Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 7761413" data-attributes="member: 177">I severely doubt this point is generally applicable, at least in the US.&nbsp; Every kid grows up knowing about (through general cultural exposure) and engaging in (in gym class, if nothing else) sports.&nbsp; Many don't like it.&nbsp; Many don't make it a major hobby for them.&nbsp; But they are *accustomed to the idea*.&nbsp; There is nothing strange about it to them.Oh, gods.&nbsp; Now &quot;Millennials are killing my playstyle&quot;?&nbsp; Is that your intent here?&nbsp; Please note that while you mention them several times, the Greatest Generation (that were born around the Great Depression, and fought WWII) has never been a major force in RPGs.&nbsp; Gary Gygax himself was born in 1938, and was too young to be categorized as such.&nbsp; Pretty much everyone in gaming is Baby Boomer or later, so the &quot;we fought WWII, and have that cooperative mindset&quot; idea really doesn't apply.You are so busy thinking in terms of generational identity that you have missed two far more basic notions:1) Winning isn't everything.2) For those who do want to win a tactical game, in the modern era, RPGs are not the best games available.These days, the folks who are focused on winning a tactical game are playing computer games.&nbsp; Folks who want to focus on resource management have board games that have far more formalism and depth for such.&nbsp; Tabletop RPGs have aspects of these, but they are ancillary, so they can't really compete with games that do those things better.That leaves RPGs with more people who are interested in other aspects of play.&nbsp; Not necessarily of &quot;playing games to win&quot;, but of play in a more general sense, and of imaginative play, rather than tactical play.&nbsp; For this kind of play, &quot;losing&quot; is not in and of itself a major concern.&nbsp; Yes, your character may die, but... they're fictional.&nbsp; It *doesn't matter* if they die - character death is then to be avoided more for reasons of emotional attachment and the sunk cost fallacy, rather than any notion of &quot;losing&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 7761413, member: 177"] I severely doubt this point is generally applicable, at least in the US. Every kid grows up knowing about (through general cultural exposure) and engaging in (in gym class, if nothing else) sports. Many don't like it. Many don't make it a major hobby for them. But they are *accustomed to the idea*. There is nothing strange about it to them. Oh, gods. Now "Millennials are killing my playstyle"? Is that your intent here? Please note that while you mention them several times, the Greatest Generation (that were born around the Great Depression, and fought WWII) has never been a major force in RPGs. Gary Gygax himself was born in 1938, and was too young to be categorized as such. Pretty much everyone in gaming is Baby Boomer or later, so the "we fought WWII, and have that cooperative mindset" idea really doesn't apply. You are so busy thinking in terms of generational identity that you have missed two far more basic notions: 1) Winning isn't everything. 2) For those who do want to win a tactical game, in the modern era, RPGs are not the best games available. These days, the folks who are focused on winning a tactical game are playing computer games. Folks who want to focus on resource management have board games that have far more formalism and depth for such. Tabletop RPGs have aspects of these, but they are ancillary, so they can't really compete with games that do those things better. That leaves RPGs with more people who are interested in other aspects of play. Not necessarily of "playing games to win", but of play in a more general sense, and of imaginative play, rather than tactical play. For this kind of play, "losing" is not in and of itself a major concern. Yes, your character may die, but... they're fictional. It *doesn't matter* if they die - character death is then to be avoided more for reasons of emotional attachment and the sunk cost fallacy, rather than any notion of "losing". [/QUOTE]

Verification