Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 1569132" data-attributes="member: 7635">&quot;Since when did D&amp;D start becoming collaborative novel writing and stop being a game[?]&quot; - Kamikaze Midget The signal to noise ratio of this thread is starting to disturb me.&nbsp;Ok, aside from naming this thing a &quot;hobby&quot; (which moves the comparison from activities like baseball and Monopoly to activities like needlepoint and street-racing) what have we accomplished with this renaming? &nbsp;1.) Games have rules. All games have a finite set of rules. They can be rigid (like the playbook for football) or fluid (like the rules for dodgeball in an elementary school playground). A hobby doesn't require such strict rules (when was the last time someone stopped you from crocheting a certain way because it wasn't &quot;by the book&quot;?)&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; a.) To change the game to a hobby implies rules, at least formal rules, are a non-necessity&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; b.) &quot;Guidebooks&quot; would mostly become nothing more than starting guides and pattern books, enough to teach the skills and necessities, but not all encompassing Bibles.&nbsp;2.) Hobby implies a level of maturity. Everyone has a hobby, be it computers, cars, sewing, or dancing. &quot;Games&quot; implies a sort-of immaturity associated with the sneering phrase &quot;Oh, you STILL play games? Isn't that what CHILDREN do?&quot; Such a renaming would remove this stigma.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; a.) A RPH could be moved to include a larger audience of potential Role-playing hobbiests, including LARP, Recreationists, MMOPRGers, and impromptu amateur theater. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; b.) It would leave our beloved &quot;gamer&quot; friends behind, including those who play (amateur or tournament) CCG, Monopoly, Videogames, and Chess. &nbsp;3.) If we are going with a reinvention, I suggest we also lose the term &quot;Role-playing.&quot; Sacralige? Unfortunately, Role-playing has a second, sexually implied connotation that brings to mind images of halloween costumes and whips. In recent times, WotC began to label RPG games &quot;Adventure games&quot; and the RPH, despite losing the gaming monicker, would contain the same pseudo-sexual connotation that make eyebrows raise when you are talking to co-workers by the water cooler. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; a.) That IS, of course, we are ready to welcome such members into our collective as &quot;role-players&quot; akin to LARPs and others mentioned in 2a. Judging by the reaction to the Book of Erotic Fantasy, this seems unlikely.&nbsp;4.) Such a move denies the games roots completely. As an offshoot of Tabletop Combat Simulation games, (which in and of itself can be considered a hobby do to the time/money investment, but I digress), RPGs have always viewed themselves as a game, and treated its subject matter as such.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; a.) This worked as a great defense mechanism against conservative attacks in the 80s and 90s. Read the disclaimers in front of any 80's plus RPG (esp Palladium and 2nd Ed D&amp;D) for proof of the &quot;this is JUST a game&quot; phenomenon.&nbsp;5.) Ultimately, what would this change start? I highly doubt it would draw much more fresh blood to the game/hobby, because those who WOULD be interested in it usually have found a way into it (or into its close cousins, CCGs and MMORPGS). It wouldn't change/banish current players who view the game as a competitive endevaor (assuming the Type A pesonalties that must be the best at anything, from love to social promotion). It MIGHT create a line in the sand between &quot;real role-players&quot; and &quot;roll-players&quot;, but that line exists already without the universe as a whole erring to one side or the other. Ultimately, such a sweeping universal change would do little to avoid the threads/ games/ events that happen currently in the community.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; a.) That is to say, role- playing IS universally better than roll- playing. There is still a jury out on that, and I'm afraid its deadlocked.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; b.) It also assumes everyone, from WotC to White-Wolf, to Privateer Press, Goodman Games, Kenzer Co, Palladium, Steve Jackson Games, West End games and Fafsa/Wiz Kids would all be willing to go in this radical new direction. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; c.) It lastly assumes that these kinds of games/changes can't happen under the current infrastructure. Lots of people have made successful games for years under the cobbled-together universe of RPGs, and will continue to do so. &nbsp;IN CONCLUSION: Sorry, but any image redesign is the same goat in new clothes. If you want to improve the community, find a group of young, eager students, teach them to read, think creatively, and do basic math, and then introduce them into RPGs. You'll be doing a great service to the industry of RPGs and the world as a whole.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Remathilis, post: 1569132, member: 7635"] "Since when did D&D start becoming collaborative novel writing and stop being a game[?]" - Kamikaze Midget The signal to noise ratio of this thread is starting to disturb me. Ok, aside from naming this thing a "hobby" (which moves the comparison from activities like baseball and Monopoly to activities like needlepoint and street-racing) what have we accomplished with this renaming? 1.) Games have rules. All games have a finite set of rules. They can be rigid (like the playbook for football) or fluid (like the rules for dodgeball in an elementary school playground). A hobby doesn't require such strict rules (when was the last time someone stopped you from crocheting a certain way because it wasn't "by the book"?) a.) To change the game to a hobby implies rules, at least formal rules, are a non-necessity b.) "Guidebooks" would mostly become nothing more than starting guides and pattern books, enough to teach the skills and necessities, but not all encompassing Bibles. 2.) Hobby implies a level of maturity. Everyone has a hobby, be it computers, cars, sewing, or dancing. "Games" implies a sort-of immaturity associated with the sneering phrase "Oh, you STILL play games? Isn't that what CHILDREN do?" Such a renaming would remove this stigma. a.) A RPH could be moved to include a larger audience of potential Role-playing hobbiests, including LARP, Recreationists, MMOPRGers, and impromptu amateur theater. b.) It would leave our beloved "gamer" friends behind, including those who play (amateur or tournament) CCG, Monopoly, Videogames, and Chess. 3.) If we are going with a reinvention, I suggest we also lose the term "Role-playing." Sacralige? Unfortunately, Role-playing has a second, sexually implied connotation that brings to mind images of halloween costumes and whips. In recent times, WotC began to label RPG games "Adventure games" and the RPH, despite losing the gaming monicker, would contain the same pseudo-sexual connotation that make eyebrows raise when you are talking to co-workers by the water cooler. a.) That IS, of course, we are ready to welcome such members into our collective as "role-players" akin to LARPs and others mentioned in 2a. Judging by the reaction to the Book of Erotic Fantasy, this seems unlikely. 4.) Such a move denies the games roots completely. As an offshoot of Tabletop Combat Simulation games, (which in and of itself can be considered a hobby do to the time/money investment, but I digress), RPGs have always viewed themselves as a game, and treated its subject matter as such. a.) This worked as a great defense mechanism against conservative attacks in the 80s and 90s. Read the disclaimers in front of any 80's plus RPG (esp Palladium and 2nd Ed D&D) for proof of the "this is JUST a game" phenomenon. 5.) Ultimately, what would this change start? I highly doubt it would draw much more fresh blood to the game/hobby, because those who WOULD be interested in it usually have found a way into it (or into its close cousins, CCGs and MMORPGS). It wouldn't change/banish current players who view the game as a competitive endevaor (assuming the Type A pesonalties that must be the best at anything, from love to social promotion). It MIGHT create a line in the sand between "real role-players" and "roll-players", but that line exists already without the universe as a whole erring to one side or the other. Ultimately, such a sweeping universal change would do little to avoid the threads/ games/ events that happen currently in the community. a.) That is to say, role- playing IS universally better than roll- playing. There is still a jury out on that, and I'm afraid its deadlocked. b.) It also assumes everyone, from WotC to White-Wolf, to Privateer Press, Goodman Games, Kenzer Co, Palladium, Steve Jackson Games, West End games and Fafsa/Wiz Kids would all be willing to go in this radical new direction. c.) It lastly assumes that these kinds of games/changes can't happen under the current infrastructure. Lots of people have made successful games for years under the cobbled-together universe of RPGs, and will continue to do so. IN CONCLUSION: Sorry, but any image redesign is the same goat in new clothes. If you want to improve the community, find a group of young, eager students, teach them to read, think creatively, and do basic math, and then introduce them into RPGs. You'll be doing a great service to the industry of RPGs and the world as a whole. [/QUOTE]

Verification