posted by ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
benlehman at 04:12pm on 12/03/2008
benlehman at 04:12pm on 12/03/2008This comes up, maybe, every month or so in the online conversations I follow. "role-playing games need to be less geeky!"
I just wanted to record here that I think that the entire idea is ridiculous for the following reasons:
1) Perceptions of role-playing games by our culture at large are generally positive: that they are fun, but very time-consuming and potentially obsession forming. Which is about accurate.
2) Since, oh, 1996, geeky things have been hella cool. Hello gamers? I know that you live under a rock, unexposed to the culture at large. But srsly.
I'm posting here because I don't want to have to write this same post, like, 80 times only to have it fall (again) on totally deaf ears.
I just wanted to record here that I think that the entire idea is ridiculous for the following reasons:
1) Perceptions of role-playing games by our culture at large are generally positive: that they are fun, but very time-consuming and potentially obsession forming. Which is about accurate.
2) Since, oh, 1996, geeky things have been hella cool. Hello gamers? I know that you live under a rock, unexposed to the culture at large. But srsly.
I'm posting here because I don't want to have to write this same post, like, 80 times only to have it fall (again) on totally deaf ears.
(no subject)
I bet I'd get a similar response if I was like "I'm a total geek: I argue on the internet about how much Spiderman can lift. It's fucking hilarious."
yrs--
--Ben
P.S. This is all assuming that I'm well groomed and well dressed. A repugnant person remains repugnant, no matter how awesomely cool their hobby is.
(no subject)
When people say "geek" in the positive sense, they're usually talking about content: Spiderman or whatever. When they say it in a negative sense, it's usually the activity that's a problem: arguing about how big Spiderman's balls are, etc.
(no subject)
(no subject)
yrs--
--Ben
(no subject)
(no subject)
I guess there are people who enjoy these games and that's okay, as long as they realize that their hobby is about as attractive as linear algebra to the populace at large. I'm just glad that this type of game is becoming less representative of the hobby as a whole, because the older I get, the less I care about the buoyancy of a mature blue dragon. At this point I would go so far as to say that I care more about the exact dimensions of Hitler's moustache, and would be - by comparison - HIGHLY interested in a game that attempts to explore this through live-action re-enactment.
(no subject)
"No, it displaces 6.7 tonnes I tell you, six point SEVEN, not six point EIGHT, you dunce—that's juvenile Red Dragons!"
>>...their hobby is about as attractive as linear algebra to the populace at large<<
Hey! I resemble that remark. :-) Though obviously I quite agree with your overall point.
Matt
(no subject)
There's a big difference between "socially acceptable" or even "cool" and "broadly popular throughout society." Right?
yrs--
--Ben
(no subject)
(no subject)
1) The person whose hobby it is is also socially acceptable.
2) That person doesn't try to enlist anyone who looks vaguely interested in any way other than "oh, if you're interested, let me know and we'll give it a spin sometime."
I guess I'm saying this is largely about personal presentation, not about writing new games.
(no subject)
Also indirectly, I do think less of Mr. Obama because he drowns kittens, although this nagging doubt about his character is overpowered by the warm, delicious glow I feel whenever I'm in his presence.
Tacitly, after his initial (slightly awkward) disclosure about kitten-drowning, he and I have agreed never to speak of it again.
(no subject)
I would not say, "Yeah, tonight I'm going to rescue my kidnapped daughter from the shapeshifting magus hiding her in a magical regio. I'll probably use my pagan blood magic to locate her and then turn the guys mind into jello and kill him. To ensure no one discovers what I have done I shall completely destroy his body and then commit it to a christian burial so that his spirit can not be summoned by other vengeful magi."
All in all, I think most people's reaction to my mentioning tabletops and/or larping would range from "that's kind of unusual" to "you're one of those weirdos."
(no subject)
Still genre fiction, but way more accessible to the general public than your example, I think.
I think the notion of the content of the fiction is as important to this discussion as the systematic stuff Adam eluded to above. It doesn't matter* if you have a really accessible, easy-to-use system for... killing shapeshifting magi.
Matt
*Actually, it matters deeply, and I'm in favor of it, but not in terms of lowering the barriers to entry for people who aren't into genre fic.
(no subject)
However, I think I would get a much better reception if I stated that I was an actor in a play where my role was a scientist who... then if I said I was playing pretend with my friends. The first is socially accepted, the second is weird. I could say that I go camping, or play paintball, or fence competively. But if I say that I swing swords around (padded or otherwise) in an attempt to imitate Tolkien - that's weird.
I think if the fictional content is more familiar, that can be helpful, but not all that much. If I said it was a boardgame of some sort, that would also make it more socially acceptable and familiar.
(no subject)
Likewise with family. It's less a geek/nongeek thing and more a matter of "you don't share this interest, and thus probably don't want to hear about it in detail," which I wish more people would realize re: the goddamn Red Sox, but whatever.
(no subject)
(no subject)
But, while I will talk about fantasy movies and so forth at work or with family, and I'll mention things like martial arts in general terms, I try not to bring up gaming at all. Any sort. I think it's because the average person isn't likely to be that familiar with gaming, except in terms of "D&D, yeah," and I don't care enough, or think they care enough, to try and explain it. It's not something where you can go "Yeah, I do martial arts," and leave it there.
And it's waaaay the hell easier to whip out the theatre/camping/board game dodge, if someone asks why I need this costume or am in New Hampshire than it is to go through the whole "it's like an interactive story blah blah" song and dance for the sake of someone, at the end, going "Huh."
(no subject)
Not to mention the fact that the basic building blocks of a roleplaying game-- books, reading, playing make-believe with your own story-- are kind of seen as inherently geeky. There's absolutely no reason to fight it.
(no subject)
Matt
(no subject)
I'd humbly submit that playing Grey Ranks or SAJ for the historical content is just as geeky as playing D&D for the orcs. In MY opinion, I'd rank it to be geekier, perhaps because I'm more into games for gaming's sake than I am into history (although I love history), and there can be a tendency to see yourself as being more mainstream.
(no subject)
GR and SAJ aren't about history, really—it's just that the setting backgrounds are things people have heard of, and that are at least reasonably easy to envision, unlike, say, DragonLance.
Although on reflection, given the popularity of LotR and Harry Potter and so on and so forth in recent years, I'll concede that the notion of being in "a fantasy world" is probably not as big a deal as it would have been in the late 90's. I still maintain that the equation "roleplaying = genre fiction" is problematic, as the two don't need to have anything to do with each other.
Matt
I agree with you, of course
Re: I agree with you, of course
XXXXtreme STREET LUGE!
Uh, yeah, sure. Give me a second.
I do not have an icon to express my excitement here
That'll do
XXXXtreme STREET LUGE!
Your character has the following attributes, measured 1-8
Toughness
History
Style
Coolness
Perception
Strength
Speaking
These correspond to the Vin Diesel comparisons. For anything that you have in common with Vin Diesel, go ahead and give yourself an 8. For anything else, roll 1d6.
Re: I agree with you, of course
Also, seriously, Pitch Black was *so* much better than Riddick.
Re: Pitch Black
Re: I agree with you, of course
I am famous to this many people:
It starts at 1. It can get as high as 12
The first one is your mother.
The game has two parts. Luges and Ordinary Life
Luges:
You don't actually play a race. You just play the aftermath of a race, where you all review what happened over cheap beer at a guy's house. The guy, like, puts up with you for some reason, but isn't terribly happy that you're there.
Who won? Everyone draw a card. Highest card won. That person gets one prestige! About which more later. If more than one person has highest, it was a photo finish and you're arguing about it. No one gets the prestige.
So, each person gets to ask each other person a question. Which is basically about how they dealt with some tricky obstacle of the course, or about how they wiped out some time, or whatever. Basically about something that they did on the course. This requires then to use one of their attributes to answer. So you're like "oh, it totally reminded me of the time when ..." that's history. Etc. Each questioner determines what attribute you use to answer, but you can choose to force an answer with another attribute, in which case you take a penalty.
Then you see how your answer is received. If you used the questioner's suggested attribute, draw a card. If you used your own, draw two cards and take the highest.
Compare the card to your attribute. If it is equal or lower, you gain one prestige. If it is a joker, you screw up your thing and lose a prestige if you had one to lose.
Shoot the shit until everyone has asked someone else one question.
Then you try to convert your prestige into fame. Draw cards, one at a time, for each point of prestige. Is it higher than your present fame? If so, add one to fame. If not, discard it. When you've finished this your prestige goes to zero.
Then you have to deal with daily life. You have three things you want. These can be things like:
1) Get into community college.
2) Ask the hot girl at the club on a date.
3) Move out of my mom's basement.
etc.
Have a scene where you try to do one of your things. Draw three cards and compare to an appropriate attribute. If all of them are lower, you succeed!
If you are the most famous street luger, you may use your fame instead of an attribute. If there's a tie, no one can.
If you accomplish all three of your things, you win! You're happy.
You can also decide to drop out of street luging. In this case, you don't get to hang out with the guys anymore. Each time you miss a race, your fame drops by one. However, when you do other things, you only draw one card to compare to your attribute, rather than three.
(no subject)
not
gaming → geeky
I mean, let's talk about Vin Diesel.
(no subject)
For one, I agree that there is a definite geek = hip thing going on, and that thing could (should?) be mined better. It's plainly not the direction I want to dive into. That's all. It'd probably be easier and better, despite my foolishness.
And, second, I mostly agree that there is some perception "out there" that the hobby is fun, not never-get-laid-lame or whatever other negative thing. But, that time and investment is a problem. To that end, my design efforts lately are all about in-and-out fun. I see others doing the same. Neat!
Here's to hoping against deaf ears.
(no subject)