Note to self

[benlehman]

On "de-geeking RPGs."

If anyone who plays a role-playing game is "one of us," then "de-geeking RPGs" is semantically impossible.

Someone: remind me to post this next time the topic rears its ugly head.

Comments

[gillan.livejournal.com]

Is this a topic that has its basis in arguing semantics? I mean, I get what you're saying, but I feel like that's a sideswipe of the actual discussion.

Or is this just one of those things that Needs to be Said?

[benlehman.livejournal.com]

If you're arguing for something that's semantically impossible, you don't actually want it. You can't want it, because you can't even imagine it.

[yeloson.livejournal.com]

Ha! That gives me a new look on "racial equality through colorblindness" :P

[evilmagnus]

My parents play Settlers of Cataan. They are manifestly Not Geeks, although they were introduced to the game by a geek and had experience with more mainstream board games, like Monopoly.

I contend that it is impossible to de-geek RPGs, but it is possible to make people who do not self-identify as geeks to play them. That gateway drug - the slippery slope from Monopoly to Settlers.

[benlehman.livejournal.com]

Oh, yes. I don't think that someone who plays role-playing games is manifestly a geek.

But a lot of people who are interested in "de-geeking RPGs" seem to think so.

[apollinax.livejournal.com]

I don't know when it happened, but some point after leaving Brown I became virulently against us-and-them distinctions, particularly when applied to social status.

I agree with your assertion, with the caveat that one could de-geek them by making them something else. E.g., replacing a stigma of geek with a stigma of psychopathy would de-geek.

[l-the-fangirl.livejournal.com]

Because god knows there are too many psychos who play D&D.

In my games. >:(

[russiandude.livejournal.com]

Yeah...

If people want to say "broader market appeal" or "target a different market segment", they should just say that.