Is D&D/D20 Childish and Immature?

[Col_Pladoh]

I think people are saying that the concepts of mature and immature as applied to RPGs are so subjective as to be meaningless, and who the heck cares anyway?

Buttercup, you are so right! Agonizing over what is mature or childish in a game of make-believe sinnply boggles my mind. If someone has more fun being immature while playing, while another loves to believe his approach is the utmost in sohisticated play, in the final anayysis both are being entertained by make-believe, anbd who cares beyond that?!

Gary

 

[Feliath]

Talking power (long-winded)

Originally burbled by Sir Eldaen
Why justify when it's so very clear that one is playing the supreme system/world/whatever? Why even discuss with people who defend childish ideas? Sorry, but that makes me really p...ed off!"

OK, so this right here is where he shoots himself in the foot with such large-caliber ammo as to blow off everything beneath the neck. I don't really think there needs to be any debate about something written by someone this elitist. So, as a disclaimer, everything below this point is basically an exercise in perspectives.

Oh, wait, one more thing. I need to point out specifically, I think, in the names of fairness and clarity, that I don't play the way one might think from the gunk below. I just want to point out a reverse perspective on a commonly discussed argument.

So, here goes:

The idea that D&D is immature because it allows great levels of power is just absurd.

I defy Eldaen (or anyone else who combines cultural elitism and the above opinion) to call Ovid or Homer - or even Shakespeare; we'll get to that - immature.
Let's look at just one of the things in the the Iliad, shall we? OK, here's Ajax. He's invulnerable - with the exception of one heel. This would definitely be considered munchkin in an RPG, but I doubt that's what people see in the Iliad. The invulnerability is there to make a point, to help tell a story. (About hubris, BTW.)
The entire Iliad is crammed full of what equates to high-level heroes. Thing is, it doesn't matter - the plot is driven by the characters' desires and ambitions.

Then there's the Odyssey, which is an even better example because, in essence, the whole thing is a long, boat-y D&D campaign centered around this incredibly high-level hero who gets magic items, fights one-eyed giants and sorceresses, and so forth. Again, immature? Anybody?

From Shakespeare, we have two nice examples. The first one's The Tempest. It nicely shows how the equivalent of high-level wizardry may not only be workable in a good plot, but absolutely imperative. I would certainly equate Prospero to a high-level wizard or sorceror.

The other one is a comment on Tallarn's excellent point about Fight Club.

Hamlet.
Because when you look at the surface of it, it's actually this revenge-based action-play with fights, poisonings, suicide, ghosts, thingumbob and his uncle - I mean, there's, what, 7 deaths on stage? 9? - but it also happens to be considered one of the deepest plays in literature (except by Tolstoy, who considered it unreadable ).

Conclusion: One does not preclude the other. Sometimes, the one necessitates the other.

Finally, it should be noted that this is written by someone who considers Peter Pan to be the pinnacle of world literature. Go figure.

/Feliath - much bored, also European, need sleep

 

[Leitchy]

Please ignore

 

[Agglomérante]

The typical D&D geek has underdeveloped social skills because he's sunk too much attention into the game, or into social situations mediated by the game.

The typical D&D player isn't a geek, precisely because he sees and understands that danger.

Vive la différence.

Agglomérante

"That games are extensions, not of our private but of our social selves, and that they are media of communication, should now be plain." -- Marshall McLuhan

 

[kenjib]

Hello Agglomérante and welcome to the board.

 

[mmadsen]

Some half naked guy in a football stadium can paint himself the team colors and he's all right. Some guy can dress up like a Jedi at a con and he's a loon. Dress him up as a wizard or vampire and he's a freak.

Society at large does not think that a half-naked guy painted in his team's colors is "all right". Not pathological maybe, but certainly a bit wacky. The Jedi and the Vampire are even wackier.

 

[hong]

I dunno. Raw masculinity is not necessarily an adolescent trait. Conan is basically a re-write of Tarzan. Tarzan/Conan represent masculinity unbridled by the constraints of a civilization which forces an increased feminization. He is a conduit for us to indulge in some natural aspects of the human condition which are heavily oppressed in the industrialized world. They are oppressed for good reason, but not without negative side effects.

Yeah, but these days we can download pr0n instead.

 

[nsruf]

Greetings!

I was reading the Harn Forums for awhile, and the discussion evolved to various points, some of which were that D&D has "childish ideas" and that people who play D&D are "obsessed with childish, immature concepts and ideas" as Kaptain Kantrip notes. It got me to thinking--are there childish, immature concepts that people who play D&D embrace?

I am not going to evaluate the thread on the Harn forum, because I don't have time and inclination to read it, so I don't know the full story. But I try to answer your question from my POV:

1. Generalizing that "D&D players are childish and immature" is obviously rubbish, as is generalizing about people in any fashion. This does not mean that there aren't people I would consider childish or immature or do not enjoy gaming with (sometimes it is hard to differentiate), but this is hardly surprising. Oh, and from my personal experience, there are very few of this lot populating these here boards So I think we can safely discard this statement as "noise".

2. The game itself might contain some ideas that are naive or simplistic. But this is a matter of personal taste. Myself, I dislike the alignment system, in particular if combined with the various spells that detect or affect alignment directly. I just don't like the logical and ethical implications of it. But as I happen to like most other aspects/mechanics of the game, I houserule the issue away. Why somebody should feel the need to denounce the game as "childish and immature" because of such issues is beyond me - either decide that you can fix it or give up playing it.

Bottom line: yes, D&D can be childish and immature, but not more so than the people playing it want it to be...

 

[Mobius]

One of my buddy's wives chastises him quite regularly for playing RPGs. In her mind, adult men sitting around playing make believe for hours at a time is wasting our time, at best, and irresponsible, at worst, when there is so much more important things to do.

She made the mistake of bringing up this belief the last time I was over hoping to drag him out to play. I pointed to the TV that was on and mentioned that almost 100% of what comes through on the box is make believe - even the so-called reality shows with situations that never crop up in real life. It was a logical point, but she *loved* TV and hated RPGs for some other reason than the unreality of both, because she still drew that line where one was good and the other was bad.

 

[Umbran]

The typical D&D geek has underdeveloped social skills because he's sunk too much attention into the game, or into social situations mediated by the game.

Actually, I think this is putting the cart before the horse. The "typical D&D geek" turns to the game's mediated social situations because he has some difficulties with real life. The typical gamer geek is introverted and socially awkward before he picks up the game.