Dice Quixote
Mar 7th, 2008 by Matt Snyder
For a lot longer than my day-old post (previous post), I’ve been aware that I am known, particularly in online communities, as that guy who wants to “un-geek” role-playing games. This is true, but that’s not what those people mean.
What they mean is that I’m a quixotic jackass who’s filled with self-loathing and shame, who hates geeks and wants to get away from them and change them. And, how dare you, Matt?
They say I’m a quixotic jackass because I’m never going to accomplish this fool’s errand of bringing role-playing the activity outside of it’s recognizable circles of subcultures. It’ll never escape the bounds of gamers in their living rooms, and “regular” people won’t be playing Prime Time Adventures any time soon.
That’s probably correct! Not only is it unlikely I’ll ever accomplish anything in that regard, it’s very possible no one will. Oh, I’d still like it to happen and work toward it. But, it will take some incredible luck and probably resources that no one seems to have for that to happen.
They say I’m filled with self-loathing and shame because, clearly, anyone who wants to get away from this hobby and subculture must be afraid of it, or ashamed of it or whatever. Matt, goes the implication, you just think you’re better than us, and you’re not. Or, Matt, you just are mad because you don’t fit in. And so on.
This is absolutely not correct.
Here is what I mean by “un-geek,” and why those insulting reactions miss the mark.
What I mean is pretty simple. Right now, if I were to pursue a role-playing activity with people who are not gamers, I face considerable challenges. There’s stigma with the activity for some people, first of all. And, a learning curve for some people as well. Both are surmountable, but still are obstacles. Almost no one outside of the “gamer” subculture even knows what role-playing, the activity, is all about. There is no reconizable group of people to “go to” outside of the gamer subculture to do this activity.
Either you’re “in” and you play, or you’re “out” and you do not play.
This would be totally fine, if it were just about the “play” part. Broadly speaking, it’s not just about play. Being a “gamer” is also about making inside jokes, knowing a bunch of complicated and largely insignificant history, respecting certain people (and not others), being a fan about different media and games, and a whole bunch of other stuff that has nothing to do with actually playing the games themselves. It is, in my view, stuff that gets in the way of actually playing the games themselves. It is fun stuff for some people.
And, that people enjoy gamer-dom and being a gamer is fine with me. Read that again. It’s really fucking important.
I don’t begrudge anyone that. But, it’s not particularly fun to me. I want to do the activity — the actual playing of the games. I don’t want to participate in the other stuff. It doesn’t interest me much.
In short, I want my role-playing hobby to be more about playing the games for what they are, rather than about playing the games plus a lot of difficult-to-penetrate subcultural activity and behavior. See? Lifestyle versus activity.
I’m not ashamed of not wanting to be a gamer. I don’t loathe my perception out in the world as a gamer. That’s nonsense. I can’t explain why people insist on putting those intentions and values on me. It’s wrong.
Now, finally, why do I want this division between activity and lifestyle?
So I can choose to grab either my basketball or my dice and take it over to my neighbor’s house and have fun. I want to find more people who would enjoy role-playing games without the obstacles I talked about above. I don’t want to just presume that you have to be “in” to be able to play.
That’s why I want to “un-geek” gaming. It’s really simple. I just want more choice and more people. And, really, I don’t know of any self-described gamers who disagree with me on that.
> There is no reconizable group of people to “go to” outside of
> the gamer subculture to do this activity.
So you want Trekkers instead of Trekkies?
Would it be useful to coin a new term for the kind of people you’re seeking — how about “gameplayers” instead of “gamers?”
Hello John —
No, that’s not what I want. I want such labels to go away. Do we need “Monopoly-ers” or “Chess-ers”? I don’t think we do. I see no need for “Cribbage-ies” and “Cribbage-ers.” Labeling would not be helpful at all.
In light of your reaction to my use of the word “group,” I’d happily ammend that to something like: “There is no reliable, recognizable means to get people to play role-playing games/activities outside of the subculture of gamers.”
John,
What you say about gamers is true about people that participate in a lot of other activities, including the insider jokes about “related” activities and the antisocial behaviour, although the latter is rarer, I think. While they are not usually labelled geeks, that’s what they are, really, and they include knitting geeks, sports geeks, band geeks, design geeks and more. Most jocks are geeks about their chosen sport once they get beyond a certain point. This has not greatly inhibited the success of those activities, though.
Sorry, I should add that I don’t disagree with your objective. I prefer playing with geeks that have social skills and “normal” people as well, and I also wish that it was easier to convert non-gamers.
I just mean to point out that the behaviours that you bemoan, while a real issue, are also widespread in more “mainstream” hobbies as well.
Gerald makes *very* good points. A lot of my friends are serious sports fans; many of them used to work for Fox Sports compiling stats. All of the subculture stuff you attribute to gamers applies to them as well. And, while I can’t just bring my dice over to their houses and play (though they have played with me on occasion), they also can’t just bring a basketball over to my house to play, because I can’t play hoops to save my life, and I’m not really interested in changing that.
I think you’re asking for subcultures to not be subcultures, and I don’t think that’s really going to happen anytime soon.
Of course, there’s WoW, which is pretty dang mainstream as far as RPGs go. Still, is your neighbor part of a guild? Probably not.
Seems to me like you are a pretty high-level participant in the lifestyle of gaming. You are a game designer, you have a gaming blog, you post to gaming message boards. If you don’t want to be that, why don’t you just stop? There is a massive community of gamers (actually most likely the silent majority) who just play and don’t really worry about it too much outside their game time.
The problem is that rpg’s take a time and mental commitment, so you can’t just get anybody to come over and play an rpg like you could have them come over and drink a beer. But this is the same for most hobbies. Which is why people tend to socialize with people who share their hobbies, or go to specific pre-organized events (like amateur sports leagues or crafts clubs).
Again, you seem to be adding this new layer to the equation that just doesn’t exist, that somehow gamers are some extra-weird sub-culture. I think that layer comes from your own shame, but that’s just my own cheap armchair psychology.
Like I said in response to your last post — there are a lot more people playing RPGs than you seem to believe. “Regular” people.
If you want to encourage more people to play RPGs and other hobby games, you’d be better to approach it with a more positive attitude and present yourself as a good example of a “regular guy” who happens to play these games. The post about Gygax, and putting forward negative stereotypes about “gamers” not being “regular people” isn’t a good way to go about this.
Walkerp,
Matt is a capable (and occasionally provocative) communicator. He certainly doesn’t need me to speak up for him, and I am not speaking for him now. I will say that any assumptions that he some how harbors secret ‘shame’ for his choice of hobby is way off base. It is precisely because he does care about the hobby, its growth, and healthy participation in the hobby that he bothers to say anything at all. From my POV, what I see is a guy who is passionate not only about the act of getting ‘round the table to tell stories, but also the way in which that happens.
I’ve personally known Matt for years. I have disagreed with him on many topics. Even so, to the best of my knowledge he has always invited discussion about his opinions and how he reached them. There is usually pretty solid stuff behind his commentary. His thoughts are not pulled from a vacuum, nor do they find their basis in ‘shame’. He really thinks this $#!+ through. He does that because he cares. What he doesn’t do is pull any punches. He may or may not be too blunt for some folks. *shrugs* What you read as shame, I see as a call for people to *really think* about what’s going on in the hobby, to address issues openly, to find better and more balanced ways of doing things.
You may not like what he wrote. However, I would hope that it made you think about some of the issues he addressed. I may have overstepped a bit in this post. If so, I would apologize to Matt. As I say, he’s plenty capable of speaking up for himself, and my words and opinions are just that.
Best,
-L
Nothing out of bounds here that I see. The comments, as I keep saying, are welcome.
Stuart, I agree that there are many, many more people than, say, reading the posts on RPG.net would lead one to believe (not to pick on RPG.net, just using it as a specific example). And, that not all of them are “gamers” or are active participants in the subculture of gamers. My own gaming groups would fit that description extremely well, for example. I think you’re assuming I’m ignorant of that issue, maybe? Regardless, I’m aware they exist. They also exist largely in seclusion. Which is too bad. It may mean that people who, for example, work together and get along great are unaware that each plays RPGs at home with separate friends. It’d be cool for them to realize this and join together for fun, too.
I’m not sure they exist in seclusion. They just don’t run gaming blogs or post on RPG.net…
Did I mention Facebook?
I suspect that the “non-gamer gamers” are not a presence on internet roleplaying sites for the very reason that they do not have a gamer-like obsession about RPGs, and therefore don’t want to spend much time on forums in the sorts of discussions that tend to happen there. That makes those forums, and probably the RPG-oriented parts of the internet as a whole, a poor place to find them.
The best strategy to connect with that kind of person would probably to be
A) a normal, socialble, likable person
who
B) talks about his gaming as a normal part of his (or her, of course) life, not something that he geeks out about every time it comes up.
The Levi Kornelsen strategy, in other words.
Hey Matt,
I’m a “gamer” through and through. I’m a member of the subculture. I make “gamer” jokes. I watch “gamer” movies. I go to “gamer” conventions. I’m interested in all the periphery activities. I work in the scienctific community. I read Sci-Fi and Fantasy. To make it short, I’m a gamer, and I see nothing wrong with that. I don’t see why I should try and get non-gamers to play RPGs. People don’t try and get me to watch NASCAR, which is just as much a subculture as gaming. So is sports.
And like both those things, there are inches and degrees involved. I’m much more gamer than many of the guys and girls at my table. Some are far more gamer than I. Just as some people casually watch or play sports, some people casually play RPGs. I don’t see this insular subculture you refer to where you’re “in” or your “out”. You’d be welcome at my table, even if you aren’t a self-identified “gamer”. I wouldn’t expect you to get certain jokes. If you aren’t interested in science or sci-fi or what have you, then I wouldn’t talk about that stuff with you.
I guess I’m asking what you’re railing against, because I don’t see it. In you previous post, which you got a lot of flak about, you called gamers like me a bunch of names that I don’t appreciate. Certainly, you didn’t say you were better than us, but you didn’t have to. YOu called our mourning “clingy”. I mourn the loss of a man who invented a game that’s given me hours of enjoyment. It filled my formative years with an identity, and this subculture that you seem to despise has introduced me to a number of close friends.
Where would I be without Gary Gygax? Probably doing something else. Would I be having as much fun? I don’t know. Am I thankful for the fun he provided, for the positive impact it had on my life, for rocketing ahead 5 reading grade levels trying to understand his writing style in the 5th grade, for helping me learn some difficult math understanding some of those tables, et cetera? Yes, I am grateful for all of that. If I had taken up a different interest, I think I’d be a very different person, and I value the person I am.
So, no I don’t think you’re a Quixotic jackass with secret nerd shame, self-loathing and delusions of grandeur. I do think you have a fairly ascerbic writing style, and I think that writing insulting posts about gamers like me was ill-timed to say the least. I also think you have pretty unrealistic expectations. You and I think roleplaying is a cool activity, but I know lots of people who tried it and disagree. You want to “mainstream” it, but it isn’t mainstream. Nothing is. It’s a fairly time-intensive and devotional activity. Good luck in your endeavors.
Pax,
- Cuindless
I think the idea that the subculture itself is a barrier to entry into the hobby for some people is a fallacy. For instance, my own (main) gaming group is made up of people with very different levels of “belonging” to the subculture. While I agree that we ought to be sensitive about what each person is willing to invest in the hobby, I think doing away with the subculture (or belittling it) is throwing the baby with the bathwater.
It seems to me that you need to find a new gaming circle, the types of gamers you’re looking for are out there.
Also, I think the un-geeking of gaming has already occurred, you need look no further than the subscription numbers of WoW to know this. We are probably at or greater than the heights of gaming in the early 80s, it’s just that most people have moved on from pen and paper and into the computer realm to get their game on.
I’d label myself as a gamer as well, but I haven’t had mountain dew since the sometime in the early 90s, I’ve never seen Star Wars 2 and 3 (I’m not sure if that makes me more of a core gamer or less). And yes, I did mourn the passing of Gary Gygax, it’s the first time I’ve ever given a crap about anyone “famous” passing, only because its the first time anyone famous has had any impact on my life whatsoever.
I suspect we are more closely aligned than not, therefore I recognize the common gamer trait of being less facile with the commonalities of social graces that you’d post something saying, he’s dead so what, and not recognize the uncouthness therein, no matter how well intentioned your original post was.
Cheers!
Matt–
“Right now, if I were to pursue a role-playing activity with people who are not gamers, I face considerable challenges…There is no reliable, recognizable means to get people to play role-playing games/activities outside of the subculture of gamers.”
Yes there is.
It’s the same way you get people to do anything — by being fucking compelling.
If you are having trouble getting the right people to play games on your terms, then that is not our fault.
And if you don’t have that trouble, then what the hell are you complaining about?
Actually, let me reword that third paragraph so I don’t sound quite so persecuted:
If you are having trouble getting the right people to play games on your terms, then that’s no one’s fault but your own.
Seems to me like you’re going the wrong way. The key isn’t to un-geek gaming.
The key is to geek-up the whole world.
If only because that’s far easier than getting people into roleplaying. Roleplaying is arcane. Geek culture comes naturally, and is getting bigger and more mainstream every single year.
Steve, I think that’s a fine approach (”geeking up” instead of “un-geeking”) for some people. It may even be easier to accomplishy. It’s not one I’m very interested in. The rising cool-factor of “geekness” in recent years doesn’t excite me. It’s not a bad thing, it’s just not for me. (shrug) Additionally, you let the assumption lie that role-playing is arcane, apparently by definition to you. I disagree that it is necessarily, definitionally arcane. I agree that most of the hobby has been arcane to date. And, I also think that the activity is definitely NOT for all people. But, I just don’t think it’s necessarily an arcane thing (and, I’m understanding the term arcane here to mean complex and baroque — not without purpose, but certainly not intuitive).
Jocelyn, who said anything about “doing away with” the subculture? Not me. I said nothing about that at all. I see that many people are angry that I’ve belittled the subculture (which I disagree with, but that’s already covered in previous comments).
Others (Chris, John) — I absolutely agree that me, personally, not finding additional people is my fault. Definitely. Which is precisely why I bother to write these blog posts in the first place. While many people have expressed their offense and anger at my thoughts here, I just don’t see what the grave offense is in talking about a different way to approach the hobby. People are offended by words like “clinging” and “nerd shame.” Ok. People get offended by a lot of things. I certainly do. But, I think we can pretty easily agree that very, very few people in the role-playing hobby even hold views like mine, and almost none of them share those views in blogs or other media. That may make me a lunatic (in which case it’s easy to dehumanize me and call me names) or it may make me just have totally different values and goals for my hobby. Obviously, I much prefer the latter.
Also, insistent calls that I’m filled with shame, or ruthlessly playing “shock jock” to build up links to my blog are just silly. I’m glad to have people reading here, of course. That I thought I’d get as much reaction surprises me. It certainly was no calculation on my part.
Jocelyn Robitaille wrote:
>I think the idea that the subculture itself is a barrier to entry into the hobby for some people is a fallacy.<
I disagree. As an example, I enjoy gardening as a hobby. If I wanted to invite my 32 year old, mother of two neighbor over for a bit of dirt action, this is a pretty straight forward deal. “Hey neighbor, I’m cultivating the east bed with some friends on Tuesday. Would you like to come over and see what we’re up to?” She may or may not take me up on a hobby which is social, fun, and has dividends beyond the product that is harvested in the fall.
If, however, I wanted to invite that same neighbor over for a game of Shadowrun, I face an uphill battle that begins largely with her perception of What Gaming Means. I’ll quote myself from 2004, because nothing has changed.
“There is a definite public relations image challenge facing role-playing games. This is bad news for the game industry and hobbyists alike. Gaming has two faces in the public eye. One is a deviant criminal warning sign. The other, more disturbing because of the larger scope, is the social perception of gamers in a negative light. Both prongs are ugly and equally unnecessary, not to mention costly when one considers the missed opportunities of expanding the target market. So why aren’t industry leaders howling for change?”
Actually, now that I re-read my own words, I can’t help but wonder why the subculture itself doesn’t howl for a change? Can it really be that great to be insular in one’s hobby? I don’t believe so. The reason gaming has a PR image issue has little to do with the game companies themselves. It has more to do with the most visible members of the hobby who enjoy ‘being different’ and not really giving a shit that I have trouble overcoming a particular stereotype so that I can have a neighbor/co-worker/friendly acquaintance over for a game the same way I might invite them over for gardening, cards, or some other socially engaging function. To deny that gaming doesn’t have social barriers to new participants is ignoring the elephant in the room, from my humble perspective.
Now, if you’re in to all of the related subculture stuff, great. Do as you like. No, seriously. You are not required to live your life to my ‘expectation’ or some other silly crap like that. But please realize that I am not required, nor do I want to want to do the subculture thing. Realize that most folks out there do not want to do the subculture thing, and it is *one* barrier to the gaming hobby.
If you wouldn’t have your neighbor/co-worker/friendly acquaintance over for a game of Charades or Settler’s of Catan, there’s nothing you’ll be able to do to get them to play any RPG type game at all.
If it *is* a person who would be interested in coming over to your house to play some kind of game, then there is a very good chance you’ll be able to get them to play some sort of RPG type game with them.
Not everyone is interested in spending their free time playing games, of any variety. That doesn’t mean there’s a problem with games, RPG or otherwise. It’s just the way the world is. You could say the same about all sorts of hobbies, sports, or activities.
I dig. Sports v RPGs… The big difference is the open level of participation. My brother who is not a big sports guy can easily go to a game or participate in a discussion on say my White Sox. The same is not true for RPGs. That is the crux of it. There is way too much buy-in involved to play say DnD than there is to talk about the game last night or whatever.
But that’s just it, Stuart. I *don’t* play board games like Settlers of Catan or Game of Thrones. (I believe the only board games in our house are legends like Barbie Horse Adventures and Candyland. ;^D )It’s not that I wouldn’t, or haven’t played board games, I just am not interested in investing the money to own those games. Even if I did throw a board game party for the folks at work, there is no social stigma attached to board games, or cards, or chess or what have you.
There *is* a social stigma attached to RPGs. As I said earlier, it’s an unneccesary stigma, but it exists and it is a barrier to throwing an RPG party with the same board game example folks for the reasons I typed earlier. I start with an uphill battle to explain what RPGs are, but more importantly (from my perspective) what they aren’t. And to clarify, what RPGs aren’t is all of the ancillary subculture stuff. But that very ’stuff’ is what the hobby has gained notoriety for.
To hell with the general public. They’re fucking stupid. Look at TV ratings some time and be depressed. (Here’s one: CSI Miami is the most popular show in the world.)
The general public doesn’t play games, period. They don’t play Scattergories, Call of Duty 4, Soccer, or D&D. Any of those would represent an out-of-the-ordinary activity for most folks — even those pastimes that boast fans and players in the multiple millions.
So, anyway, I totally agree with you, Matt. I want to “un-geek” my hobby, too, in exactly the way you mean. But I also want to do the same for games, period. I’d like to have an Xbox night with all my friends just as much as a PTA night.
(And yeah, this is exactly what I *am* doing — gaming with “regular” folks. It’s really easy to do at the local level and has instant, great results. I’ve actually never had any kind of RPG-stigma keep someone from trying RPGs. We played Universalis with the guy who came out to fix the cable tv. At the personal-relationship scale, un-geeking is as easy as pie. But man… the windmill of the general public sure is tempting to tilt at every now and then.)
Given your attitude towards most of us so-called geeks/nerds/dorks I would prefer that roleplaying games have that stigma that you so rail against, because frankly I don’t want to game with so-called “normal” people like you. You look down upon geeks/nerds/dorks and act like you’re trying to do us a favor by wanting to remove the stigma associated with our games. Yet, by actively seeking to remove that stigma you are in fact only perpetuating it. Maybe you should do what most of us have done, and that is to simply accept those who roleplay as just being people. We are just as “normal” as those so-called “normal” people you are trying to bring into the game. If you can’t see that then I truly pity you for you have then learned nothing from roleplaying and those who roleplay.
Hello “mock”. What’s your name? Mine’s Matt. I find communicating with people by their real names helps everyone remember to think of the other as a person, rather than as an Internet thing to dehumanize.
I agree with you. Nearly all “gamers” I have met are just regular folks. I find gamers as individuals to be friendly, outgoing, well-adjusted people.
I fail to see, however, why trying to bring additional people to the activity of role-playing games is problematic. Plenty of people are eager to bring gaming to gamers. I’ve certainly had some limited success in doing so.
That said, I find no insult — and certainly none to the level you insist I’m doing — in doing something additional. Bringing “normal” (that is, “non-gamers”) people to the fun activity of role-playing, and doing so without requiring them to self-identify as “gamers.”
You are very insistent here that I’m a self-loathing geek, and that I’m being insulting to you and geeks everywhere. I think you’re wrong about that, and I’ve said so. You’ll have to judge for yourself.
Hey Matt,
“I find communicating with people by their real names helps everyone remember to think of the other as a person, rather than as an Internet thing to dehumanize.”
Is this why you didn’t reply to me?
Pax,
- Cuindless
I made every attempt to wuss out of jumping into this openly, because gee, I usually screw it up when I try to take a stance (or support someone else’s), especially if it’s an unpopular one. And in the case of the death of Mr. Gygax, several of my closest friends came out solidly on the mournful-sad-raise-a-glass-to-a-fallen-icon side, so I didn’t want to rock those kinds of boats and be an asshat just because I don’t feel the way they do. I really, really wanted to just shut up and fly under the radar.
When I read Matt’s post (the one prior to this, I mean) the first time, I felt like it took a lot of guts to take that stance, and I internally agreed with a lot of it, but I didn’t realize then what the real intent of it was. This failure to grasp what Matt was really saying was not, in my opinion, because of some supposed lack of clarity in his post – I think it’s brilliantly written and it says everything that he claims it says, and pretty clearly. But my initial reaction was filtered through my own emotional baggage – agreeing with so much of it but ashamed to say so to anyone else – at the same time feeling for my friends who were bound to balk at it if I told them about it, and embarrassed for not having the guts to get off the fence.
But after a couple days of pondering this whole mess, reading and listening to some other “in memoriam” essays about Gygax’s influence on the gaming hobby, and then reading THIS post of Matt’s and the comments under both this post and the previous one, I’m convinced of one thing.
Matt Snyder is making an important point, and in my opinion he is the one we ought to be thanking.
You can read all the crap into his posts that you want, but in the end, the thing the man is saying is that you don’t need to buy into the ridiculous notion that the world is feeding us – that we pursue a marginal activity and that we are marginal people. In my opinion, Matt’s not saying he’s better than you, he’s saying that YOU are better than you’ve been led to believe, and that the hobby you enjoy is more worthy than we’ve been led to believe.
Dudes, disagree if you want, but Gary Gygax didn’t save you, D&D didn’t save you. Maybe the man and his game inspired you, and that’s great, maybe he stumbled upon something that caught on and maybe that was a lifeline for you, or a means of helping you express and/or work through your stuff, and I get that. Maybe that helped you through your youth, maybe it was an anchor in the storm or a light on the hill. I actually concur, up to a point. But what I get out of Matt’s words is that you need to be taking a heckuva lot more credit for that than you give to a guy who helped create a game.
Matt’s not putting Gygax down, he’s lifting up the hobby. He’s not putting you down, he’s trying to make you see that you are as up as you let yourself be.
Sorry for doing an entire essay of my own in the comments of your blog, Matt. But I respect what you’ve written, and here’s where I choose to say so.
Be the Quixote, dude. You’ve got me wanting to joust some windmills myself now.
Mick Bradley
Hello, Cuindless.
No, it is not why I didn’t respond to you. I didn’t respond to you because I thought your post was fine, and there was little I felt I needed to add or respond to. Did you want to discuss anything in particular with me? I’m happy to do so.
And, about that name. Is it Cuindless? I gather that’s an Internet handle? I’m Matt. You are?
Hi Cuindless,
I read your earlier post and wanted to cogitate on what you wrote and ask some questions, but then I got busy with work, and now it’s a day later, and…Anyhoo…
Cuindless wrote:
>I don’t see this insular subculture you refer to where you’re “in” or your “out”.I don’t see why I should try and get non-gamers to play RPGs.It filled my formative years with an identity, and this subculture that you seem to despise has introduced me to a number of close friends.<
The question I would ask is, what great friends do you *not* meet because ‘non-gamers’ do not feel comfortable with particular aspects of the gamer subculture? Would you even acknowledge that there are great people out there who would not even consider gaming because of perceived stigmas within the hobby?
Again, my tone of voice is civil. I just want to get a feel of what your perceptions are about these issues. Also, because it is only fair that you know my position since you offered yours: I game as a hobbyist. I do not participate in the gamer subculture.
Best,
-L
P.S. I have a rather full day tomorrow. Forgive me if you post and I don’t get back to you (or anyone else) right away.
@Lisa:
I mentioned Settlers of Catan AND Charades. My point was that if someone wouldn’t be interested in playing any kind of more involved tabletop game or a parlour game that involves more active participation — they won’t be interested in playing an RPG either.
There might be social stigma attached to raising your hand in a staff meeting at work and suggesting a D&D party… but there’d also be stigma to suggesting an X-Box party, or a NASCAR party, or working on model railroads as an office.
If someone mentions that they like videogames, there’s no problem talking about World of Warcraft, and unless they express a lot of scorn for MMORPGs, there’s no reason not to bring up RPGs with them.
If you’re having a conversation with someone and they tell you they enjoy more involved boardgames or parlour games of any kind there’s no issue with bringing up RPGs.
If you’re talking with someone about model railways, there’s no issue in talking about tabletop wargames like Warhammer 40K — and from there, there’s no issue to talking about RPGs.
And Facebook makes this incredibly easy. You don’t have to guess what people’s hobbies are - - they list them on their profiles. Not only that, they add all these RPG type games and you get updates about which games your friends are playing.
There are 777, 000 users of the “Harry Potter Magic Spells” application (hey there’s ANOTHER one of my friends who I could talk to about RPGs).
There are over 8 *MILLION* people who’ve installed the “Vampires” application on Facebook. You have a vampire character who grows in power as you fight the other vampires of your friends. It’s totally RPG inspired. Not to mention all the other applications with 100s of thousands to millions of players: Knights, Werewolves, Wizards, Armies, Zombies.
Any of your friends have that installed? Yup. Feel free to talk to them about RPGs.
I used to think along similar lines to Matt. I was wrong, and so is he.
I think you are characterizing the gamer/geek subculture as a lot more cut and dry than it really is. There is contiunuum of so-called geek lifestyle that ranges wildly. . . Hell, you can see it in the six guys I get together with every two weeks to play D&D. The idea of an “in” or “out” is a fallacy (aren’t you by your own admission proof of this?). Sure, some people act as if it weren’t - but that is true of many (if not all) hobbies and “lifestyles”.
It is also a matter of relational context. To some folks I may be the biggest gamer geek there is, to others I don’t know GURPS from FUDGE and have never seen an episode of Babylon 5, in other words, I am definitely “out.”
The stigma of the gaming geek need not ever come up when teaching “non-gamers” (in and of itself a problematic term) to play. It is as easy as “Do you want to try X game? I think you might like it.” I think the reason people accuse you of being ashamed of your gamerness is because it is easy to assume (and I make the same assumption) that the reason you might hesitate to bring your bag of dice to your neighbors is because you don’t want to be automatically associated with that sub-culture and lifestyle (whatever it might mean to whoever is doing the associating). If this were not the case, would it not be simply a matter of offering to teach people a game and their accepting or refusing - why would you care about the association with the lifestyle at all?
Personally, I think getting people to try new things is much more of an obstacle to spreading the love for RPGs than any pre-conceived notions of dorkitude.
@stuart:
“I mentioned Settlers of Catan AND Charades. My point was that if someone wouldn’t be interested in playing any kind of more involved tabletop game or a parlour game that involves more active participation — they won’t be interested in playing an RPG either.”
I’m not sure what you’re replying to here, since nowhere does Lisa say that she wants to teach RPGs to people who wouldn’t be interested in board or parlor games. But for my own part, I can say that I know of lots of people, both friends of mine and friends of friends, who enjoy all manner of “conventional” games — board games, card games, Charades, etc — who won’t touch RPGs with a ten foot pole because of their preconceptions of the hobby.
If you are talking with someone and they tell you “I don’t like boardgames or games like Charades” there’s probably nothing you can do to get them to like an RPG. It’s not an RPG thing… they don’t like games.
There’s also a difference between involved boardgames and very casual boardgames. Even a light RPG is still more involved than a casual boardgame. If someone tells you they like playing games like Axis & Allies, they’re a good candidate to talk about RPGs with. If they tell you they like Scrabble… you can’t be sure if they’d be into it.
Hey Matt,
“And, about that name. Is it Cuindless? I gather that’s an Internet handle? I’m Matt. You are?”
Just Cuindless. Nice to meet you, Matt.
As I said, I’m wondering what you’re railing against, because I don’t see this pervasive and insular subculture you refer to. I’m just about as “gamer” as it gets (though there are some more “gamer” than I), and I would gladly welcome a non-gamer to my table if he was interested. It’s just a matter of degree. Some gamers are just into the hobby and that’s it. Some are full bore into the gaming subculture, and go to cons. They read fantasy literature. They quote Monty Python and Princess Bride. You get the idea. The point is, I’m happy being a gamer, and I find that most of my friends are happy being gamers too. I’m just not sure what you actually want to accomplish…
Pax,
- Cuindless
Hello Lisa,
“The question I would ask is, what great friends do you *not* meet because ‘non-gamers’ do not feel comfortable with particular aspects of the gamer subculture? Would you even acknowledge that there are great people out there who would not even consider gaming because of perceived stigmas within the hobby?”
That’s the thing: I’ve met a lot of non-gamers and spent a great deal of time with them before drifting apart because we didn’t have a lot in common. Some of them tried gaming and weren’t interested, other’s listened in on a session or asked a lot of questions and declined to try it out. I was fine with that, they made an informed decision.
If someone won’t even consider gaming because of the stigma attached, I question how self-possessed and mature they are as a person. I’m not afraid to try an activity because there’s a stigma around it, and anyone who is has to question who they’re living their life for.
“Again, my tone of voice is civil. I just want to get a feel of what your perceptions are about these issues. Also, because it is only fair that you know my position since you offered yours: I game as a hobbyist. I do not participate in the gamer subculture.”
I hope that my tone is civil as well, and I feel I’m making my perceptions clear. I am curious, though: When you say you don’t participate in the subculture, what exactly do you mean? Do you mean you don’t ever go to conventions? You don’t quote Monty Python or Princess Bride? You don’t make gaming jokes in non-gaming circumstances? What do you define as “the subculture”?
Pax,
- Cuindless
Cuindless,
To clarify:
“I would gladly welcome a non-gamer to my table if he was interested. ”
I am interested in making that kind of thing more likely to happen. Right now, based on my observations, experience, and many, many thoughtful discussions with people, I believe there are barriers to making that likely to happen. I’m railing against those barriers.
The problem with doing so is that when I do, self-described gamers feel I am attacking them. These two posts of mine are not the first time this has happened. Every time, whether I’m communicating poorly or just what, this happens. The perception is that I’m either attacking people as a mean person, or that I’m attacking “nothing” and “what’s your problem, really, anyway?”
You’re happy with the status quo. I’m happy for you for that. I’m not satisfied with the status quo. I’d like to reduce, in my small part, the barriers I observe. The counter-claim is that there just are no barriers. I believe there are.
I have a feeling, but I don’t mean anything nasty by it, that you just don’t see the barriers and think I’m being fiesty for no apparent reason. I keep at it regardless.
Matt,
I understand you made a mistake communicating correctly, and perhaps it was the timing as well. Many gamers, myself included, are very touchy about Mr. Gygax’s death. I’m done taking you to task for that, since you’ve said it was unintentional.
Now about these barriers. What are they? I’ve perceived two such barriers, both of which I consider non-issues. The first is what you talk about the most, i.e. “social stigma”. What I’ve found, though, is that if someone is repelled from an activity because of how it’s perceived by others, they aren’t mature enough to participate anyway. “Gaming… that’s geek stuff!” If someone has that attitude, it isn’t my fault. I don’t say, “Football… that’s ‘jock’ stuff!” I say, “Well, I’ve watched football, I’ve even played a few games, and I’m not really that interested.”
The other barrier is pretensious gamers who think of themselves as “above” non-gamers. To me, most of those disappear after high school or maybe college. I’ve yet to meet a mature, well-adjusted, adult gamer who still has this mentality, to my recollection. If I did meet such a gamer espousing that opinion, I’d likely tell them to get over themselves. The problem is, with that kind of person, there isn’t a whole lot anyone can do. They have to change that mentality themselves.
So what other barriers do you perceive that I don’t?
Pax,
- Cuindless
Hello Harry,
Don’t get me wrong. I’d like an apology as well. I was offended, and I thought that the statements were very ill-timed. I just realize that Matt isn’t going to apologize because he doesn’t think he did anything wrong. Asking for one is a waste of time and typing.
Pax,
- Cuindless
Harry’s apparently never going to read this blog again, so I guess he’ll never see this, but I’d like to point out that I’m outside the Forge community, and I know Matt Snyder, I know his reputation, I respect him, and I essentially agree with his goals for the hobby. And he owes no one an apology.
On the other hand, I DON’T know who “Harry” is, because “Harry” is hiding behind a common name that possibly isn’t even his own.
An article from Slate this morning:
http://www.slate.com/id/2186203/?GT1=38001
The article is titled “Orc Holocaust
The reprehensible moral universe of Gary Gygax’s Dungeons & Dragons.”
This is on the front page of MSN.com, written by Eric Sofge, a contributing editor at Popular Mechanics. It hits on some of the very topics Matt discussed here, and goes even further than that. Furthermore, the article does it in a mainstream media outlet.
No social stigma my ass!
Although, Mr. Snyder may be comforted by the knowledge that he’s not the only ‘asshole’ out there who laments what Sofge says here:
“There is a way to wring real creativity, and possibly even artistic merit, from this bizarre medium—and it has nothing to do with Gygax and his tradition of sociopathic storytelling.”
Enjoy.
Hi Cuindless,
Thanks for the response. Since you were kind enough to clarify, I’ll return the favor.
Cuindless wrote:
“I hope that my tone is civil as well, and I feel I’m making my perceptions clear. I am curious, though: When you say you don’t participate in the subculture, what exactly do you mean? Do you mean you don’t ever go to conventions? You don’t quote Monty Python or Princess Bride? You don’t make gaming jokes in non-gaming circumstances? What do you define as “the subculture”?”
I do not go to conventions. I am not a movie buff. By ‘not a movie buff’ I mean I’ve never seen Star Wars from begining to end, or LoTR, or Princess Bride, or lots of them out there. I just saw Bladerunner from start to finish for the first time last week. (Which is some sort of sin for someone who likes Shadowrun like I do. ;^D ) I do not quote Sailor Moon, nor am I a Zena fan. I do not visit game related sites (with the exception of this one) unless someone posts a link that looks interesting. I can not recall making a post at a gamer site since about 2004. I do not LARP. I do not participate in Ren Faires. I do not play WOW or any other video game besides Wii Bowling. Damn, do I love me some bowling.
I visit this website because I know Matt Snyder. I’ve known him for years. I’ve disagreed with him, sometimes vehemently, during the course of our friendship concerning different topics. But I know he cares about a whole lotta topics concerning gaming and different ways of going about it.
I talked earlier about my gardening hobby. Gardening also has a subculture, which encompasses all sorts of spoken and unspoken social rules, expectations, subsects, and so on. But me? I just like to garden with my friends without worrying about going to conventions, buying product from certain outlets, attending certain seminars, and so on. And the same is true about my views on RPGs. I just want to play a game with my friends. Unlike gardening, however, I face an uphill battle engaging new friends in something I enjoy as a hobby for the reasons I posted above.
I used to be quite involved in online participation of the hobby, did some freelance work, played by email, and so on. I dropped it cold turkey because of the behaviors of some that I found troubling. What did I find troubling? Lifestyle vs Activity. I discovered, for me, all I really wanted was an activity.
Hope that explains it all a bit better.
Best,
-L
Hi Harry,
I know Matt Snyder and I don’t visit the Forge.
Who are you? I don’t know you, outside of the Heads or Tales blog as, well, anything.
See how marginalizing that was?
Of course you’re somebody. So is Matt.
Hi Lisa,
That’s about as “not in” the subculture as you can possibly be. You’d still be welcome at my table. Maybe you wouldn’t get some of the jokes me and my usual gaming group tell. Heck, some of them don’t get the jokes *I* tell. You to game as an activity, and I think that’s fine. I still don’t get what Matt’s on about…
As for this statement: “There is a way to wring real creativity, and possibly even artistic merit, from this bizarre medium—and it has nothing to do with Gygax and his tradition of sociopathic storytelling.” I’m curious if that gentleman ever met Mr. Gygax, because I came away from the one game I played at his table hoping that I would one day have half the grasp of storytelling and tactics that he had. Calling Gygax a sociopath is a disservice both to him and to those who’ve lost loved ones to *real* sociopaths.
Pax,
- Cuindless
Hi Cuindless,
I don’t disagree that Sofge used extremely strong language. The actual headline on the MSN home page reads: Slate: D&D Morally Corrupt.
How’s that for negative PR? I dunno that you could get much worse unless it had read: D&D - Hobby of Murdering Pederasts.
IOW, my point that there is a social stigma around P&P RPGs stands. I also assert that it is harmful and unnecessary. I also assert that the stigma is strong and is supported by fresh media reports. I further assert that this stigma has a very real impact on folks like me who enjoy ‘just playing games’ and would like to introduce our hobby to other people without being on the receiving end of negative stereotyping. And for my last assertion, it is my belief that this stigma affects folks like you who do enjoy the subculture, whether you acknowledge that it does or not.
Was Gary Gygax a sociopath? No. Was Gygax The Great Moral Corruptor ™? No. Did Gary encourage hate crimes? No. He was a guy who developed an entertainment idea.
The Slate article says what it says because of the author’s perception of the D&D subculture. The article practically drips with hyperbole, sarcasm, and some mockery as well. But the underlying complaints are not wrong, from my experience. Could Sofge have used a gentler hand? Certainly. He didn’t soft ball it. But the stereotypes he hammers on are out there for a reason. Those same stereotypes makes it hard for a Joe like me to do what Matt is saying he wants to do, which is have more people involved in a hobby that every person posting to this blog enjoys.
So, what to do about having a wider RPG participation level without all of the bullshit stigma?
And that, sir, is one question that Snyder is trying to figure out.
IMHO. Again, I am not speaking for Matt. These are my views. Thank you for sharing yours.
Best,
-L
The Slate article is a classic example of linkbait, and just plain wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_popularity#Types_of_link_bait
Evil Hooks - Saying something unpopular or mean may also yield a lot of attention.
Hi Stuart,
Maybe. But does a 3rd position headline on MSN.com that says D&D: Morally Corrupt add to a general social stigma, or detract from it? Does it make it easier for gamers to talk about their hobby, or harder? Does it benefit the hobby, or harm it?
My assumption is that link baiting is the furthest thing from Joe Public’s mind when they see something like that.
Hey Lisa,
You make some good points, and I agree that the world, including my own, would be a better place if the social stigma surrounding RPGs would just disappear. I’ll grant that. Heck I’ll even endorse that. What I won’t endorse is bashing people who 1) feel that D&D and other RPGs had a positive effect on their life, 2) feel they owe the creator of them a debt of gratitude, and 3) are probably mourning his loss. What I won’t endorse is an attempt to eradicate a subculture I identify with. Mr. Snyder says he wants to “tear down the barriers” and “get rid of the obstacles”, while trying to say that he’s just fine with anyone who chooses to engage in the subculture. I get it that he doesn’t want to be part of the subculture. That’s fine. But if you’re going to say that the subculture is part of the barriers to “non-gamers” enjoying gaming, well… let’s put it in the form of a logic syllogism:
A) Barriers to the enjoyment of RPGs should be eliminated.
B) The gaming subculture is a barrier to the enjoyment of RPGs.
C) Therefore?
Do you get my point? I self-identify with this subculture. I’m in it through and through. I’m not in it as much as some. I don’t watch Xena, watch Sailor Moon or LARP either. I’m just not interested in those activities. I *do* go to Ren Faires, play DDO and post on gaming websites like Paizo, RPGnet and Gleemax. I do a bunch of the other stuff you mentioned. If he wants to “un-geek” the hobby, that means getting rid of the geeks… i.e. me.
That’s how I interpret it, at least.
Pax,
- Cuindless
Cuindless, you’re making conclusions that aren’t necessary.
You see this as an attack on the subculture. It IS a criticism. But, I think your logic lacks imagination.
For example, one means to remove barriers that I believe the subculture represents is to create new avenues that route people from basic ignorance of the activity to interest in role-playing as an activity.
It does not mean “getting rid” of anyone. That’s a very strange thing to assume. It means “finding other means.” I suppose, yes, that means ignoring or “going around” geeks like you. You can be offended by that, but I really don’t see why. But, getting RID of people? That would be offensive, certainly. It’s nothing I’m advocating. What a strange — and even sinister — thing to conclude about me. I think there are far more creative solutions we might discover. (To date, several attempts at doing what I advocate haven’t met with glorious success, but there are interesting cases.)
I urge to to really sit down and consider this question: Am I unable to see what Matt’s saying because I really enjoy the status quo and can’t or won’t imagine other ways to do it? Or, is Matt really attacking me because he hates people like me doing what we do?
I have an answer to that question. So far, I’m unable to get others to agree with my answer. This is why I offer no apology and why I think I’ve done nothing wrong, as you indicated. I did nothing wrong because I never advocated hurting, attacking, and certainly not “getting rid” of anyone.
Hey Matt,
Good to have you back and weighing in. I didn’t mean to imply anything sinister about you. By “get rid of”, I certainly mean “take me out back and shoot me”. What I actually meant was “make gaming less palatable to the geek element”, which is what I think you’re talking about. You mentioned in this blog that one of the barriers was the learning curve, and it seems that Wizards of the Coast agrees with you. One of the most touted selling points of D&D 4E is it’s “simplicity” and “streamlined rules system”. When I first became involved in gaming the rules and the language were complex as hell, which is why both my math and english skills improved dramatically. Based on what I’ve seen from WotC about D&D 4E, it looks absurdly simple, to the point that it doesn’t really interest me. I enjoy a level of complexity. If RPGs are simplified so there’s little or no learning curve, then there’s no new games for me.
Let’s look at it another way. I would never play a NASCAR RPG. I’m not interested in it. Perhaps a NASCAR fan would, if the stigma disappeared. That’s great. What about a basketball RPG? Sure. I wouldn’t play it. I’m not interested in basketball. Maybe a basketball fan would. Isn’t fantasy football just and RPG for football fans anyway? Many of the guys who work at my company aren’t in the science portion of the industry, so they’re what I would call “non-geeks”. The vast majority are definitely not in to fantasy and/or sci-fi RPGs. The RPGs they were in to, I probably wouldn’t play.
So, if you’re advocating “going around” geeks like me, I can understand that. Are you familiar with the zero/sum theory of economics, per chance? Basically, if RPG companies discover a way to get everyone to play RPGs by ignoring the minority (read “geek”) element, they’ll do that. They won’t waste resources on me and my ilk any more, because the much more profitable “non-geek” market is available. Am I making sense?
Pax,
- Cuindless
Cuindless, yes you’re making sense.
You see how what I’m saying makes sense then, in turn? And, that feeling threatened by me is your reaction to not wanting to lose your subculture (understandable, I just don’t share it)? And, that it’s not me actually threatening your subculture but you reacting as though I am? Because that’s what I’m seeing and saying here.
Matt,
Then perhaps I still don’t understand. Maybe you could explain it better. You envision a world where RPGs are free of any social stigma, and it’s looked upon no differently than basketball, NASCAR or computer games, right? So who’s playing these games? Everyone, or still the same people who were playing before? I guess what I’m asking is, if you don’t want the end of the subculture, what do you want?
Pax,
- Cuindless
Cuindless, we keep going in circles. Before I explain again, I urge to take a step back, re-read my posts, (Lisa’s too, as I think they’re helpful), think on them for a day or so, and then come back and answer the questions I posed to you as honestly as you can.
If you’re still stuck, I’ll explain again.
Well done Matt you are so right. I wish more ‘normal’ people would play RPGs, I find geek culture very draining.
I’ve had some success in getting flatscans to play and to be honest they are much better than gamers at being imaginative and just having fun!
Good luck with your quest I’m with ya!
JoE
Cuindless wrote:
“What I won’t endorse is bashing people who 1) feel that D&D and other RPGs had a positive effect on their life, 2) feel they owe the creator of them a debt of gratitude, and 3) are probably mourning his loss. What I won’t endorse is an attempt to eradicate a subculture I identify with.”
Point 1: Agreed. But remember to give yourself a little credit along the way. D&D didn’t make you a cool, thoughtful person. *You* did that.
Point 2: This may sound cold, and I really don’t mean for it to. I just don’t know how to phrase this a different way, so I’m gonna just say it and hope you read charitably.
I owe Mr. Gygax, Mr. Findley, Mr. Jackson, Mr. Norwood, Mr. Snyder, or Mr. Joe Game Designer nothing more than the purchase price for the games I choose to buy. Let us not forget a key point: Gary was looking to make a living. He had 6 (six!) kids to feed. Probably had a house payment, a car payment, and all of the same bills you and I have. It is commendable that he was able to devise a way to make money at something he loved.
In fact, I find that he did so *far more admirable* than the product he created, marketed, and sold.
But he purposefully and consciously set out to make a living selling a product. He did not create D&D to be free. This was not pro-bono work designed to help keep at risk kids out of trouble. He did what he did because he loved it and it paid the bills. If it had not paid the bills, he would tried his hand at other things, I imagine. That people like/ admire his work is fine, but please, please, please do not sanctify the dead. He was not a hero, he was a business man. He had responsibilities. He did what he needed to in to support his family. He made a good living, and good for him. I am glad he chose to make his living the way he did. I’ve meet some really cool folks through the hobby. But a debt of gratitude? It just doesn’t play for me. I understand others may feel differently.
Point 3: I can not help but wonder how deep the wound really is. (Speaking in general terms here, not about anyone’s specific grief.) My reaction was the same as any time I hear about someone passing before the ripe old age of 90. ‘Man, that’s too bad. Death sucks.’
Maybe I’m a skeptic, but how many people play up the grief thing to ‘fit in’. How many people who have roasted Mr. Snyder Actually Gave A Fuck that Gygax was dead? How many members of his deeply grieved fan base decided to put their money where their mouth was and donate in Gary’s memory to his favorite charity? How many people would even know what his favorite charity was? How about giving to the Hospice that surely took care of him in his final days? Hospices are generally low on funding.
You see, it’s one thing for someone to say, ‘How dare you insult Gygax! I owe him a debt of gratitude. I’m grieving!’ It’s entirely another thing to honor his life and repay that perceived debt by actually doing something to give back in his memory. For the folks doing that or something similar, I might be inclined to agree that their grief is deep and genuine. I have a feeling, however, that many people who claim great grieving do not suffer from it. I’m not using a snarky tone, BTW. Nor am I telling anyone who to grieve for, or who not to grieve for.
Point 3.5: I do not condone ‘eradicating’ anyone.
Cuindless wrote:
“A) Barriers to the enjoyment of RPGs should be eliminated.
B) The gaming subculture is a barrier to the enjoyment of RPGs.
C) Therefore?”
No.
A. There is a measurable, pervasive, harmful, and negative social stigma attached to RPGs.
B. This stigma is a barrier to involving new people with the hobby
C. Therefore, within the hobby we should be encouraging healthy, non-insular, and positive play experiences which override existing negative social stereotyping. This sort of healthy and positive play should be accessible to anyone, current gamer or not.
Or something to that effect.
Thanks again for sharing your views, Cuindless.
@Lisa: I’m not sure if you were playing D&D back in the 80s (I’m guessing not) but those of us who were will remember when it was know much more for the accusations of being “morally corrupt” than for being “nerdy”. Ironically this was also at the time the game was most popular, and probably easiest for people to talk about. There was a cartoon show. The kids in E.T. are playing it at the kitchen table. Ironically having stupid people throw claims of “morally corrupt” at the game does less harm than people proliferating the idea that “it’s just for nerds”.
Hi Stuart,
I do remember the cartoon. I was not allowed to watch it. Morally Corrupting, ya know. ;^D
My main point is that negative perception of the hobby is common. I also claim that this negative perception is harmful to all persons in the hobby, whether they enjoy the subculture or not. I assert it is up to us, as members of the hobby, to change that. We can certainly surmise that game companies can’t get the job done. Many may disagree with what Matt says. At least he’s trying to figure out this problem, because make no mistake, there is a problem.
I’m going to second everything that Lisa wrote in post 56. Well-considered and well-written.
I’ll take it a step further and ask everyone here who is grieving for Gary or who feels a debt to his creation to go, right now - RIGHT NOW - and write a thank-you note to Dave Arneson. He’s still around to appreciate it. Take time out from shouting at Matt and Lisa and go walk your talk. Tell Mr. Arneson everything you didn’t get a chance to say to Mr. Gygax.
For that matter, surely there must be other people whose influence has helped form you and sustain you. Go thank them. Start with the other people at your table, in fact. If you do that, at least we won’t be able to doubt the depth of your grief and appreciation.
I posted some comments as “Gygax’s Passing” on my LJ.
http://jhkimrpg.livejournal.com/67843.html
To Lisa in #56 — If a writer eulogized an earlier author as inspiration for their own writing, would you similarly consider them as being self-deprecating, and that really they owed the former author nothing more than the cost of their books? It seems to me that you are yourself engaged in the stigma — that you are treating the death of a game designer as less worthy of respect than most people consider appropriate for an influential author or director.
As far as the hobby community — I’m fine with not being a part of it, but that’s different than complaining about the community to those who are a part of it, which implies trying to change the community rather than being separate from it. For example, by saying that we should be encouraging healthy and positive play experiences, that implies that the present state of play experiences are unhealthy and/or negative. So I’ll ask: compared to the present state, what changes would make things more healthy and positive?
Hi John,
I made assertions and claims. You have more or less asked for evidence. That’s completely fair. I will oblige.
John wrote:
“If a writer eulogized an earlier author as inspiration for their own writing, would you similarly consider them as being self-deprecating, and that really they owed the former author nothing more than the cost of their books?”
I’d like to quote myself, because this point is important.
Lisa wrote:
“It is commendable that he was able to devise a way to make money at something he loved. In fact, I find that he did so *far more admirable* than the product he created, marketed, and sold. But he purposefully and consciously set out to make a living selling a product. He did not create D&D to be free. This was not pro-bono work designed to help keep at risk kids out of trouble.”
We are not talking about a guy who decided to use his words to change the world. Gary created something that he hoped was marketable, hoped was sellable, and hoped would make a living for himself. It worked! You can argue that he was business savvy and took advantage of growth opportunities as they presented themselves. I would agree.
Please notice that I keep referring to him as a business man. That’s truly what he was. He was not the author of classical literature. He did not pen biting prose that challenged the status quo. He did not contribute to the elimination of the world’s problems through his work.
His work entertained. That’s what it was designed to do.
That doesn’t make Gary a bad guy, or somehow ‘lesser’ than other successful people. However, when I see people comparing the work he did with work of some truly great thinkers, I have to wonder if they have actually read too little of the latter. Besides, I supported him by supporting his business, and that was done through the act of purchasing product. I understand that others may feel differently than I do. That’s fine.
John wrote:
“It seems to me that you are yourself engaged in the stigma — that you are treating the death of a game designer as less worthy of respect than most people consider appropriate for an influential author or director.”
Not at all. I do not marginalize Gary, or the hobby, by saying that he was a business man who took the ball and ran with it. Nor do I marginalize the hobby by calling for open discussion about what could make the hobby a better experience for all.
John wrote:
“For example, by saying that we should be encouraging healthy and positive play experiences, that implies that the present state of play experiences are unhealthy and/or negative.”
I claim that the current state of the hobby is in fact insular (for the most part), that it suffers from negative social stigma, that hobby members regardless of their level of participation are labeled with unnecessary and harmful stereotypes, and furthermore that this combination of influences damages further growth of the hobby.
See, here’s the part where I start linking article after article after article to support my position. I am running short on time at the moment and am skipping Ye Olde Google. If you like, when I return, I will post these links. But I would ask, is it really necessary that I do so? Are my claims so far out of line that I need supporting documentation? As I say, I will provide evidence to what I’m claiming if you’d like. I’m pretty sure that my claim is pretty much a no brainer, though.
John wrote:
“So I’ll ask: compared to the present state, what changes would make things more healthy and positive?”
Excellent question! This is one I’ve been thinking about for awhile now. My first suggestion is a reversal of all of the negative crap out there. I have thoughts on this, but am out of time.
Best,
-L
Well, I feel differently about those who make money. To pick an example, I love the works of Ursula Le Guin, and I would be very sad if she were to pass away. She sells her books for money, but that doesn’t mean that I would consider her worthy of no sadness simply because I paid money for her books. She wrote her books to be enjoyed, to be popular, and certainly to make her money — but this doesn’t make them any less in my mind. There is no measurable change to the world caused by her stories — no revolutions, or mouths fed aside from her own. Yet I consider the engaged imagination from her stories, the ideas sparked, to be worthy even in themselves — and further I believe they did touch people’s lives.
Despite this, I think that Gary Gygax had more influence on my life than Ursula Le Guin did. His work encouraged me to use my own imagination, rather than simply consume the imagination of others. His work helped bring me into rewarding social relationships, including many of the best ones of my life. Both Le Guin’s work and Gygax’s were entertainment — I engaged with them because they were enjoyable, not as a conscious effort to better myself or the world. I don’t think that lessens their effects.
In my opinion, Gygax did challenge the status quo. The status quo was for children to consume imagination — to passively sit in front of their televisions or more rarely in front of their books, without any output of their own imaginations. His challenge was to encourage them to use it. He profited by this, but in my experience so did the kids (and adults) who tried it.
It is easy to dismiss works for being childish, not serious, or mere entertainment. Ursula Le Guin railed against this quite eloquently in many of her essays. Her works were often dismissed as “children’s literature”, implying that they were lesser writing than works that are accessible only to adults. I despise that attitude.
I don’t disagree that there is a stigma of the larger society regarding RPGs. There is certainly negative crap out there. I just think that one of the roots of that is the attitude that games or children’s books are inherently less worthy than, say, classical literature.
I would like to do something about it, and I do think that a handful of “serious” games would help. But I think a big part of it is also treating existing games and game designers with respect.
Hi John,
When I think of childhood authors who addressed tackled social issues and some of the greater ills of society, I think of people like Shel Silverstein. His work transcended a particular genre and reader age. As a kid, I got a kick out of his poetry and drawings. As an adult, I enjoyed reading his contributions to Playboy. Yes, some of us actually read the mag for the articles. ;^D
Shel made money, oodles of it. In the same breath, he purposefully and consciously set out to raise questions about the general state of human affairs and to challenge assumptions of ‘the way it had always been.’ His work was loaded with really thought provoking stuff. He was provocative and very intelligent. He wrote what he did with purpose and on purpose. In short, he had a larger vision of what he wanted his work to actually accomplish and how he wanted to change the world.
This same description simply doesn’t fit what Gygax did, or what he was setting out to do. Do you see the difference?
It is not dismissive or disrespectful for me to say that Gary sold an entertainment idea. That’s what he wanted to do, and damn it, He Did It. Mission Accomplished. His sales volumes proved that point. However, the scope of his work was never intended, nor was it written, marketed, or sold to improve the state of childhood (or adult) social skills, reading skills, math skills, acting skills, critical thinking skills, or anything of the like. It was designed to entertain. And so it did.
This is why I have an awfully hard time comparing Gygax to a guy like Silverstein. Their goals, ambitions, and body of work are not the same thing, nor did they try to do the same thing. Not coincidentally, this is why I say I owed Mr. Gygax nothing more than the purchase price for the books I chose to buy. He was selling me a product to entertain me. This view is not disrespectful, although I understand that others may feel differently. I believe they are wrong to label me as disrespectful, but so it goes.
Let’s talk about respect for a second.
John wrote:
“I would like to do something about it, and I do think that a handful of “serious” games would help. But I think a big part of it is also treating existing games and game designers with respect.”
All well and good, if what you mean by ‘treating existing games and game designers with respect’ means being cordial, being honest, critiquing objectively, educating ourselves on particular view points to better understand what’s going on in the hobby, etc… Not so good if what you mean is granting an automatic pass to a designer or game simply because they are part of the hobby.
Respect is an earned thing. It is my personal belief that you start by building it in yourself. You give it to people who have earned it. Speaking in terms of the hobby, I think it’s important (even critical!!!!) to respect and like the people you game with. You can gain the respect of people outside of the hobby, and by doing that first you can broach the topic of RPGs with non gamers.
I do not respect Mr. Snyder because he is an award winning game designer. I do not respect him because I adore his game, 44. I respect him because he’s got a whole lot of valuable things to say about the hobby. I respect that he challenges people’s thinking about the hobby, knowing that most people will knee jerk and assume he’s an ass. As a designer, I owe him nothing more than the purchase price for the books I chose to buy. As a guy who encourages open discussion about a hobby you and I both enjoy and ways to make it better (even if I don’t agree with every idea!) he has earned my respect.
I’m going to break in to a different post to address some ideas relating to growing the hobby.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, John.
Lisa Fleishman wrote: However, the scope of his work was never intended, nor was it written, marketed, or sold to improve the state of childhood (or adult) social skills, reading skills, math skills, acting skills, critical thinking skills, or anything of the like. It was designed to entertain. And so it did.
This is why I have an awfully hard time comparing Gygax to a guy like Silverstein. Their goals, ambitions, and body of work are not the same thing, nor did they try to do the same thing.
I don’t recall reading Silverstein as a child, but I’ve now read a number of his children’s works (offhand I recall The Giving Tree, Where The Sidewalk Ends, and Runny Babbit) as well as his ABZ’s book — though not his Playboy articles. I don’t know anything else about him, so I don’t have a good basis to judge the personal intent of either Silverstein or Gygax. As far as effects, though, I don’t think that any of Silverstein’s works that I’m aware of do nearly as much to promote math, social, or reading skills among kids as much as Dungeons & Dragons. I don’t think they’re anywhere close. And this isn’t a theory. As a father to a soon-to-be 8-year-old, I haven’t cared whether he reads any of Silverstein, but I have actively played D&D and other games with my son because I believe they develop useful and fun skills.
All of this is to explain my position. I’m not saying you have to similarly value things, but I want to make myself clear. In general, as a parent, I encourage my son to active skills. i.e. I would prefer him to draw his own pictures rather than just looking at printed illustrations. I encourage him to sing rather than just listen to music. I commented on this as Personal vs. Impersonal Art .
I think it can be easy to dismiss personal creativity by comparing it to mass media. i.e. If you compare some kids’ D&D game to a critically-acclaimed children’s book, you can easily say that the D&D game is worthless. Its plot sucks, the characters are thin, and there are no enduring themes for the ages. However, I don’t value it that way. To myself as a kid, my D&D games were far more rewarding and challenging than any novel I read.
As far as I can see, getting kids (especially teenagers) to value and use their own imaginations is harder than writing a book to simply be consumed. Very few people manage the former, whereas the shelves are filled with successful children’s books. Gygax has my respect not because of hypothesized intentions or simply because he is a game designer, but because of the visible effects that I know his works had on many kids and adults, including myself.
John wrote:
“As far as effects, though, I don’t think that any of Silverstein’s works that I’m aware of do nearly as much to promote math, social, or reading skills among kids as much as Dungeons & Dragons. I don’t think they’re anywhere close. And this isn’t a theory. As a father to a soon-to-be 8-year-old, I haven’t cared whether he reads any of Silverstein, but I have actively played D&D and other games with my son because I believe they develop useful and fun skills.”
As a mother, I have also played RPGs with my daughter. Our first one was a Free Form Game called “Polly Pocket and the Plastic Diamond”. No joke. She wanted to play an RPG, I didn’t have an age appropriate one handy, so we made it up on the spot. Conflict resolution came in the form of trading ‘Polly’ clothes and shoes back and forth. Polly purses were worth more ‘currency’ than Polly combs, and so forth. I acted as the GM, and Dad was the trusty side kick. PPatPD featured high drama involving bank robbers and horse thieves. Luckily, Polly saved the day. Hmmm…maybe I could write this game up and make some bucks on the Indie Scene. *grins*
The reason that Polly Pocket, The RPG, was born was because we wanted to do something fun together. I wanted to spend time with her, she wanted to spend time with me. We picked something to entertain us. You do not say, but if I had to place a wager, I’d bet that the reason you game with your son is pretty similar. You want to spend time together, you love hanging out with each other. In short, you love each other. Cool.
I’d bet D&D was formed from a similar principle. Those guys wanted to have fun. Then they figured others might want to have fun. And then they wrote it up. The rest is marketing history.
However, if I want my daughter to learn skills such as reading or math, there are simply better tools out there than RPGs. Can you use RPGs to encourage math skills or reading skills? Maybe. My thought is if a skill deficiency is a problem, there are better tools for the task of helping kids catch up. D&D was never designed to be a teaching or tutoring aid. It was designed as entertainment. (Notice how I keep coming back to this.)
(An Aside: Silverstein wasn’t interested in teaching math. He was interested in teaching critical thinking skills. Totally different skill set. Perhaps the most important skill set, but that is a personal opinion.)
John wrote:
“Gygax has my respect not because of hypothesized intentions or simply because he is a game designer, but because of the visible effects that I know his works had on many kids and adults, including myself.”
I don’t know that I have hypothesized Gary’s intent or Shel’s intent. Since both have passed away, all I can do is read old interviews, papers, articles, and so forth and process what information I can. It’s all anyone can do in determining the intent of someone who has passed away.
Now! It’s fair enough for you to say, ‘Hey Lisa! This guy affected me in XYZ way.’ Okay. But don’t assume that I’m marginalizing the hobby because I don’t share the view. After all, I can’t and won’t tell you how to feel.
One last bit before I get back to work.
John wrote:
“As far as I can see, getting kids (especially teenagers) to value and use their own imaginations is harder than writing a book to simply be consumed.”
Easy reading is hard writing.
I will read the article you linked to, when I get a bit of time.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
However, if I want my daughter to learn skills such as reading or math, there are simply better tools out there than RPGs. Can you use RPGs to encourage math skills or reading skills? Maybe.
Oh, come now. This is an absurd dodge. Are RPGs the best way in the world to teach all skills? No, of course not. I never claimed that they were. What I claimed was that they are better at developing important skills in kids (including math, social, and reading skills) than reading Shel Silverstein. That may be a low bar to jump over, but I was explaining my view of your comparison.
If you’re interested in using RPGs to develop skills, there are a lot of sources. For example, Johansen Quijano-Cruz just published an article for Game Journal, Volume 2 Issue 1, “Collaborative Non-Linear Narrative - Tabletop Role Playing Games in the ESL Classroom”. I’ve got a page full of links on my site.
Lisa also wrote:
“My thought is if a skill deficiency is a problem, there are better tools for the task of helping kids catch up. D&D was never designed to be a teaching or tutoring aid. It was designed as entertainment. (Notice how I keep coming back to this.)
(An Aside: Silverstein wasn’t interested in teaching math. He was interested in teaching critical thinking skills. Totally different skill set. Perhaps the most important skill set, but that is a personal opinion.)”
I am, however, about half way through a reply in which I directly address your concern. I’m currently looking to update an article that I wrote a few years back that touches on RPGs and learning. I do not dodge, nor am I absurd about it. Please note that I specifically noted that D&D was not designed to be a teaching or tutoring tool.
IOW, don’t move the goal posts. That’s not fair, and it’s not helpful to each of us understanding the other’s view point.
Best,
-L
Lisa,
So Silverstein’s stated intent in writing “A Light in the Attic” was to promote critical thinking? I did not know that. Could you please cite a source, I’d be interested in reading that interview. That being said, and to use your own argument, there are better tools for teaching children critical thinking than having them read Shel Silverstein. Point of fact, I think that playing Dungeons and Dragons can be a better tool to do that very thing, along with teaching math, reading and social skills. *Especially* if you use Gary Gygax’s original AD&D rules, because the rules were more difficult (mathematically speaking) and the writing was far more difficult than the current edition. As I said previously, with a Player’s Handbook and a dictionary, I went up 5 reading grade levels in the space of one year. I scored a perfect verbal on the SATs (when I took them so many years ago), and I feel I owe the fact that I know certain words to AD&D and Gygax.
As for “owing him nothing more than the money I spent buying his books”, sure… it seems a little flippant, but if that’s the way you feel, that’s fine. Gratitude is cheap, though. Is it so difficult to say, “Thank you, Mr. Gygax, for creating a game I enjoyed. It really enriched my life.” I don’t think it is, especially considering I genuinely feel that way.
You say a good start would be to “get rid of all that negative crap”, what negative crap, pray tell? I don’t perceive it. I’ve invited so-called “normal” guys to my table a number of times. I haven’t encountered this insular group of Orwellian geeks conspiring to keep “normals” out of our precious game and subculture. Maybe I missed my invitation. What I do see is a bunch of so-called “normal” people retaining a High School mentality that RPGs are “geek stuff” and not worthy of their time. Who’s fault is that? Why should I alter what I do to suit someone else’s impression gaming? Why should WotC or White Wolf or any other game publisher alter their product to bring in a group that otherwise probably wouldn’t want to play it. I don’t see the NASCAR people discussing the thermodynamics behind their sport to bring in the geek element.
Railing against the subculture upsets me because I feel it had a lot of positive effects on my life, not just D&D but the whole gaming subculture. First, as a scrawny, awkward Jr. High kid with glasses, an incredibly high IQ and no athletic ability, it gave me a place to fit in. Seeing other guys just like me enjoying an activity that focused on math, language *and* social interaction was powerful for me. Not only did it provide me with a sense of belonging, it provided me with friends and a community. Second, it helped improve the skills I’ve stated repeatedly above. Third, it continues to provide me with steady stream of new friends and even job opportunities from the people I meet at cons and the like.
I guess I don’t get it. I don’t see the subculture as the problem. Is there a negative stereotype? Yes. Is there a stigma? Yes. Is that *our* fault? We, the geeks? No. It’s the fault of those close-minded enough to think that RPGs are “geek stuff” and not worth their time.
Pax,
- Cuindless
” Railing against the subculture upsets me because I feel it had a lot of positive effects on my life, not just D&D but the whole gaming subculture. ”
Cuindless, that’s very understandable. My take is that, with that view, it’s possible (possibly, not necessary) that any criticism, valid or not, of the subculture upsets you. And, if that’s the case, it means that criticism gets lashed out against (by you and others, possibly) because it makes people feel upset, rather than whether the criticism actually has merit. Which is why I posed to you the questions I did.
Whether you, as an individual who calls himself Cuindless, is happy with the subculture is one thing. I’m happy you are that way, seriously! Whether, therefore, everyone else must be happy, too, is another. What I see a hint of here is that me critcizing as I have here, I’m viewed not only as a mean guy for using mean words, but also someone who’s just unhappy or crazy for even questioning “our” happines in the first place. I mean, after all, if so many other people are happy and healthy about their hobby, then why can’t Matt be, too? Something must be wrong with him! Clearly, he’s attacking us healthy people!
It seems sort of like saying “Well, I’m a Democrat, and really happy about it. It’s just the way to be. And, all these noisy, mean Republicans? They are just being mean. They upset me! What’s their problem? Can’t they just see that we should all be Democrats? I can’t understand it. Since they don’t hold my political views, they must be angry or crazy or something.”
As I think is pretty obvious, I’m not “happy” with the subculture. I don’t hate it. I’m not angry with its members. It just doesn’t do anything for me. I’m just mostly uninterested. I just don’t … ahem … give a damn. I have other social groups I find much more engaging and rewarding to me, personally.
I do think the subculture is worth criticizing, which I recognize can and will upset people. This is a large reason why I appear to be “dismissing” people here by saying I disagree with them and not carrying on the point further. They’re upset with me, and I’m not upset with them. It’s not going to be a good conversation until the aggrieved get what they want from me. I’m not lining up to provide what they want, which is an apology or some similar contrition for me having hurt them. I don’t agree I set out to attack anyone, and thus I don’t apologize for it.
So, I think the criticism is worth it. I say that because while I’m not interested in the subculture as a thing that I identify with, I am interested in the act of playing role-playing games. They’re really fun to play. The ones I’m interested in, especially, do things that engage and excite me in ways that many other RPGs do not. I’d like to share that enthusiasm with people who, like me, don’t particularly care too much about the subculture (i.e. self-identifying as “gamers”).
Matt — What exactly are your criticisms of the subculture, other than saying that you don’t want to be a part of it? i.e. Is there something in particular that you feel gamers are doing wrong, and what would the right approach be?
John, I am not sure why you are asking that. I have stated and restated my primary criticism in my blog posts and in replies here. I really hoped people saw the criticisms more clearly.
To repeat: I find that the subculture conflates the activity of role-playing with the subculture of role-playing. I find that, too often (not exclusively), to enjoy the hobby of role-playing, you also really need to share in the hobby of the stuff surrounding role-playing games. Things like GenCon, inside jokes, enjoying certain media, and many, many other activities that are not actually playing a role-playing game.
For an example, who do people think are more valuable and exciting to have at a local con? Shane Hensley or your own really good GM? Usually, the answer is “Oh! Shane Hensley of course!” (Shane may be a really good GM; that’s really not the point.) I think that’s weird because Shane is there to market and sign books, and probably play his stuff (that play his stuff is great!). But, the local GM guy is there to make it really fun to play RPGs. No celebrity enters the picture. It’s conceivable, though not certain, that the local GM guy makes the con enjoyable for more people than someone like Shane would.
That is not the ultimate example. It’s just an example. I hope it explains things for you.
Well, we discussed the question of celebrities on my LJ post, “Gygax’s Passing”, but you didn’t mention it here. Personally, I feel similarly about celebrities, but since the mainstream make if anything a bigger deal about celebrities than gamers do, I don’t count that as a problem with gamer subculture.
I’ve also posted just now on “What makes me a gamer?” about the more general question of subculture.
But really, I don’t find that it’s true that joining the subculture is necessary. For example, GenCon, or any convention, isn’t at all necessary for enjoying RPGs as they are. I’ve gone pretty commonly for the last few years and enjoyed them, but I didn’t go to any for many years without having any issues.
Really, if you want to disconnect from the larger community of gamers, it’s pretty easy. Just stop engaging with us. Rather than writing blog posts about Gygax’s death, go talk with people outside the subculture.
Matt,
I think I finally understand your criticism of the subculture, and I think it is unwarranted. You perceive the subculture as exclusionary and insular. I do not. As such, I think now we are at an empasse. Thank you for your patience in discussing this.
As a side, though, you say that since you didn’t set out to hurt anyone that you have nothing to apologize for. Does that mean if you accidentally hit someone with your car you have nothing to apologize for? After all, you didn’t set out to hurt them…
Pax,
- Cuindless
John, you seem to be agreeing with some key points I raised. For example, we’re both saying that participating in the subculture isn’t necessary to enjoy the activity. Of course.
As for not engaging, I agree. It is a simple choice that I make, and increasingly I desire to. I don’t agree, however, that therefore I “should” stop writing about Gygax or whatever topic I so desire. I think the notion that my own blog “should” avoid topics so that others won’t get upset and thus upset me is so absurd and disturbing I can’t imagine that’s what you’re actually recommending. That’s pretty dire. I think you’re saying something different.
If anyone doesn’t like what I’m writing on my own blog, then he or she is free to stop reading it and find some better way to spend time.
To clarify: if you want to disconnect from the subculture of gamers, then you shouldn’t be posting about Gygax’s death and be interested in discussing that topic with me. That’s not to save poor gamers from your nasty words, but rather advice for you to achieve your stated goal.
To the extent that you do continue to talk about gamer topics like the life of Gary Gygax, discuss gaming theory, and go to conventions like GenCon, you are participating in the subculture. I’ve got no issue with this, but it works counter to what you say you would like.
John, you’re making a poor argument. Consider:
“To the extent that you do continue to talk about REPUBLICAN topics like the life of RONALD REAGAN, discuss REPUBLICAN STRATEGY, and VISIT THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION, you are participating BEING A REPUBLICAN.”
I hope you can see this is not making any sense. Joe Lieberman, for one example, would find this argument unconvincing. He sure talks about those things (and sometimes supports and sometimes critiques them), and yet isn’t self-identifying as a Republican.
Your statement means that only people who self-identify as gamers can talk about (or critique) gamers. That very act of talking ABOUT the subculture makes one IN the subculture. Or, possibly, that only those people in the subculture “should” talk about it. Either way, I find it a very strange point to make.
I do agree with you that doing things like selling my games to self-identifying gamers, going to GenCon and so on are indeed participating in the subculture to varying degrees. Increasingly, I find these things less valueable as activities, despite having good friends attend those events in kind and potential sales to make. So, I continue to evaluate my participation in them.
Matt,
I’ve been reading Dust Devils with the intention of running it for the purpose of my wife and I (and maybe a third) commenting on it in our gaming podcast.
I have to say I’m impressed with what I read here. I appreciate your thought-provoking views and your unwillingness to pull punches on said views. I’ll be checking this blog regularly.
My view on the gamer subculture is kind of mixed. Some background info is in order.
I manage a game store (we sell everything from Monopoly to InSpectres), I do a gaming podcast with my wife (also a gamer) and some friends, I’m part of a group that looks to promote games as a hobby and is bringing a full-on convention to our town, and I play just about every kind of game you could think of. I also understand and am known to laugh at gaming in-jokes. In certain circles, I even make said jokes. All that said, I don’t feel completely entrenched in the gamer subculture. I have my reasons.
Comedian Eddie Izzard might say it like this: there are gamers, then there are “weirdo” gamers. I self-identify as a gamer in the same way my friend Bill self-identifies as a bowler. He bowls, he likes bowling, and there are jokes he makes that are aimed at other bowlers.
I think the subculture that gamers are often identified with exists because the “weirdo” gamers get the most publicity. It’s like when people assume that Kansans are ignorant because only the oddest of them seem to get interviewed after a tornado. I like the idea of “un-geeking” the hobby because I think that the hobby could benefit from the likely cash injection it would get in the mainstream.
So I’ll continue to call myself a gamer with the understanding that I’m not a “weirdo” gamer.
Loving Dust Devils so far. Enjoying the blog.
-Ron
Man, I know were you are coming from here! Gaming does not have to be some geeky hobby (or lifestyle). It is almost like saying that just because I some songs from The Grateful Dead that I am a “Deadhead” or that just because I liked a few episodes of Star Trek (the original, btw), I must be a “Treky” (or whatever the hell they call it).
Just because I play roleplaying games, does not make me a gaming geek or just a geek for that matter.