The gaming community: online compared to the physical world

[Mark CMG]

Yep. I think you misunderstand. I'm quite aware that my personal table is not representative - that's the point! None of our personal tables are. I'm trying to show, rather than tell, that personal experience is almost always anecdote, and you can always find another anecdote that counters yours. We can bash anecdotes against each until the sun grows cold, and we'd not get closer to the truth of the matter.

To the contrary, I both understand and disagree. My point being that, collectively, the confluence and compilation of our knowledge from the "personal tables" as well as of our extended-circle knowledge and knowledge gained from gaming and observing games at larger gaming events is quite representative of the whole, online experience included. So, too, drawing from both our own personal knowledge and that knowledge others provide which seems counter to our own, we can get a fairly good idea of the whole. I, for one, am not bashing anecdotes but rather arguing against being dismissive of them and holding to the belief that they are more informative than you (and some others) credit them. To whit -

As the old (and in this case, accurate) saw goes, the plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

I've always felt that old saw was inaccurate, in that (particularly to the extreme) once you collect the objective information gleaned from all possible anecdotes, you do indeed have very accurate data compiled. Truth of the matter is that "data" in an of itself is no more reliable than anecdotes and anecdotes are merely data points with some individual analysis attached.


The defining characteristics I see put forth in this thread as those exclusively exhbited by either online gamers or their offline counterparts are not ones I find to be truly exclusive to either group. The only one that seems to be the sticking point is that some claim they know gamers who do not go online (or do not do so in a gaming context). However, to hold that online gamers are not representative of gamers as a whole simply because some gamers do not go online for gaming purposes seems to be an irrelevant distinction. Just because some of the tens of thousands of gamers who frequent these boards (if Morrus's "data" regarding traffic is anything by which to judge) are more vocal (or vocal in differing ways) than one's personal experience with gamers offline, is no reason to suppose that online gamers are not representative of gamers as a whole. To refer back to the OP -

Is spending time on online message boards distorting our view of the gaming community away from online forums? Personally, the view of the gaming world I get from reading message boards is nothing like the view I get from going to FLGS's, local gaming conventions, and local gaming club meetings.

In my experience, online message boards are nothing like the gaming community as a whole, it's a special sub-set of gamers.

(. . .)

I'm kinda curious if other people see the same kind of disconnect between the physical gaming community and online gaming communities.

My own experience online and off is that there will always be a vocal minority in both fields but that taken as a whole, the online gamer community, indeed even EN World's community, is quite representative of the gaming community as a whole. I think some folks simply allow their own personal experience offline, contrasted by their experience with the vocal minority online, to overly influence their opinon of the differences rather than the show the commonalities. And don't get me wrong. I'm fine with someone saying their personal experience offline is different than their experience online but to then extrapolate that the online community is not representative of gamers as a whole? Well, that might be a place where you could more aptly apply the old saw in disputation (if I might wax Gygaxian for a moment ).

 

[WizarDru]

As the old (and in this case, accurate) saw goes, the plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

I think someone mentioned that. I don't think we're disagreeing, here. Like you, no one in my gaming group discusses 'GNS' theory....but I've heard those conversations being had a local gaming conventions, where people sit down and talk for hours on end about games. I do know that people in my group do have conversations about character builds, about action economies, about hit points versus healing surges about game-flow and alignment influence on narrative and whatever else interests us in the margins between game time.

I agree with Hussar that I have conversations here I would never, ever have with my group. I also have conversations here that I have all the time with my group. The only core difference I see here between the conversations I have on ENWorld and that I have had at Gencon, my FLGS or in my own game is more a question of the people and the free time involved to do so. Before the internet, you'd have to go to a con or subscribe to an APA to have these discusions...but I think it has much more to do with the format and nature of message boards than the people involved. In the same way I normally don't have long-winded discussions about the fight-mechanics in Arkham City or the sexual politics of certain comic books in person, but do online because of the nature of the format and interaction, the discussions I see on ENWorld are, to me, things I have because of the forum's nature, not the people who attend it.

 

[Umbran]

To the contrary, I both understand and disagree. My point being that, collectively, the confluence and compilation of our knowledge from the "personal tables" as well as of our extended-circle knowledge and knowledge gained from gaming and observing games at larger gaming events is quite representative of the whole, online experience included.

I think we've noted before we disagree on this topic, specifically on what counts as "representative", and I don't see a whole lot of value in repeating that discussion.

What I will say is that the point is moot. There's not a person here equipped to speak about our collective knowledge. Whether or not we actually have the information, nobody has extracted it usefully.

Without a rigorous framework in which they are collating information, humans are generally and notoriously HORRIBLE at reading a collection of anecdotes and coming out with a fair and accurate understanding and mental representation of what that collection says. Without a methodical plan to enforce something vaguely approaching objectivity, our personal filters get in the way. Even with rigor, bias can slip in. Without it, bias is largely assured.

 

[Mark CMG]

I think we've noted before we disagree on this topic, specifically on what counts as "representative", and I don't see a whole lot of value in repeating that discussion.

Fair enough.

What I will say is that the point is moot. There's not a person here equipped to speak about our collective knowledge. Whether or not we actually have the information, nobody has extracted it usefully.

. . . to your satisfaction, that is. While no one can perfectly speak to our collective knowledge, there are surely some better equipped than others. Becoming better at it begins by realizing no one can be perfect at it, listening to and observing as many sources as possible, and venturing to listen to feedback on the analysis derived from what is gleaned. Moot? Not by a long shot.

Without a rigorous framework in which they are collating information, humans are generally and notoriously HORRIBLE at reading a collection of anecdotes and coming out with a fair and accurate understanding and mental representation of what that collection says. Without a methodical plan to enforce something vaguely approaching objectivity, our personal filters get in the way. Even with rigor, bias can slip in. Without it, bias is largely assured.

I'm not a fan of this binary line of reasoning. There are degrees of success in any enterprise and not being able to achieve perfection is no reason to condemn all efforts. For instance, one might not believe thay can hope to wipe out a disabling affliction in their lifetime, and yet to do nothing or throw up one's arms in frustration makes no sense. One does what one can.

 

[Doug McCrae]

People are way angrier on the internet than they are in real life. Also, in my gaming group, no one but me had heard of Gary Gygax.

 

[Hussar]

To see the huge gulf between communities, look at the play presumptions apparent in the 1e DMG and 1e modules and the way the game was apparently being played at a number of tables. Heck, look at the difference in published adventures of the era with things like Against the Giants on one side and Dragonlance on the other.

There never has been a monolithic "gaming community".

 

[haakon1]

I actively encourage Real World and Gaming Skill-Set Interfacing and practice. I think it's good practice for the players and actually make sit far more enjoyable for them to be able to use real world skill sets in-game.

I don't actively encourage it, but I certainly encourage players to use real world knowledge.

And as a DM, I'll go research things that I otherwise wouldn't be so interested in. Like asking my sister (a PhD in Plant Biology) what would happen if a wheat field was untended for several months, so I could describe it properly -- and if the players hearing the description to figure out what was going on at that farm because they know something about agricultural, super cool if they picked up the hint.

 

[haakon1]

Gns

I had to go look up GNS. Gotta say I'm not interested in the topic.

GNS Theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia