The Game for Non-Gamers: (Forked from: Sexism in D&D)

[Rel]

So these things, these "small things", the drinking of tea, the decorating of residences, the aquisition of jewelry and keepsakes, the forming of meaningful relationships with the local baker who makes that incredible spice bread that goes so good with pat of butter and a glass of milk, these things are in my games.

But they are not what my games are "about".

My games are about action and adventure and challenges overcome. They are about finding a way against seemingly impossible odds when others would shy from the task. Glory and loss and picking yourself up for one more fight when you don't really think you have one more fight left in you. That is the meat and potatoes of my games.

Now that other stuff, the tea drinking, really helps to flavor and provide contrast with the meat and potatoes. But I don't care to play a game which is "about" the tea drinking itself.

If there are those out there who DO wish to play that sort of game then there are games available that will (I assume) serve their needs. And I wish them well. But I have no real interest in having them at my gaming table if that is the only sort of game that is going to make them happy. And thus no particular desire to "grow the hobby" in their direction. In fact I don't really regard that kind of game as my hobby and don't regard them taking up that kind of pursuit as having grown the hobby in which I am engaged.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Lots of RPG related activities happen alone. Bluebooking, PBEM...

As you say, "RPG related activities". Not the game itself. This stuff can be important, sure, but - at the end of all these "related activities", you want to come together for a few hours and play.

Unless we widen the definition of RPGs to also include games where you wouldn't aim to do that. Maybe that makes sense. Maybe it also makes the term to broad to stand for anything useful. I am not convinced it is a good route to take here, even though I generally hate arbirtrarily specific definitions of what is an RPG.

Removing combat as a "important" component of RPG makes sense to me. Removing the "group activity, playing together" component makes less sense to me.

From the egoistical perspective, I want more players to play games with together, not just more people WotC or White Wolf can sell products too. That's just the positive side effect that might also create a nice loop. "More players, more play, more customers, better production values and more choices."

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

If there are those out there who DO wish to play that sort of game then there are games available that will (I assume) serve their needs. And I wish them well. But I have no real interest in having them at my gaming table if that is the only sort of game that is going to make them happy. And thus no particular desire to "grow the hobby" in their direction. In fact I don't really regard that kind of game as my hobby and don't regard them taking up that kind of pursuit as having grown the hobby in which I am engaged.

That's a good point. Maybe a "The Tea Party" RPG or a "Eldritch Friendships & Drow Lovers" RPG or "The Sims" RPG are great games and attract people to role-playing that never were interested in it before - but they are still not the people I would play with. So my only hope could be that it would just lead to RPG companies to grow further and have also more resources for me to give me more and better products. But I don't see that working out, since I might instead "compete" with the other player type for attention Heck, it might turn out that more people like tea parties, home decoration and social relationship buildings than people that like to slay Orcs, than what?

 

[Rel]

Heck, it might turn out that more people like tea parties, home decoration and social relationship buildings than people that like to slay Orcs, than what?

Well then you'd just have to move to the US and play in my group.

 

[Umbran]

I imagine nicotine girls would do troubled teen romance pretty well.

And it includes dice.

Admittedly, I took a quick glance, no more, so maybe I missed something.

However, I would like to note the distinction between a system in which you can do romance plots, and a system that actually has a mechanic for the romance itself. I don't think anyone who wants to roleplay romance will at all be satisfied by "Roll a die, check the chart... and Yes! He accepts your token for the joust!"

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Well then you'd just have to move to the US and play in my group.

And who would want to do that!

 

[Cadfan]

As you say, "RPG related activities". Not the game itself. This stuff can be important, sure, but - at the end of all these "related activities", you want to come together for a few hours and play.

I'll be sure to let the PBEM guys know that they aren't REAL roleplayers.

Lousy frauds, had me tricked for all this time...

Anyways, my broader points still remain:

1. I think that people are creating a straw man of a combat free tea drinking game based on some comments, probably teasing and probably partially in jest, from one guy's wife.

2. I think there's a significant continuum between that characature and actual D&D, along which there are many quite reasonable possibilities.

3. I don't think it would hurt the game to encompass some of those more fully, and I don't think it would water down some core experience, given that the game is relatively mutable.

4. I think that a lot of people on this forum actually like stuff that would appeal to people like the OP's wife (people generally like her, I don't know her personally). Stronghold construction rules, just as an example, are something that lots of people seem to really enjoy, and are something that have historically been a part of the game for a fair number of people.

 

[Set]

1. I think that people are creating a straw man of a combat free tea drinking game based on some comments, probably teasing and probably partially in jest, from one guy's wife.

There is a heck of a lot of reductio ad absurdum going on, so that the posters can post thinly-veiled contempt and ridicule for anyone who doesn't play exactly the same way they do.

Apparently there is a 'wrong' way to have fun. Who knew?

I blame society.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I'll be sure to let the PBEM guys know that they aren't REAL roleplayers.

What does PBEM stand for again? If it's some acronym for play by post (or mail?) games, I would describe this as "coming together", even if it is very delayed. You still solve situations together.

(And in that vein - the hypothetical tea-time scenario actually would facilitate that, since there are multiple people interacting.)

But, since I don't want to play by post, e-mail or snail mail, games that focus on,, I am not interested in having games that support that better, too, especially when it comes at expense of "my" favorites.

 

[Rel]

There is a heck of a lot of reductio ad absurdum going on, so that the posters can post thinly-veiled contempt and ridicule for anyone who doesn't play exactly the same way they do.

Apparently there is a 'wrong' way to have fun. Who knew?

I blame society.

I'm not sure if you're lumping my post in with this or not. But if so then that wasn't what I was trying to convey.

I'm simply saying that if people want a sprinkling of "tea party stuff" in their games then I think that it already accomodates that (and I include such in my games already). And if they want a "heavily tea party oriented game" then there are other game systems that probably already do that better.

But if that is what it would take to pull in this theoretical segment of gamers then somebody else will need to do it because I don't intend to run such a game and I don't care to see D&D shift in that direction either.