frenzy to simply say, "I stop the fight and negotiate."

I think THAT'S why it's used in so ugly a manner - because a munchkin can "force" a role-player into the munchkin's world much more easily than the role-player can "force" the munchkin into the role-player's world (unless, of course, the role-player "does the unthinkable" and uses munchkin tactics to out-munchkin the munchkin, thus forcing him to listen or die - which is kind of paradoxical - "in order to rid myself of munchkinism, I must become a better munchkin myself").

That's my 2 cents. And Tief, you're welcome in my group any time (I try to have a nice balance and have had munchkins and role-players living together for years in my campaigns now - it is hard, but it CAN be done - but the effort makes most people think it's not worthwhile).

--The Sigil

 

[Henry]

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

That is a truly profound quote, Sigil, and the most germane one I've yet to hear on this thread.

 

[Celebrim]

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. 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'. And, PC is too often a means of deriding people who you feel superior too. At its heart PC is simply a new set of 'common sense' principals. At one time, it was politically correct to be a racist. I don't want to base my morals on something as vacillating as public opinion.

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.

"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'.

"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." 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.

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.

"..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'?

"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.

 

[Painfully]

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.

 

[Glamdring]

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.

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.

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.

There is a level of maturity found at every gaming table. That cannot be denied. Those who wish to be PC and say, "Awwww, well, I don't see any differences here," are being nothing more than that: PC. It's great for the masses, and it certainly means that no one will argue with you, but, what's the fun in that?

 

[Painfully]

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?

Was playing cops and robbers as a kid fun for you? Would you still play the game the same way if you played it today? Of course not. Add some dice, add some charts, add some attitude for your character--it's all good. Now go get'm! (BTW I play Half-life counterstrike all the time. It's very basic and "immature", but it's a lot of fun.)

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. It's all about degrees of variability, and chess has more of it. And I'm not just saying add more charts and dice, I'm saying think in more complex ways. Most gamers I know would be less impressed with a player who slays a dragon with their +5 keen holy scimitar, than a player who used their wits and drew the dragon into a trap using trickery and then tried to bargain with it. I don't want my GM to limit myself and the other players by leaving out the latter possilibity.

Do I think it's less sophisticated when there is less room for social interaction by the PCs? Yes. Do I think its a difference of playing style? Yes. Do I think it makes for a less sophisticated game? Yes. (Note that most players I know have no problem being mature as well as immature regardless of the game or style involved, but they keep it fun.)

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.

By all means, go right ahead. It's there for you to have fun with it. I don't read anybody here saying you can't be a powergamer.

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.

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.

 

[The Grumpy Celt]

No, wait, Mark Twain thought society was evil, not the innocent man... Maybe you're channeling Joseph Conrad instead...

(Snort)
Shows what you know.
I'm channeling Mark Conrad.
So there.

 

[Great Umbrage]

Arrogance and elitism go hand-in-hand with the type of game that RPGs are--namely, games that each group, both players and the DM, makes their own. That we provide the impetus and the input to create our own worlds lends itself naturally to an inflation of the ego. That said, there is also a faction of people who swear by the "canon" material, whatever it may be, and there are those even within that faction who swear by the game material and others who uphold the novels as the ultimate authority.

There are significant similarities between D&D and religion insofar as every person has his or her own relationship to the game as every faithful has a particular relationship to his deity; every group shares in a communal imagination to create the world in which they play just as every person's idea of a god or gods are truly created by that person's perceptions of the faith.

Thus, one only has to look at religious intolerance in the world to see a profound correlation in gaming intolerance as well. When something, be it faith or role-playing, requires on the part of the participant the imagination in order to conceive, the belief in order to take part in, and the communal sharing in order to make prolific a faith or an imaginary world, then it becomes so ingrained into our psyche that it can override the conscious, logical aspect of our minds that disbelieves such fantastical things as swords & sorcery in RPGs or actual miracles in faith by convincing the subconscious part of our minds into accepting these things on faith, because in truth, there is a part of us that wants to believe that such fantastical happenings are indeed real and that we can witness or participate in them.

So when someone else brings forth a contradictory view of the world, real or not, it challenges the foundations of our imagination as surely as it does the precepts of our faith.