• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

Why the hate, people?

I certainly don't have towards any other gaming systems or people playing other systems. I like others don't have the time anymore to learn more and more systems so I stick with my tried and true D&D. It works for me and I have fun. Were I 20 years younger I might find myself playing more different systems. (In fact back in the day I used to dabble in Teeneage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Twilight 2000, Shadowrun, etc....)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I think it comes from something I've observed. GMS is on the right track, but it really doesn't have to deal with "being bullied", because I've seen the behavior outside of gaming.

I think when people are serious about something, they dislike perceived threats to that something. If you are a fan of a TV show, for instance, you might be sensitive to the fact that either the TV show is not successful and could be cancelled, or you might be sensitive if the show is being criticized by the press. If a TV show was once good, but stopped being good but was still popular, you might be critical of the "unwashed masses" who still accept it.

Ideally, we usually want our hobbies to be successful, and to continue, to not be criticized, and to be popular. The exception would be if you enjoy being "in the minority" for a coolness factor, but that's usually a reaction to being unpopular.

This definately translates to gaming. 2nd Edition and 3rd Edition ended up replacing 1st edition, so all the die-hard fans who dislike the change usually berate the changes, and a lot of the times the people who play it, and wish for better times. I know some just keep playing the game, but you can't really get involved in a Dragonsfoot conversation sometimes without somebody taking a shot at the new game. If you play a non-D&D game, a lot of the fans talked about D&D being "for kids", etc. There are so many controversies over Greyhawk that I don't ever think that setting can have a united fan front.

I came to the realization about this in my late 20's. Now I really don't care whether or not my particular interests are popular, successful, or survive. If they do, that's great, but I don't want to get caught in the bitterness level of thinking. I support Gary Gygax as a writer, and I wish he got more interest in his new games, but I no longer take offense if his stuff doesn't turn out to be popular anymore. If they screw up my favorite TV show, I'll find something else to watch. There are always substitutes, compliments, and it's okay if your particular viewpoint "doesn't win".
 

Gez said:
I knew an amateur psychanalyst that loved to say "on se pose en s'opposant". I can't translate it while keeping the little wordplay, but the idea is that it's easier to create your sense of self through reject than through acceptance. Easier to define yourself as an "X-hater" than as an "Y-fan".

Beautiful. That's not just gamers, that's, like, everyone man!! :cool:
 

Henry said:
After reading through it the past few days, I'm beginning to wonder if I'm not a storyteller/casual gamer, myself - though I've seen myself as more a tactician, the things I find myself enjoying most are in those emotional "kicks."

Isn't there an online version of this chart? I seem to recall reading something online to determine what I was, but that was years ago. I think I was the same - storyteller/casual gamer. I may have to pick up this book one of these days.
 

Salad Shooter said:
I've noticed a trend on forums. A large portion of the population ( or at least a number of the more vocal ones) have their pet game/system/etc, and will argue to the death why their chosen game is superior to the rest of them.

i haven't noticed this, large portion. however, i have noticed at least a vocal few.

i tend to ignore them.

i don't like to argue. i know what i like and that's good enough for me.

that doesn't prevent me from trying other stuff. so far though i haven't found anything that measures up to my choice/preference.
 

die_kluge said:
Isn't there an online version of this chart? I seem to recall reading something online to determine what I was, but that was years ago. I think I was the same - storyteller/casual gamer. I may have to pick up this book one of these days.

I found an excerpt here

Robin Laws said:
The Power Gamer wants to make his character bigger, tougher, buffer, and richer. However success is defined by the rules system you're using, this player wants more of it. He tends to see his PC as an abstraction, as a collection of super powers optimized for the acquisition of still more super powers. He pays close attention to the rules, with a special eye to finding quirks and breakpoints he can exploit to get large benefits at comparatively low costs. He wants you to put the "game" back in the term "roleplaying game", and to give him good opportunities to add shiny new abilities to his character sheet.

The Butt-Kicker wants to let off steam with a little old-fashioned vicarious mayhem. He picks a simple, combat-ready character, whether or not that is the best route to power and success in the system. After a long day in the office or classroom, he wants his character to clobber foes and once more prove his superiority over all who would challenge him. He may care enough about the rules to make his PC an optimal engine of destruction, or may be indifferent to them, so long as he gets to hit things. He expects you to provide his character plenty of chances to engage in the aforementioned clobbering and superiority.

The Tactician is probably a military buff, who wants chances to think his way through complex, realistic problems, usually those of the battlefield. He wants the rules, and your interpretation of them, to jibe with reality as he knows it, or at least to portray an internally consistent, logical world in which the quality of his choices is the biggest determining factor in his success or failure. He may view issues of characterization as a distraction. He becomes annoyed when other players do things which fit their PCs' personalities, but are tactically unsound. To satisfy him, you must provide challenging yet logical obstacles for his character to overcome.

The Specialist favors a particular character type, which he plays in every campaign and in every setting. The most common sub-type of specialist is the player who wants to be a ninja every time. Other specialists may favor knights, cat-people, mischief-makers, flying characters, or wistful druid maidens who spend a lot of time hanging about sylvan glades with faeries and unicorns. The specialist wants the rules to support his favored character type, but is otherwise indifferent to them. To make a specialist happy, you have to create scenes in which his character can do the cool things for which the archetype is known.

The Method Actor believes that roleplaying is a medium for personal expression, strongly identifying with the character he plays. He may believe that it's creatively important to establish a radically different character each time out. The method actor bases his decisions on his understanding of his character's psychology, and may become obstructive if other group members expect him to contradict it for rules reasons, or in pursuit of a broader goal. He may view rules as, at best, a necessary evil, preferring sessions in which the dice never come out of their bags. Situations that test or deepen his personality traits are your key to entertaining the method actor.

The Storyteller, like the method actor, is more inclined to the roleplaying side of the equation and less interested in numbers and experience points. On the other hand, he's more interested in taking part in a fun narrative that feels like a book or a movie than in strict identification with his character. He's quick to compromise if it moves the story forward, and may get bored when the game slows down for a long planning session. You can please him by introducing and developing plot threads, and by keeping the action moving, as would any skilled novelist or film director.

The Casual Gamer is often forgotten in discussions of this sort, but almost every group has one. Casual gamers tend to be low key folks who are uncomfortable taking center stage even in a small group. Often, they're present to hang out with the group, and game just because it happens to be the activity everyone else has chosen. Though they're elusive creatures, casual gamers can be vitally important to a gaming group's survival. They fill out the ranks, which is especially important in games that spread vital PC abilities across a wide number of character types or classes. Especially if they're present mostly for social reasons, they may fill an important role in the group's interpersonal dynamic. Often they're the mellow, moderating types who keep the more assertive personalities from each other's throats -- in or out of character. I mention the casual player because the thing he most fervently wants is to remain in the background. He doesn't wnat to have to learn rules or come up with a plot hook for his character or engage in detailed planning. You may think it's a bad thing that he sits there for much of the session thumbing through your latest purchases from the comic book store, but hey, that's what he wants. The last thing you want to do is to force him into a greater degree of participation than he's comfortable with. (Of course, if everybody in the group is sitting there reading your comic books, you've definitely got a problem...)
 

die_kluge said:
I've yet to really find the perfect system.

This matches me, mostly. I moved away from D&D in the early 80's mostly because of dissatisfaction with the system. I've tried more games than I can count and all of them had something that I didn't like about the system.

Now that I'm older and have less time, I have moved back to D&D (that and D&D finally moved to something I can tolerate). D&D is just better known overall and it's easier to start a game without having to teach everyone a new system.

Of course, I do think it's perfectly fine to say the a game is "the perfect system for me." In martial arts I've heard all the same sort of arguments. However, I found that T'ai Chi Ch'uan was the perfect martial art for me. It fit everything I was looking for in a martial art and the philosphy behind it was match with mine. That doesn't mean it was suitable for someone else.
 

die_kluge said:
I've yet to really find the perfect system.

Don't look for the perfect system, look for the perfect group. I have found that the right group makes any system better, while the right system rarely improves on a bad group.
 

I have the perfect system. In fact I have several of them.

When I want to play a fantasy game with a lot of details, a coherant magic system, clearly defined archetypes, and tactical combat, D&D is the perfect game.

When I want to play a fantasy game with over the top action, godlike characters, and epic storylines, Exalted is the perfect game.

When I want to play a modern-day game with normal people discovering the supernatural, conspiracys, or other mysteries, World of Darkness is the perfect game.

When I want to play a modern-day game with heroic characters battling evil monsters such as vampires, zombies, and demons, Unisystem is the perfect game.

I'm sure other people have other perfect games. :)
 

Just got out of a program managment class, so bear with me...

Different people have different communication and learning methods. Some prefer visual, some listening, some take the hands on appraoch, etc. It seems that different systems carter to these different styles. I'm fairly certain that this isn't deliberate. The system reflects the designers own styles.

Personally, I haven't found the perfect game yet, although World of Darkness is close.
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top