Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="the Jester" data-source="post: 1572891" data-attributes="member: 1210">Mythusmage, I've been off camping the last few days but I want to address what I think is really the central issue of your issue with the term roleplaying 'game'.It seems to me that, in effect, you are dissatisfied with the size of the 'gamer pool.'  (Perhaps it's not the size but rather the type of gamers in your area; I don't know what sort of folk you've got around you, but I can identify with this issue too.)I submit to you that rather than trying to re-envision or re-brand rpgs, you simply have to be more inviting. Let me give you a list of folks that my group and I have recruited into the hobby in the last four years.  Not all of these people play in regular campaigns- heck, I don't know that some of them have ever played other than a few games with my group- but they have joined the ranks of the gamers.BrianJillChristinaJennaIlyaYasaGlenJill (another one)MonaJoshThere are prolly one or two more gamers that have joined us for a game or two that I didn't mention- Lydia, Maire, etc, etc- but those folk are the ones I can count as at least mildly dedicated gamers for at least a short time.That's 2.5 per year, and interestingly, more than half female. So I can't speak for everyone; but I know my game is inviting.You'll also note that I refer to people joining the hobby, even as I speak of role-playing games.  That's because gaming as a whole is a hobby, but we don't get together on Sunday so I can run my hobby; it's so I can run my game.  And people join the hobby even if they don't join 'the game'- in this context, my game.  Maybe they join Bob's game over there, or start a different game entirely (Toon, anyone?)- but it's the same hobby.Hobby vs. Game = nuances.Trying to use one vs. the other = semantics.</blockquote>

Verification