Interesting criticism I found about us "RPG guys".

[Doug McCrae]

Your favourite system sucks.

Also, it's clearly marketed towards the intellectually sub-normal.


Actually I think you see that type of discussion on the internet about everything. Macs vs PCs, Harleys vs Nortons, music, politics.

Roleplayers might be a little worse though. A week ago I was demonstrating a distinctive 'bouncing' style of walking I saw a lot when I used to go to roleplaying conventions. My friend, a psychiatrist, said it was a marker for autism.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Look a little closer at where the "flamewar" is taking place. If it's in a folder labled "4E" then there's every reason that discussing 3E or 1E is going to net you nothing but burning hatred, and vice versa, and for good reason.

AL and NL did not manifest as different leagues because one was deemed to be inherently superior to the other, but it is almost inherent to the idea of creation of a new edition that the previous/existing edition is INFERIOR - that it can be and IS improved by the newer version. Of course it ISN'T inherently true as the preferences people have for a given edition ARE predominantly, inherently subjective. Besides which RPG designs are orders of magnitude more complex than sports. Even relatively mild changes can reframe the argument from the difference between AL and NL to the idea that baseball is superior to basketball.

What IS true is that the discussion of the differences between editions do not have to be looked at in the most contentious possible light - even when somebody involved attempts to do so. THAT is a matter of maturity of participants. Like it or not, RPGs are dominated by young males, and participants do SKEW towards both higher intelligence and social immaturity regardless of actual age group. That said, I'd be willing to go along with the claim that while there is occasional need to stomp down on edition flamewars the REACTION to the possibility is becoming as bad as a flamewar in and of itself.

The twofold solution:

Grow up and GET OFF IT.

 

[McTreble]

It's obvious:

I have X amount of dollars. I have X amount of time. I have chosen to spend my limited time and money on a hobby. An attack on my hobby of choice is an attack on me, saying that my investment in money and time and passion is misplaced. Same reason we like to be complimented on our clothes or possessions. I didn' weave my shirt, but I made a good choice in purchasing it.

 

[Peraion Graufalke]

At the risk of making this a totally private conversation:

[sblock]I'm a beta tester for StarCraft II, and I found this no problem at all. You sign up your friends ahead of time, and the system lets you know when they're on battle.net (sort of like MSN Messenger, or any other IM system). You create a party by inviting your friends, and the entire party goes from game to game.[/sblock]

No worries, I'll keep it short:
[sblock]Yeah, he was in the beta test too, but I don't think he figured out this party concept (which I hadn't heard about, btw). I'll tell him next time I see him. Thanks for the info. [/sblock]

 

[JoeGKushner]

Little unclear about how WoW or boardgaming are related to tabletop RPG sales and use? Surely more time spent on WoW is less time spent on real roleplaying?

At least I don't have to worry about Sox and Cubby fans. In Glasgow the first shot to the head is a beer glass moving at 80 mph, followed by a nut-crunching coup de brazils.

Sox and Cubby fans need to start sprinkling nails on their porridge if they want to figure

Because time is a finite resource and people are attracted to the press of the boardgames and the ease of access to WoW.

 

[El Mahdi]

deleted

 

[Nork]

I think the guy has enough of a point.

I think a lot of it is because there are enough (I said enough, not all) gamers that want to 'escape life' through playing fantasy games, and anything that even jostles their escapism is seen as a direct attack on their person. Your disrupting their Matrix and they are one of the ones in there by choice.

I really see it come out with a fury in miniature wargames, as they are by definition confrontational games (confrontation does not mean a lack of sportsmanship), and there is a demographic that gets ANGRY and insist you are 'playing wrong' when it doesn't follow their mental construction of how things 'should go'. I've also noticed that those same people tended to edition war the hardest over 4E, or react like rolling a 1 is a personal failure or rolling a 20 is a personal triumph. Yea, rolling a 20 is cool, but YOU didn't do anything, your character did, and you and your character are different things.

Which I think is really my point. Some gamers treat games like reading a book or watching a movie and tend to be less invested, and other gamers seem to treat it like an alter-ego. The alter-ego gamers seem like they get hyper upset over stuff like edition changes. Which make sense to me, as changing editions is basically an attempt at shutting their Matrix down.

When it comes to the idea that someone is being dismissive or rude towards a system you like: So what. I like the tragedies Shakespeare wrote, and some people find them boring and are dismissive towards them. No skin off my nose, and frankly, people would treat me like I was crazy if I flew off the handle at someone for saying Hamlet was confusing and boring. To them it is, and they shouldn't have to walk on egg shells about that fact. Which I think is what the quote in the original post was driving at.

 

[Diamond Cross]

Actually I think that it's only human nature to take criticism of any sort personally.

I've seen this kind of behavior in many forums over the years.

For example, on the Trek BBS the most common forms of criticism is:

"My show is really super great and there should be no change in it and if there is any change it's a canon violation and is a travesty. How dare they change anything on my precious show that is just for me. And I am the sole arbiter of what makes anything good.... ad naseum"


So like edition wars there are series wars. So of course people are going tot ake things seriously and personally.

 

[Nork]

Actually I think that it's only human nature to take criticism of any sort personally.

I've seen this kind of behavior in many forums over the years.

For example, on the Trek BBS the most common forms of criticism is:

"My show is really super great and there should be no change in it and if there is any change it's a canon violation and is a travesty. How dare they change anything on my precious show that is just for me. And I am the sole arbiter of what makes anything good.... ad naseum"


So like edition wars there are series wars. So of course people are going tot ake things seriously and personally.

However, there are many people who merely find Startrek entertaining, and just don't care that other people don't like it. I liked that DS9 was on a space station, other people thought it ruined the Startrek premise. There are people I can have a conversation about that dislike with, and then there are people that I'll never discuss anything about Startrek with.

I think there are some people who are 'Matrix-tripping' on Startrek. For them, when Startrek cannon changes I think it causes cognitive dissonance. I think they get so wrapped up in it that there isn't really a place where they end and Startrek begins. You can't tell them "I think Startrek is boring" without telling them "I think you are boring", because the two statements are basically the same.

It isn't a situation where two people tell each other that the other guy's favorite team is a stinker, and then argue about the merits of the teams. It is almost always a game that they are playing, a means to discuss their favorite subjects. They know that they agree to disagree, but the act of disagreeing is a discussion they like. Sure, they walk away at the end of it calling the other guy wrong, but I rarely see people get personally offended by such an exchange. (edit: look at raging little league dads that get into fist fights in the stands if you want to look at the sports analogs for edition wars or sports Matrix-tripping.)

 

[JoeGKushner]

I think the guy has enough of a point.

I think a lot of it is because there are enough (I said enough, not all) sports fans that want to 'escape life' through watching sport games, and anything that even jostles their escapism is seen as a direct attack on their person. Your disrupting their Matrix and they are one of the ones in there by choice.

I really see it come out with a fury in football fans, as they are by definition confrontational games (confrontation does not mean a lack of sportsmanship), and there is a demographic that gets ANGRY and insist you are 'playing wrong' when it doesn't follow their mental construction of how things 'should go'.

Which I think is really my point. Some fans treat sports like reading a book or watching a movie and tend to be less invested, and other fans seem to treat it like an alter-ego. The alter-ego fans seem like they get hyper upset over stuff like bad ref calls. Which make sense to me, as bad ref calls are basically an attempt at shutting their Matrix down.

When it comes to the idea that someone is being dismissive or rude towards a sport you like: So what. I like the tragedies Shakespeare wrote, and some people find them boring and are dismissive towards them. No skin off my nose, and frankly, people would treat me like I was crazy if I flew off the handle at someone for saying Hamlet was confusing and boring. To them it is, and they shouldn't have to walk on egg shells about that fact. Which I think is what the quote in the original post was driving at.

How easy to change and make apply to almost anything.