Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="barsoomcore" data-source="post: 1569383" data-attributes="member: 812">You go right ahead, then. I don't see how this involves anyone else. Heck, call it "Landmarks of the Durdogne" if you like. I won't squawk.What it ACTUALLY sounds like you're proposing is that the rest of us call it what you call it, and you're not offering a shred of evidence to suggest it's a good idea. Nor are you putting forth any reasons to suggest that calling it what we currently call it is bad.I'm sorry if you "feel" that the hobby is dying on the vine. I disagree -- but more importantly, I DON'T CARE. I'm not about to stop playing just because RPG's aren't as "cool" or "popular" as they once were. Believe me, I played these games when they were a LOT LESS popular than they are today, and I didn't notice having less fun then.Good luck to you. Let me know if you have any reasons why I should help. Cause so far you don't.Gee, you mean "they" "won't let" me play anymore? Come on. The industry's not going to "fade away". That's nonsense. There's money to be made selling people RPG materials. There always will be. There'll never be very much money to be made, but that's okay.This isn't going to change because suddenly we use the term "hobby" and strip out any suggestion that the "activity" isn't competitive. Competitive pursuits are very, very popular and there's NOTHING WRONG with people playing D&D in a competitive manner.Point to ANY non-competitive activity that generates the kind of numbers that say, NFL football, World Cup soccer, Stanley Cup playoffs or the Olympics generates. Competition is FUN for most people in the world. It's attractive. Stripping D&D of any sense of competition will, in all likelihood, REDUCE its popularity.The best course is obviously to steer a bit of a middle ground -- don't push it as a competitive practice, but don't get up on a soapbox and insist it isn't such. That way you attract the competition-seekers (who will, as everyone else on this thread agrees, learn pretty much the first time they play that it isn't a "traditionally competitive" game) AND the "drama weeds" who want to engage their improvisational story-telling abilities. Your suggestion would serve only to cause the competition-seekers to disregard the game, at the supposed benefit of attracting those hordes of drama weeds (forgive the title, I'm one myself) that YOU suggest (without any evidence) are turning away from the hobby because they think it's too competitive.I suggest those hordes don't exist. I challenge you to prove otherwise. And if they don't exist, who do you think is going to come flocking to this activity once we start calling it a hobby?And for the record, it's ALREADY called a "hobby".If somebody asked me, "What hobbies do you have?", RPGs would be included in my answer. It's already a hobby and we all know that. You want to chuck the word "game" because TO YOU it primarily means competition and you want to de-emphasize that aspect of role-playing.You are mistaken if you think simply renaming the activity will bring that about. You are further mistaken if you think that de-emphasizing the competitive nature of the activity will attract more people. You are wrong, mythusmage, and you have not yet, in SEVEN PAGES, presented ONE SCRAP of evidence that has convinced ANYONE.Find another shtick.</blockquote>

Verification