PDA

View Full Version : RPG elitism: has it continued to vanish?



Isamu Dyson
2014-01-10, 02:47 AM
In your experiences, and through your observations, have you noticed that RPG elitism/snobbery has become less of an issue?

Mastikator
2014-01-10, 02:48 AM
Never knew that was an issue to be honest. This is the first I hear from it.

Kelb_Panthera
2014-01-10, 02:52 AM
I don't understand the question.

Could you better define "RPG elitism" for me?

Ravens_cry
2014-01-10, 03:16 AM
I don't understand the question.

Could you better define "RPG elitism" for me?
I am guessing things like "Oh, you play x ? I play REAL role playing games like y."

Isamu Dyson
2014-01-10, 03:17 AM
I am guessing things like "Oh, you play x ? I play REAL role playing games like y."

B-I-N-G-O :smallbiggrin:.

Black Jester
2014-01-10, 03:31 AM
There has never been anything like "RPG elitism". There have only ever been the accusation of elitism by lazy or slightly bored or otherwise rather mediocre players against the better and more dedicated ones to elevate the own position in relation, usually for being indirectly called out on being lazy, bored or rather mediocre in comparison to an actually good game. This is also one of the major sources for the sometimes quite rampant anti-intelectualism among rolaplaying enthusiasts. This for instance gave birth to the delusion that there are no distinct differences in quality between various playstyles, even though everybody knows that this is just a comforting lie supposed to prevent conflicts and minor inconveniences.

Any accusation of elitism is basically the assumption that oneself's level of dedication is perfect and completely sufficient and that everybody who tries harder or might be more talented is either just exagerating or trying too hard. It is a defense mechanism against being chalenged in a context of personal interest and a rather transparent one at that. What it basically says is" I am not too secure about my play style preferences, and I lack the maturity to recognize the difference between my preferences and actual quality."

Isamu Dyson
2014-01-10, 03:55 AM
There has never been anything like "RPG elitism". There have only ever been the accusation of elitism by lazy or slightly bored or otherwise rather mediocre players against the better and more dedicated ones to elevate the own position in relation, usually for being indirectly called out on being lazy, bored or rather mediocre in comparison to an actually good game. This is also one of the major sources for the sometimes quite rampant anti-intelectualism among rolaplaying enthusiasts. This for instance gave birth to the delusion that there are no distinct differences in quality between various playstyles, even though everybody knows that this is just a comforting lie supposed to prevent conflicts and minor inconveniences.

Any accusation of elitism is basically the assumption that oneself's level of dedication is perfect and completely sufficient and that everybody who tries harder or might be more talented is either just exagerating or trying too hard. It is a defense mechanism against being chalenged in a context of personal interest and a rather transparent one at that. What it basically says is" I am not too secure about my play style preferences, and I lack the maturity to recognize the difference between my preferences and actual quality."

There are people who simply deride other systems "just because".

Lord Raziere
2014-01-10, 04:09 AM
There are people who simply deride other systems "just because".

In before:

people avoiding D20 for no discernible reason other than "ew, D20"

people calling GURPS or Rolemaster too complex.

people disliking Fate because of aspects.

white wolf people starting to talk about "themes" and how [splat] is better than "four color heroics"

aaaand probably something against the stuff Fantasy Flight Games makes for some reason I don't know of.

Actana
2014-01-10, 04:14 AM
I think it's less elitism and more not either understanding or just liking some specific thing be it RPG, concept or company, and then loudly proclaiming it to others whenever they can. There's a difference, as elitism implies some sort of sense of superiority. While that still does exist, it's far more subdued than the dislike towards things - when complaining people don't proclaim the superiority of their own preferred choice except in certain cases (honestly, 3.5 and its variants come to mind). As far as I've seen, it's mostly just the typical type of internet hate that is unfortunately far too common.

Black Jester
2014-01-10, 04:18 AM
There are people who simply deride other systems "just because".


The idea that one game is better than another or in pointing out that there are quite some differences in quality between different games is not enough to justify labeling anyone as an elitist. That's just basic common sense.

supermonkeyjoe
2014-01-10, 04:51 AM
It has died out recently, I expect it to peak again with the release of D&D Next. New editions always spark a wave of elitism in the D&D community from a minority

BWR
2014-01-10, 05:58 AM
In your experiences, and through your observations, have you noticed that RPG elitism/snobbery has become less of an issue?

It was never a big issue. I've come across some minor amounts of particular setting or system hate, but it's a very weird sort of elitism that focuses on disliking one particular thing rather than exalting something above the rest.
A friend of mine was very much into deep immersive roleplaying and hated the D&D idea of adventurers and hack and slash. He wasn't the kind who always obviously sneered and made disparaging comments, but if the subject came up he would make his opinions known. Combat focused games were not 'real' roleplaying and personal and interpersonal conflict were the source of a good story.
He was a fairly big fan of oWoD, especially Hunter, so I leant him Ravenloft. He then modified his opinions, admitting that there was nothing inherent in D&D that prevented it from being awesome. He doesn't like the basic D&D focus on combat, which is fine

Morty
2014-01-10, 07:53 AM
RPG elitism will never disappear because elitism itself will never disappear. It's human nature to try to elevate ourselves above others, and some people are small-minded enough to do so through something that takes no effort, like the type of entertainment they prefer. Edition wars are just another iteration of the age-old "us versus them" mentality.

Avilan the Grey
2014-01-10, 08:29 AM
The only thing I have noticed lately is genuine curiousity about D&D Next from everyone, no matter what system them themselves are playing.

Back in the 90ies, which was before I took my hiatus from playing, there was some elitism, primarely between systems that used character levels and them without ("Levels are lame").

Friv
2014-01-10, 09:13 AM
It's about as prevalent as it always was, i.e. not immensely but just enough to be annoying sometimes. I still see plenty of One-True-Wayism when it comes to RPGs.

Red Fel
2014-01-10, 09:19 AM
While I will acknowledge that elitism exists in RPG fandom - as it does among many fandoms - I think the distinction is that, among players of RPGs, you are less likely to see a "your system is inferior, mine is superior" perspective than you are to see a "your system features X flaw, whereas mine does not, therefore mine is superior" perspective. (And even then, you're less likely to hear the "mine is superior" part.)

The former, I would allow, is a form of elitism. But the latter is an opinion, based on personal tastes and how the system looks or operates. I have seen many feuds about this (e.g. "Ars Magica allows more complex, troupe-oriented, story-based RP, and is therefore superior to a cheap combat engine like d20" versus "d20 allows high-power action and continual activity, as opposed to a slow, drawn-out, boring game like Ars"), where it boils down to a preference of features, but these aren't so much elitism as they are a difference of priorities.

Again, I think, it depends upon your definition of elitism.

For example, in my experience, I have heard a number of complaints about D&D 4e versus 3.5, but usually along the lines of "4e streamlined things too much and everything looks dull now," or "4e changed too much and it's not the D&D I remember," and you can easily append "from my perspective" to either of those arguments. I similarly remember the transition period between oWoD and nWoD, my shock and disappointment at what they did to Malkavs, and how WW seemed determined to take away the possibility of playing anything but a "dark, tragic, gritty" game of Vampire. My distaste for the new setting (which persists to this day) wasn't based on a "the old is superior, new is inferior" elitism, but rather a sense of "this isn't the system I want, so I'm not interested" opinion.

Lord_Gareth
2014-01-10, 09:26 AM
There has never been anything like "RPG elitism". There have only ever been the accusation of elitism by lazy or slightly bored or otherwise rather mediocre players against the better and more dedicated ones to elevate the own position in relation, usually for being indirectly called out on being lazy, bored or rather mediocre in comparison to an actually good game. This is also one of the major sources for the sometimes quite rampant anti-intelectualism among rolaplaying enthusiasts. This for instance gave birth to the delusion that there are no distinct differences in quality between various playstyles, even though everybody knows that this is just a comforting lie supposed to prevent conflicts and minor inconveniences.

Any accusation of elitism is basically the assumption that oneself's level of dedication is perfect and completely sufficient and that everybody who tries harder or might be more talented is either just exagerating or trying too hard. It is a defense mechanism against being chalenged in a context of personal interest and a rather transparent one at that. What it basically says is" I am not too secure about my play style preferences, and I lack the maturity to recognize the difference between my preferences and actual quality."

This post has been quoted for the irony of claiming that elitism is a myth while being as elitist and derisive as possible.

Lord Raziere
2014-01-10, 10:04 AM
This post has been quoted for the irony of claiming that elitism is a myth while being as elitist and derisive as possible.

??? huh. I don't get it. how is he being elitist and derisive? he just seems to be offering an explanation. :smallconfused:

Lord_Gareth
2014-01-10, 10:05 AM
??? huh. I don't get it. how is he being elitist and derisive? he just seems to be offering an explanation. :smallconfused:


There have only ever been the accusation of elitism by lazy or slightly bored or otherwise rather mediocre players against the better and more dedicated ones to elevate the own position in relation, usually for being indirectly called out on being lazy, bored or rather mediocre in comparison to an actually good game.

See the above, Raz.

Lord Raziere
2014-01-10, 10:07 AM
See the above, Raz.

thats elitist and derisive? huh. guess you learn something new everyday.

Lord_Gareth
2014-01-10, 10:09 AM
thats elitist and derisive? huh. guess you learn something new everyday.

The dude made the sweeping claim that only 'lazy and mediocre' players do something. This is an entertainment venue; its value is defined solely by if a group is entertained. Just like in language if the other guy doesn't understand you, you are by definition Doing It Wrong, if your group is having fun you are by definition Doing It Right. Making the claim that swaths of people are unworthy because of a belief or style of play is elitist, it is derisive, and it's super-ironic since what he's talking about is the idea that only these 'unworthy' people believe in elitism.

Beleriphon
2014-01-10, 10:10 AM
people calling GURPS or Rolemaster too complex..

In fairness they are too complex... for me.

Lord Raziere
2014-01-10, 10:24 AM
In fairness they are too complex... for me.

yea me too, I mostly put that in for ironic/self depreciation purposes. maybe even both.

@ Gareth: aaaah. I see. guess I didn't know what being elitist meant until now....

Maerok
2014-01-10, 10:27 AM
There's a fair bit of elitism between factions in any hobby. This is a human thing, not an RPG thing. :smalltongue:

But if anything I think there's a bit more nostalgia than elitism when it comes to system vs system. Whenever you have an investment of time, money, and energy over a long period you get people trying to stick with a tried-and-true system despite its flaws.

There's many different types of games (and everything else) for a reason. Different people have different priorities on what feels right. Any system that tries to take all that on at once without any give or take will become quite a beast of a system to manage. You have to find the ones that makes concessions you find acceptable.

Although there are systems that objectively do what they are supposed to do better than others.

Even within a system you have differences in opinions - take a combat-heavy game like DnD. Many different options for weapons and spells and such, all with the express purpose of winning combat. Not all of them are equally effective but you might have people favoring the less effective but more flavorful styles that look down on simple bruisers.

AMFV
2014-01-10, 10:38 AM
There's a fair bit of elitism between factions in any hobby. This is a human thing, not an RPG thing. :smalltongue:

But if anything I think there's a bit more nostalgia than elitism when it comes to system vs system. Whenever you have an investment of time, money, and energy over a long period you get people trying to stick with a tried-and-true system despite its flaws.

There's many different types of games (and everything else) for a reason. Different people have different priorities on what feels right. Any system that tries to take all that on at once without any give or take will become quite a beast of a system to manage. You have to find the ones that makes concessions you find acceptable.

I agree with this sentiment, furthermore I'm not sure that elitism is always a bad thing, the fact that some people love certain systems and would defend their merits isn't always a problem. It can become a problem, but I don't think in and of itself it is.

Airk
2014-01-10, 10:41 AM
In fairness they are too complex... for me.

Rolemaster isn't COMPLEX so much as it is...cumbersome. There's nothing complicated about looking something up on a table. ;)

Anyway, I don't think RPG elitism has declined at all. But then, I don't think "RPG elitism" is the right term for it either. It's more like "RPG tribalism" where people find something that they regard, for whatever reason, as "their game" and shun/heap scorn upon/deride anything that isn't. While there are generally some objective points to their arguments, they are rarely fair or comprehensive.

Are there objective differences in quality between games? Absolutely. Some games are, in fact, very bad. However, their badness is almost always apparent to everyone except their author. Most often, attempts at objectively critiquing a game end up being an individual projecting his personal opinions regarding what is important and what is not in a game onto the world at large, rather than any attempt at actually evaluating the merits of the system. You see this happening on this very forum with some frequency.

Of course, the best part of this is that many people who are criticizing games aren't even familiar with the products they criticize, except in second hand or distant fashion. Obviously, this does not lend itself to nuanced discussion either.

RPG tribalism is alive and well.

Slipperychicken
2014-01-10, 10:53 AM
I think it's just an application of regular old ethnocentrism*. Other gamers (or "out-groups") do things which your own group (the "in-group") does not value, and then you deride them for it.

*("the technical name for the view of things in which one's own group is the center of everything, and all others are scaled and rated with reference to it.")


I can't say I've detected a trend of any sort though. Perhaps if gamers tried out more systems and types of play, outside the ones they're accustomed to, they might understand that they aren't necessarily worse or better, just different.

GungHo
2014-01-10, 10:53 AM
In your experiences, and through your observations, have you noticed that RPG elitism/snobbery has become less of an issue?

Yes. People are now happy just to find another willing and able player, regardless of what they play. I'm surprised we aren't pressing LARPers and theater kids into service.

ElenionAncalima
2014-01-10, 11:06 AM
I don't know that its an RPG thing. I think that some people feel they have to support the things they like, by deriding similar things that they like less.

Unfortunately some people are just like that, so I doubt it will ever completely go away. I suppose tolerance for that behavior can be diminished, though.

Black Jester
2014-01-10, 11:47 AM
This post has been quoted for the irony of claiming that elitism is a myth while being as elitist and derisive as possible.

If stating that there are, indeed different levels of quality to various games (and the people involved in them) and that some people feel miffed because their games suck in comparison to an actually good game and thus lashing out is the height of "RPG elitism", I am pretty sure, it can barely vanish any further.
And the RPG enthusiast community would be in dire need of a massive elitism infusion.


Elitism in Roleplaying (or "Swine-ism" if you want to channel your inner Pundit) is almost always used as an accusation to shift the goalposts in discussion about actual quality of games, usually against the people who have some sort of quality standards. And strangely enough, it is almost always the players who never seem to put too much thought or work into their games who make this accusation. It's tiresome, and actually blatantly obvious in trying to discredit potential sources of discomfort and criticism to avoid a chalenge of the personal preferences to avoid an actual confrontation with one's shortcomings. So, it is is the roleplaying equivalent of calling someone who dares to critizes one as fat and ugly; lashing out in defense because the actual criticism comes too close to a part of one's personality we usually hold dear. Discrediting the source then serves the purpose of taking the edge from the criticism.
This is a very human, very very common reaction (which makes it as transparent as it is). That does not make it less tiresome though.

Spore
2014-01-10, 12:14 PM
Some RPG systems are better suited for some situations than others. That's all. I personally dislike DSA, because 3 d20 rolls without overly complicated math for EVERY action in game?

Seriously, realistic actions aside, but couldn't you just add all three values together and roll one %-roll if the 5% steps of d20 isn't fine enough?

Yawgmoth
2014-01-10, 12:15 PM
??? huh. I don't get it. how is he being elitist and derisive? he just seems to be offering an explanation. :smallconfused: Being interminably smug while saying "I'm better than all these plebes who are just jealous of my amazing roleplaying skills, maybe if they weren't so lazy they could be as good as I am" is the definition of elitism.
http://i.imgur.com/JfjRgQK.gif

valadil
2014-01-10, 01:24 PM
No way. I still get crapped on for liking 4e at all. I like 3.5 better, but there must be something wrong with me if I don't think 4e plays like a video game.

tensai_oni
2014-01-10, 02:09 PM
There's an incredible amount of RPG elitism everywhere, including this forum. It's not only about looking down on other systems, but especially about looking down on other playstyles.

For example, state one or more of the following:
"I don't like player characters dying. Death cheapens gaming experience especially in a random encounter."
"I prefer it when players start strong and powerful, as opposed to the bottom of the ladder and building their way up from there."
"My games have a 100% egalitarian society. Male and female characters can do the same things and are treated the same by the society. There is no such thing as historical accuracy in fantasy games."
"Dramatic storytelling is more important for me than factual accuracy. Games don't have to be an accurate representation of reality."
"If your group does something but one player doesn't enjoy it, that element needs to change. Fun is the most important thing in roleplaying - but only when everyone is having it."

Count how many people will reply to tell you that you are doing it wrong.

Dawgmoah
2014-01-10, 02:16 PM
There's an incredible amount of RPG elitism everywhere, including this forum. It's not only about looking down on other systems, but especially about looking down on other playstyles.

For example, state one or more of the following:
"I don't like player characters dying. Death cheapens gaming experience especially in a random encounter."
"I prefer it when players start strong and powerful, as opposed to the bottom of the ladder and building their way up from there."
"My games have a 100% egalitarian society. Male and female characters can do the same things and are treated the same by the society. There is no such thing as historical accuracy in fantasy games."
"Dramatic storytelling is more important for me than factual accuracy. Games don't have to be an accurate representation of reality."
"If your group does something but one player doesn't enjoy it, that element needs to change. Fun is the most important thing in roleplaying - but only when everyone is having it."

Count how many people will reply to tell you that you are doing it wrong.

I get a kick every time I read someone stating something is unfair or unbalanced. The only reason I moved from playing 1st edition to 3.5 was solely due to the fact of moving and none of the people in the new area wanted to play 1st. Elitist? Maybe? I write it off more as they got comfortable (lazy?) and didn't want to change. Then the big flare-up when 4th edition was released. I'm sure it will happen again with 5th (Next.)

Segev
2014-01-10, 02:16 PM
There's an incredible amount of RPG elitism everywhere, including this forum. It's not only about looking down on other systems, but especially about looking down on other playstyles.

For example, state one or more of the following:
"I don't like player characters dying. Death cheapens gaming experience especially in a random encounter."
"I prefer it when players start strong and powerful, as opposed to the bottom of the ladder and building their way up from there."
"My games have a 100% egalitarian society. Male and female characters can do the same things and are treated the same by the society. There is no such thing as historical accuracy in fantasy games."
"Dramatic storytelling is more important for me than factual accuracy. Games don't have to be an accurate representation of reality."
"If your group does something but one player doesn't enjoy it, that element needs to change. Fun is the most important thing in roleplaying - but only when everyone is having it."

Count how many people will reply to tell you that you are doing it wrong.

Then state the converse, and count again.

NichG
2014-01-10, 02:20 PM
There's an incredible amount of RPG elitism everywhere, including this forum. It's not only about looking down on other systems, but especially about looking down on other playstyles.

For example, state one or more of the following:
"I don't like player characters dying. Death cheapens gaming experience especially in a random encounter."
"I prefer it when players start strong and powerful, as opposed to the bottom of the ladder and building their way up from there."
"My games have a 100% egalitarian society. Male and female characters can do the same things and are treated the same by the society. There is no such thing as historical accuracy in fantasy games."
"Dramatic storytelling is more important for me than factual accuracy. Games don't have to be an accurate representation of reality."
"If your group does something but one player doesn't enjoy it, that element needs to change. Fun is the most important thing in roleplaying - but only when everyone is having it."

Count how many people will reply to tell you that you are doing it wrong.

It crept into your post a bit too though. Two of these things are different than the others, in that they state something that goes beyond personal preference, which means that its open for debate and you shouldn't really be surprised if people object. (specifically 'there is no such thing as historical accuracy in fantasy games' and 'fun is the most important thing in roleplaying')

Its certainly a form of elitism (I prefer 'one true wayism' as a term for this) when people say stuff like 'no, you're wrong for liking the things you like in a game'. But if its phrased in a way that asserts something beyond that scope, that means you're trying to state something objectively true about games as a whole (or at least it makes it appear as if you are), and so people who disagree about whether that thing is in fact objectively true are going to take a strong stance against it and may well tell you 'no, thats wrong'.

I'd say probably a good chunk of the elitism around tabletop RPGs originates from these sorts of overly-broad statements. Someone wants to say 'I like games like X' but instead they say something overly exuberant like 'X games are the best!', and so things escalate.

That said, there is a good quantity of plain, old fashioned 'I'm better than you' that goes around. That said, I see far more of it in computer games in the form of the hardcore/casual divide than in tabletop RPGs (at least, comparing forum environments, but that may just be GitP having a bit of a higher level of refinement).

Airk
2014-01-10, 02:22 PM
Then state the converse, and count again.

You kinda don't even have to. You can just go to the "A PC died, can't be resed anytime soon, and is very pissed." (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=323569) thread and watch people sling poo at each other on one of these issues...

Dawgmoah
2014-01-10, 02:25 PM
You kinda don't even have to. You can just go to the "A PC died, can't be resed anytime soon, and is very pissed." (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=323569) thread and watch people sling poo at each other on one of these issues...

Dang, I've not looked at that thread. You have my curiosity up!

Scow2
2014-01-10, 02:26 PM
Or the "Guy wants to play a female character" thread and see arguments about real-world issues and fantasy gaming. (Also, see any of the Giant's comments on social awareness in OotS).

And as for "The DM's job is to make sure everyone's having fun" ... eh, there's also "No, the DM's job is to provide an atmosphere where everyone can have fun"

Ridureyu
2014-01-10, 02:29 PM
I saw a fistfight in a game store once because one customer wanted to buy some D&D 4E books, and another attempted to stop him with violence.

So yeah, elitism is alive and well.

Pluto!
2014-01-10, 02:41 PM
When I hear people still play your favorite game, I still think automatically think "ew."

This is followed quickly of course by "these people must be lacking in character, intellect, hygiene and redeeming qualities of any sort."

>_>

tensai_oni
2014-01-10, 03:09 PM
It crept into your post a bit too though. Two of these things are different than the others, in that they state something that goes beyond personal preference, which means that its open for debate and you shouldn't really be surprised if people object. (specifically 'there is no such thing as historical accuracy in fantasy games' and 'fun is the most important thing in roleplaying')

You are right, these two things aren't just personal preference. They are fact, and key to having a good time.

I've added to elitism right now, didn't I?

Black Jester
2014-01-10, 03:29 PM
The roleplaying enthusiast scene is probably not the only social strata were taking pride in being lazy and complacent is seen in a more positive light than calling out lazyness and complacency, but that phenomenon is brutally common.

...and aparantly, being opinionated about a gamestyle is the equivalent of elitism. I didn't know that.

BWR
2014-01-10, 04:34 PM
Mostly it's because you've basically said there are different quality levels to people and games and categorically stated that there are good games and bad games and people who like what you consider to be bad games are wrong or lesser people, while trying to excuse your opinions as being fact rather than opinion.

It's no different than being snobby and disparaging about whatever particular piece of entertainment is popular compared to other works in the same medium (is Finnegan's Wake really a better story than Twilight just because it's ****ing complicated?).
I'm an elitist based on my personal preferences, and I acknowledge that they are preferences rather than objective fact.

Jacob.Tyr
2014-01-10, 04:54 PM
Mostly it's because you've basically said there are different quality levels to people and games and categorically stated that there are good games and bad games and people who like what you consider to be bad games are wrong or lesser people, while trying to excuse your opinions as being fact rather than opinion.

It's no different than being snobby and disparaging about whatever particular piece of entertainment is popular compared to other works in the same medium (is Finnegan's Wake really a better story than Twilight just because it's ****ing complicated?).
I'm an elitist based on my personal preferences, and I acknowledge that they are preferences rather than objective fact.

Finnegan's wake is way too complicated for me to enjoy it...

And yeah, being opinionated regarding whether or not people are playing a game "lazily" is elitist. But the reverse is also true, "Screw you for taking it so seriously, you take the fun out of the games by putting so much thought into it".

Some people strive for great story driven games and think that's how things should be.

Some people think the only way to play is more sandbox, upping player agency to 11.

Some people want lethality in their games, to make things more exciting.

Some people think games shouldn't be routinely lethal, it's no fun for the players.

etc etc etc

cte cte cte

Hell, go look at the 5E thread. I've been a bit of an elitist prick because I don't like how the math of the skill systems works out, while others are being elitist regarding how others (me included) are stuck in the past regarding skills in DnD.

Everyone has different play styles, DM styles, and tastes. I think at the end of the day the best you can strive for is, honestly, making sure everyone at the table is on the same page, or at least knows what kind of game you're going to be playing and agrees to try it.

Rhynn
2014-01-10, 04:59 PM
"Elitism" is a pretty loaded term to use for people having opinions.

You might almost say it's... elitist...

Jacob.Tyr
2014-01-10, 05:06 PM
"Elitism" is a pretty loaded term to use for people having opinions.

You might almost say it's... elitist...

It's fine to have opinions and to like one style over another. Saying other people are doing it wrong and you're doing it right, however, is elitist (note: this doesn't really apply when people are actually unaware of or misinterpreting a rule).

Isamu Dyson
2014-01-10, 06:06 PM
It's fine to have opinions and to like one style over another. Saying other people are doing it wrong and you're doing it right, however, is elitist (note: this doesn't really apply when people are actually unaware of or misinterpreting a rule).

Well stated! This is basically what I consider RPG elitism to be.

Segev
2014-01-10, 06:22 PM
Pish posh. It's not elitism to recognize that my way is the best way. It's just the truth. *snooty sniff*

Isamu Dyson
2014-01-10, 06:32 PM
Pish posh. It's not elitism to recognize that my way is the best way. It's just the truth. *snooty sniff*

Care for more tea?

AMFV
2014-01-10, 06:35 PM
Pish posh. It's not elitism to recognize that my way is the best way. It's just the truth. *snooty sniff*

No, no my dear boy, the problem is that these plebes believe that elitism is wrong.. It's not wrong when you know that you're a part of the elite. In fact it's these people who are wrong for even suggesting that elitism is a problem, if they weren't so slovenly and lazy that would be another matter.

This is satire if anyone missed that, figured I would put a disclaimer since it's pretty incendiary.

Segev
2014-01-10, 06:53 PM
Care for more tea?Hm, nyes. Quite. Now there's a good chap.


No, no my dear boy, the problem is that these plebes believe that elitism is wrong.. It's not wrong when you know that you're a part of the elite. In fact it's these people who are wrong for even suggesting that elitism is a problem, if they weren't so slovenly and lazy that would be another matter.
Indubitably, my good fellow, but one must make allowances for the unfortunately mistaken nature of the inferiors who do not think as clearly as the elite. Mn, nyes. Cheerio and whatnot.

AMFV
2014-01-10, 06:54 PM
Indubitably, my good fellow, but one must make allowances for the unfortunately mistaken nature of the inferiors who do not think as clearly as the elite. Mn, nyes. Cheerio and whatnot.

Indeed, they can't help it, or really help playing the worse games, as we both know, real gentleman play FATAL, a truly realistic gaming experience.

Pex
2014-01-10, 07:12 PM
In your experiences, and through your observations, have you noticed that RPG elitism/snobbery has become less of an issue?

I only experience it here from those who are devoted to the gospel of the Tier System.

The Glyphstone
2014-01-10, 07:13 PM
I only experience it here from those who are devoted to the gospel of the Tier System.

The irony of this statement being phrased in an extremely elitist way makes it rather appropriate for the tone of the thread in general.

Togo
2014-01-10, 07:14 PM
Elitism is trying to set up an elite. It saying that your opinions not only are correct on some level, but that holding them makes you a better person, and disparaging those who disagree you with as being worse people. Even if you genuinely think you're right.

Black Jester's posts here are an almost perfect example of eilitism. He specifically points out those who disagree with him of being lazy, mediocre players. The key point here is that he's abandoned any pretense of discussing varying opinions and has moved on to discussing the personal characteristics of the people who hold it.

You get similar effects when people claim that 4e players are somehow unsophisticated for liking a newer game, in any optimisation discussion someone will usually chip in with the idea that people who don't optimise their characters clearly just aren't skilled players, and you don't have to go too far into a discussion of the rules before someone tells you that any disagreement must be the resut of ignorance.

Outside this forum, there's the usual disparaging of those who enjoy the wrong games systems, the somewhat bizzarre 'fake geek girl' meme, and various disagreements about whether you can really get into character without the full immersion of the players being locked in a Sweedish subermarine.*

Elitism is an obvious and continuing problem. I don't think there's any less of it than there was, but I don't see any more either, and it's never been an insurmountable problem.

(*Yes, this was a real game. Other examples include wrapping players in plastic and using them as furniture, and games featuring real life electric shocks. There's nothing wrong with enjoying such games, but insisting that this is 'real' roleplaying and D&D is only for those of lesser ability is still elitism.)

The Glyphstone
2014-01-10, 07:16 PM
Elitism is trying to set up an elite. It saying that your opinions not only are correct on some level, but that holding them makes you a better person, and disparaging those who disagree you with as being worse people. Even if you genuinely think you're right.

Black Jester's posts here are an almost perfect example of eilitism. He specifically points out those who disagree with him of being lazy, mediocre players. The key point here is that he's abandoned any pretense of discussing varying opinions and has moved on to discussing the personal characteristics of the people who hold it.

You get similar effects when people claim that 4e players are somehow unsophisticated for liking a newer game, in any optimisation discussion someone will usually chip in with the idea that people who don't optimise their characters clearly just aren't skilled players, and you don't have to go too far into a discussion of the rules before someone tells you that any disagreement must be the resut of ignorance.

Outside this forum, there's the usual disparaging of those who enjoy the wrong games systems, the somewhat bizzarre 'fake geek girl' meme, and various disagreements about whether you can really get into character without the full immersion of the players being locked in a Sweedish subermarine.*

Elitism is an obvious and continuing problem. I don't think there's any less of it than there was, but I don't see any more either, and it's never been an insurmountable problem.

(*Yes, this was a real game. Other examples include wrapping players in plastic and using them as furniture, and games featuring real life electric shocks. There's nothing wrong with enjoying such games, but insisting that this is 'real' roleplaying and D&D is only for those of lesser ability is still elitism.)

I think playing a game in a submarine would be kinda neat, actually. What were the circumstances?

Black Jester
2014-01-10, 07:22 PM
Again, the idea that players or games do not fall into the same pattern of better and worse examples like everything else ever created by mankind is hardcore ridiculous to a degree that I neither thnik that one actually believes this (and if he or she states otherwise, there is either an agenda involved or the person is trying to convince himself against better knowledge.

The supposed equality of all gamestyles and all players and all games and so on {scrubbed} is convenient insofar as it helps to avoid conflict or is born out of some sort of badly understood political correctness. Anybody who claims that Roleplaying games are the one monolithic excemption in the field of human creativity and productivity where quality, effort and talent make no difference whatsoever, lies, and probably to oneself as well.
If we consequently think this hypocritical statement a bit further, it would necessarily indicate that it impossible to improve, that any interest or effort put in creating a good game for oneself and one's peers is a wasted effort, and that everybody is perfect, and there is no need or capability of any improvements left. And this is a very sorry state, and leaves no option but complacency and stagnation. So let's face it: that is as undesirable as it is utterly unrealistic (and of course, once you stop trying to become better, you stop being any good).

The true problem is not entirely unrelated and consists of the very basic and very human issue that admitting the differences in quality and, consequently attached value of different gamestyles always imply the superiority of someone else in a matter we hold dear to our hearts and which might very well be a source of self-esteem. Admitting that the own preferences and the own ambition just will not lead to the bst game that ever was will always and repeatedly require some active effort. Complacency is much easier and more comfortable. And as such, any notion of quality differences between various games have the potential to disrupt personal egocentrism. So, it is just so much easier to accuse others of being patronizing or elitist than to face the fact that oneself might not be the greatest, the smartest or the most badass players who ever walked the earth.


And of course, the quality of the prefered game has nothing at all ever to do with the value of the involved people. Life is not a competition who is the most dedicated gamer (which is unfortunate, as we would be the princes of the universe). Great people can be bad gamers, horrible people can be great gamers (one the best if not the gamemaster I ever met was a flatmate who stole from me and disappeared one day without paying his rent, leaving me with over a thousand € in debt to our landlord.)


So, when stating the obvious has become a notion of elitism, we are in dire need of more elitists.

Flickerdart
2014-01-10, 07:30 PM
Easier accessibility of both game groups and game systems probably helps a lot with dispelling this sort of sentiment - it's very easy to pick up a new game when you can connect with people who play/want to play online, which helps you realize that sure, maybe Axes & Armadillos isn't as engaging for you as Noun: the Verbining, but both systems are more than capable of meeting the threshold where the amount of fun you're having justifies the amount of effort you put in.

NichG
2014-01-10, 07:38 PM
You are right, these two things aren't just personal preference. They are fact, and key to having a good time.

I've added to elitism right now, didn't I?

Nah, you've just shed the protection of pure subjectivity. If someone objects to these views, you can't say they're being elitist anymore, they're engaging you in a debate over something you've declared to be objectively true rather than a personal opinion you've stated.

Now, if you went and told someone 'you're doing it wrong because you seem to be having a good time but you're pursuing historical accuracy in a fantasy RPG, which doesn't actually exist' then I'd call that elitist behavior. At that point you wouldn't be seeking truth, you'd be bullying someone for having certain tastes.

Scow2
2014-01-10, 07:42 PM
Again, the idea that players or games do not fall into the same pattern of better and worse examples like everything else ever created by mankind is hardcore ridiculous to a degree that I neither thnik that one actually believes this (and if he or she states otherwise, there is either an agenda involved or the person is trying to convince himself against better knowledge.The thing about gaming, and to an extent all forms of play, is that the experiences are entirely subjective. What is considered a 'bad' trait in one game by one person could be seen as the best part of it to another - and the only thing that matters at the end of the day when it comes to gaming is "Who's having fun, and who's not?" The people having fun (In whatever form it comes in) are the ones who are "Right" - but, tastes in game and playstyle, like tastes in Tomato Soup, vary from person to person, and there is no such thing as a "Perfect" flavor.


Indeed, they can't help it, or really help playing the worse games, as we both know, real gentleman play FATAL, a truly realistic gaming experience.The sarcasm in your post declaring FATAL to be the best game ever implies that the game is actually of inferior design to other games out there.

Jacob.Tyr
2014-01-10, 09:13 PM
Again, the idea that players or games do not fall into the same pattern of better and worse examples like everything else ever created by mankind is hardcore ridiculous to a degree that I neither thnik that one actually believes this (and if he or she states otherwise, there is either an agenda involved or the person is trying to convince himself against better knowledge.

The supposed equality of all gamestyles and all players and all games and so on is basically trolling, the attempt to allevate oneself by reducing the achievements of others. The supposed equality is convenient insofar as it helps to avoid conflict or is born out of some sort of badly understood political correctness. Anybody who claims that Roleplaying games are the one monolithic excemption in the field of human creativity and productivity where quality, effort and talent make no difference whatsoever, lies, and probably to oneself as well.

How the hell do you not realize that you're being incredibly subjective and speaking only for yourself regarding "better and worse"? What the hell achievements are you getting from playing a game? A frickin roleplaying game, at that? One group doesn't play "better" than another, unless you're talking about groups that aren't having fun and ones that are.

Some DMs are better at running certain styles. Some DMs suck at being DMs. Some players are better at min/maxing, some better are roleplaying, some are good at both. Some people like hack/slash, some heavy intrigue, pvp, sandbox etc etc. The thing is, none of these people are wrong in liking what they like and playing how they want to play. If you're in a game and you're having fun and doing what you like then you are winning. I've been in games I liked and ones I disliked, and in most cases there were people who disagreed with me regarding what made the games good.

I gotta ask, what do you think makes a game "better or worse"? What are you actually saying about different games that makes this true on such a level that no ones preferences might lead to disagreement with you?

Saidoro
2014-01-10, 09:21 PM
And of course, the quality of the prefered game has nothing at all ever to do with the value of the involved people. Life is not a competition who is the most dedicated gamer (which is unfortunate, as we would be the princes of the universe). Great people can be bad gamers, horrible people can be great gamers (one the best if not the gamemaster I ever met was a flatmate who stole from me and disappeared one day without paying his rent, leaving me with over a thousand € in debt to our landlord.)
I think the problem you're encountering with people thinking you're elitist has to do with the fact that what you say in this paragraph directly contradicts every aspect of the language and tone you use in earlier ones. You speak primarily in terms of intelligence and laziness and complacency all of which are very much value judgments regarding the person to whom they are applied.

awa
2014-01-10, 09:35 PM
i had a friend who when he first got into white wolf rpgs (old world) became obsessed with how great they were over d&d (second edition) and how new players learning rpgs through d&d would be "wrecked" and have to unlearn everything to be "good" players.

He eventually grew out of it but for awhile he was basically the definition of rpg elitism. Believing that you could not run a good story in d&d of course the problem was him not d&d although he eventually got better.

So the idea that elitism does not exist strikes me as distinctly false.

obryn
2014-01-10, 09:42 PM
Again, the idea that players or games do not fall into the same pattern of better and worse examples like everything else ever created by mankind is hardcore ridiculous to a degree that I neither thnik that one actually believes this (and if he or she states otherwise, there is either an agenda involved or the person is trying to convince himself against better knowledge.

The supposed equality of all gamestyles and all players and all games and so on is basically trolling, the attempt to allevate oneself by reducing the achievements of others. The supposed equality is convenient insofar as it helps to avoid conflict or is born out of some sort of badly understood political correctness. Anybody who claims that Roleplaying games are the one monolithic excemption in the field of human creativity and productivity where quality, effort and talent make no difference whatsoever, lies, and probably to oneself as well.

If we consequently think this hypocritical statement a bit further, it would necessarily indicate that it impossible to improve, that any interest or effort put in creating a good game for oneself and one's peers is a wasted effort, and that everybody is perfect, and there is no need or capability of any improvements left. And this is a very sorry state, and leaves no option but complacency and stagnation. So let's face it: that is as undesirable as it is utterly unrealistic (and of course, once you stop trying to become better, you stop being any good).

The true problem is not entirely unrelated and consists of the very basic and very human issue that admitting the differences in quality and, consequently attached value of different gamestyles always imply the superiority of someone else in a matter we hold dear to our hearts and which might very well be a source of self-esteem. Admitting that the own preferences and the own ambition just will not lead to the bst game that ever was will always and repeatedly require some active effort. Complacency is much easier and more comfortable. And as such, any notion of quality differences between various games have the potential to disrupt personal egocentrism. So, it is just so much easier to accuse others of being patronizing or elitist than to face the fact that oneself might not be the greatest, the smartest or the most badass players who ever walked the earth.

And of course, the quality of the prefered game has nothing at all ever to do with the value of the involved people. Life is not a competition who is the most dedicated gamer (which is unfortunate, as we would be the princes of the universe). Great people can be bad gamers, horrible people can be great gamers (one the best if not the gamemaster I ever met was a flatmate who stole from me and disappeared one day without paying his rent, leaving me with over a thousand € in debt to our landlord.)

So, when stating the obvious has become a notion of elitism, we are in dire need of more elitists.
Bravo!

I concur, Dungeon World is the undeniable height of Fantasy Roleplaying, and is objectively better than all those other, low-quality wastes of time. And anyone who seeks to disparage it is doing so because those greasy, unwashed troglodytes with their wan, clammy skin are simply insecure about the quality of their lesser games! (those "lesser games" being, of course, every other game.)

I've been trying to convince everyone of the obvious fact that they are wasting their time not just with other inferior games (D&D, GURPS, Traveller, all those OSR games, etc.), but indeed with all other forms of entertainment - movies, books, going out to eat, etc. That they should, in fact, spend all their entertainment time having fun in the objectively best way. They call me "elitist" just because I speak the truth about the best way to have fun!

If statements of the obvious have made me an elitist, then call me an elitist!

Sorry, guys, I don't "do" the blue text thing.

awa
2014-01-10, 10:06 PM
and of course because as we all know rpgs are perfectly quantifiable in value and no rpg could be good at one thing and bad another thus the thing i like is the only thing that matters and if those intellectually dishonest people weren't so stupid and such unwashed masses they would realize that the things they like and the games that do them well are objectively inferior to my game of choice. In the end i really just feel sorry for them lying to themselves about how they are having fun doing there own thing. Trying to coddle people who are so uneducated that they actually think an opinions different then mine is valid is just fostering anti-intellectualism. and thus i say good day

Pex
2014-01-10, 10:38 PM
The irony of this statement being phrased in an extremely elitist way makes it rather appropriate for the tone of the thread in general.

Kaching! :smallbiggrin:

Libertad
2014-01-11, 12:41 AM
Elitism is still alive and well, but it depends where on the Internet you hang out (I could name names, but the mods frown on that kind of stuff).

Kelb_Panthera
2014-01-11, 12:52 AM
{scrubbed}

Again, the idea that players or games do not fall into the same pattern of better and worse examples like everything else ever created by mankind is hardcore ridiculous to a degree that I neither thnik that one actually believes this (and if he or she states otherwise, there is either an agenda involved or the person is trying to convince himself against better knowledge.

The thing you're ignoring here is the subjective nature of what you're measuring.

The ultimate objective to playing RPG's, for the vast majority of people, is to have fun. There are a few who play games as part of some larger activity, playtesting for mechanical balance, networking with potential business associates, etc, but they're in the distinct minority and in many cases still being measure subjectively.

For your statement to be accurate there has to be some objective measure that gives a baseline to which better and worse can be compared. In RPG -play- there is no such objective baseline or measure. There -may- be such a measure in game design but that's not really relevant to the topic at hand.


The supposed equality of all gamestyles and all players and all games and so on is basically trolling, the attempt to allevate oneself by reducing the achievements of others. The supposed equality is convenient insofar as it helps to avoid conflict or is born out of some sort of badly understood political correctness. Anybody who claims that Roleplaying games are the one monolithic excemption in the field of human creativity and productivity where quality, effort and talent make no difference whatsoever, lies, and probably to oneself as well.

Here we have a blatant attack on those who disagree with you; "basically trolling" and "attempt to alleviate oneself by reducing the achievements of others." I'll ignore the obvious grammatical errors and focus on the fact that playing RPG's is a pass-time for which there are no objective achievements to be had. All that anyone gets, barring prizes given at conventions when playing under modified rules, is the satisfaction of a good time had. Even in prize granting scenarios the achievement is only partially objective in that those judging the performances do so with their own subjective measures. In other words; it's only objective relative to the judges who are not using an objective measure, themselves.

In the most common incarnation, RPG play is subjectively measured by those participating in that particular instance of play. While someone may be better or worse than the nebulous baseline set by that particular group that doesn't mean he won't be the opposite with a different group. For example; a person may take the roleplaying aspect of a given game, the social interactions, character growth, and overall plot of the game, very seriously and measure up to any Julliard trained actor in play but that won't get him much more than a few dirty looks for bogging down the game with unnecessary prose if the group as a whole is more focused on playing a kick-in-the-door, hack-and-slash, dungeon-raider style of game. That doesn't make him a bad player, just a bad fit for that group. Likewise, a person who is an absolute master of a game's mechanics that can get his characters to do anything you can imagine by legally manipulating the games rules but has all the acting ability and interest in dramatic character development of a plank of wood isn't going to do very well in a game where the group on the whole is focused on the same things that the previously described player is. Again, this is not a bad player but simply a bad fit for this group. Either of them could choose to try and fit in with the groups they're with but doing so will almost certainly diminish their enjoyment of the game and they'd be immensely better off simply switching places with one another. Finally, even if a given player could be described by both of the previous descriptions he won't actually measure up any better than either of those players if they're both in the group most appropriate to the previous person's preferences.

Because of the subjective nature of this subject all players -are- essentially equal until measured against a given group and since no group is of any higher value to the larger community of all gamers than any other they too are, in essence, equal. You're just plain wrong about this.


If we consequently think this hypocritical statement a bit further, it would necessarily indicate that it impossible to improve, that any interest or effort put in creating a good game for oneself and one's peers is a wasted effort, and that everybody is perfect, and there is no need or capability of any improvements left. And this is a very sorry state, and leaves no option but complacency and stagnation. So let's face it: that is as undesirable as it is utterly unrealistic (and of course, once you stop trying to become better, you stop being any good).

This absurd set of statements simply does not logically follow from the premise that all games and gamers are equal in their value to the community as a whole.

While trying to improve your skill as a player or game master to improve your value to the community as a whole -is- an utter waste of time, since any given person simply will not interact meaningfully with the community as a whole in the vast majority of cases, doing so to improve the enjoyment you and your group derive from playing is a worthy enough goal -if- you place any value on having a good time. This does not contradict the basic premise that all RPG enthusiasts are of roughly equal value to the community as a whole.

That equality is tantamount to perfection is ridiculous in itself. Perfection requires an objective measure with an upper boundary. RPG play has no objective measure and no upper or lower boundary for its subjectively measured quality. Since all players are of equally immeasurable value they are de facto equals.


The true problem is not entirely unrelated and consists of the very basic and very human issue that admitting the differences in quality and, consequently attached value of different gamestyles always imply the superiority of someone else in a matter we hold dear to our hearts and which might very well be a source of self-esteem. Admitting that the own preferences and the own ambition just will not lead to the bst game that ever was will always and repeatedly require some active effort. Complacency is much easier and more comfortable. And as such, any notion of quality differences between various games have the potential to disrupt personal egocentrism. So, it is just so much easier to accuse others of being patronizing or elitist than to face the fact that oneself might not be the greatest, the smartest or the most badass players who ever walked the earth.

This entire paragraph relies on your premise that games can actually have their quality and value objectively measured. Since they can't this whole thing is just nonsense. Prove your premise, then make deductions from it.



And of course, the quality of the prefered game has nothing at all ever to do with the value of the involved people. Life is not a competition who is the most dedicated gamer (which is unfortunate, as we would be the princes of the universe). Great people can be bad gamers, horrible people can be great gamers (one the best if not the gamemaster I ever met was a flatmate who stole from me and disappeared one day without paying his rent, leaving me with over a thousand € in debt to our landlord.)

Even the value of a person is a subjective thing relative to the society or culture that person takes part in and how that community or society chooses to objectively measure its constituents, if at all. Using your example, there are those who would say that you were the less valuable person in that scenario because you weren't clever or ruthless enough to prevent or avoid things from going that way while he was smart enough to get what amounts to free boarding and income for that period.



So, when stating the obvious has become a notion of elitism, we are in dire need of more elitists.

When what you consider to be obvious is contradicted by the majority, you should probably consider reexamining what you consider to be so obvious.

NichG
2014-01-11, 02:24 AM
See, I would disagree that there cannot be objective standards of quality for players - instead I would say, you can't have universal ones. Its all about the goal in question - evaluations have to be with respect to a particular purpose, and that purpose may not be shared by all players/GMs.

From my own point of view in putting together a campaign, I highly value players who have demonstrated the ability to sustain interest, be proactive, leader the party, and be civil to each-other and aware of each-other's needs (as far as spotlight sharing and the like). Not all players have these qualities in equal amounts, and some of them at least can be spoken of objectively. But whether it makes a player 'better' or 'worse' has to be asked with respect to my purposes - which qualities best contribute to the environment I'm creating.

If I were putting together a tournament game or a PvP game, I would have somewhat different valuations. For a PvP game, I might want people who are more selfish by nature than for a coop game, because it will lead to more interesting conflict. For a tournament game, I'd put more emphasis on the players having previous good working arrangements and being able to plan and cooperate (whereas for a campaign, someone who says 'nuts to planning, I'm doing X!' will be better for making things happen in a more open environment).

Kelb_Panthera
2014-01-11, 02:32 AM
If your "objective" measure is dependent on a variable factor, particularly the value judgement of an observer, it's not objective. It's subjective, by definition.

Vanitas
2014-01-11, 02:37 AM
There's an incredible amount of RPG elitism everywhere, including this forum. It's not only about looking down on other systems, but especially about looking down on other playstyles.

Yeah, this is (quite sadly) true. Specially in the 3.5 forum.

Lord Raziere
2014-01-11, 03:06 AM
Yeah, this is (quite sadly) true. Specially in the 3.5 forum.

In before:

people who deride people who don't optimize as useless.

people who deride people who optimize, and invoke Stormwind fallacy.

Kelb_Panthera
2014-01-11, 03:20 AM
In before:

people who deride people who don't optimize as useless.

people who deride people who optimize, and invoke Stormwind fallacy.

As someone who spends -a lot- of time in that subforum I've got to say that I see hardly any of that.

People who don't optimize isn't a group that actually exists. Unless you choose -everything- on your character sheet at random you're making conscious decisions about what options you choose to make your character better at what you intend for him to do. If I presume you mean that people who prefer low-op are derided then I still don't see much if any of it. More frequently I see those people turn on those trying to give them build advice in frustration because most of the suggestions overshoot their limit for too optimized.

People who disparage optimization a la stormwind are linked to the page explaining that it -is- a logical fallacy and then people try to illustrate the point with examples but I almost never see those people derided except in the most roundabout way with pointed sarcasm.

My experience is pretty consistently that the people of this forum on the whole are reasonably polite toward one another. Stunningly so by the standards of the anonymous internet.

Knaight
2014-01-11, 04:13 AM
My experience is pretty consistently that the people of this forum on the whole are reasonably polite toward one another. Stunningly so by the standards of the anonymous internet.

This is a bit of a tangent, but the whole anonymity factor is overstated. It's not like there aren't routine cases of people acting horribly on facebook, under their real names and pictures of their actual faces. For that matter, there are plenty of people willing to be total jerks in face to face conversations - it's just harder for them to congregate, and often easier to avoid them.

Kelb_Panthera
2014-01-11, 04:58 AM
This is a bit of a tangent, but the whole anonymity factor is overstated. It's not like there aren't routine cases of people acting horribly on facebook, under their real names and pictures of their actual faces. For that matter, there are plenty of people willing to be total jerks in face to face conversations - it's just harder for them to congregate, and often easier to avoid them.

It may indeed be overstated but the affect of anonymity is nonetheless very real. Some people that would otherwise be tolerable if not particularly pleasant become real asshats when presented with the opportunity to do so anonymously and the internet gives them ample opportunity.

NichG
2014-01-11, 07:24 AM
If your "objective" measure is dependent on a variable factor, particularly the value judgement of an observer, it's not objective. It's subjective, by definition.

What I'm saying is that basically, the subjective valuation can be composed of a set of objective criteria. Silly example: I can evaluate objectively if someone is, say, good at tennis. Its subjective whether or not them being good at tennis makes them a good fit for my tabletop game.

A player can, objectively, be better or worse at, say, character optimization. Or tactics. Or teamwork. These objective elements can then be selectively combined to create an overall measure - the subjective part of the overall measure is the decision of how to weight the various elements.

Also, if you ask a concrete question, then the resulting overall measure can be objective with regards to that concrete question. 'Which player is better at winning tournament-style D&D modules?' for example, is a concrete question. You can just look at the player's history of playing tournament-style D&D modules and measure their overall score (either based on membership in winning teams, or the individual point systems that such modules use). This gives rise to an objective measure because the variable scope is defined away.

Black Jester
2014-01-11, 07:38 AM
There are bad movies and good movies, there are bad novels and good ones, there are talented hobby cooks and awful ones as there is good acting and bad acting. I have yet herd a single argument ever why roleplaying games are the one single incredible exception in all cultural activities where there are no quality differences whatsoever. Except of course the core notion of all criticism concerning the issue of actual quality in roleplaying games: it cannot be true because it must not be true.

If you apply the same troll logic to anything else, a burnt, overcooked and mashed dish smelling like manure and something looking appetizing enough that you might actually want to eat it and that even tastes great, are exactly equal. And you should not complain about the diarrhea, because somebody might actually like it. By that logic, it is completely unfair that you are not allowed to play for [enter professional team in a sport you like] because you casually play [sport] in the park with your friends, and you have a lot of fun while doing so!

There are objectively better players, there are objectively worse players. Bad roleplaying is what bad players do, because they are, you know, not very good. The existence of more desirable traits in fellow players might very well be weighted differently based on personal preferences, but refusing to accept their existence is nothing but an expression of denial.
A player who is not able or willing to gain basic competence in the used rules is a bad player.
A player who is not able or willing to gain an elemental insight in the played setting is a bad player.
A player who is not able or willing to represent his very own character convincingly or at least consistently is a bad player.
A player who is not able or willing to actively and productively to the game in the most general of terms and thinks he's entitled to be entertained due to his presence alone is a bad player.
A player who is not able or willing to treat his fellow players with a minimum of decency and politeness and takes joy from be antagonistic to the others, is usually a rather toxic personality. And a bad player.
Or to summarize: any player who cannot obtain the most basic skills involved in actual roleplaying, cannot be conceived as a good roleplayer under any circumstances, in the same way a person without a sense of taste will probably not become a decent cook.

So, there are three possible ways: Either roleplaying games are the freak exception in all things humans have ever done where there are no quality differences whatsoever. Or, there are no quality differences period, and any claim of actually being good at something is inherently pretentious; or that there are better or worse roleplayers. Be honest to yourself, you know what is true as much as I do.

NichG
2014-01-11, 08:17 AM
The problem with a single linear metric is that RPGs are more complex than, e.g., games with a scoring system. Lets use your novel example.

There are varying qualities of writing and therefore novels, but a statement like 'all mystery novels are better than romance novels' enters into subjective territory - if you like mystery novels, it may be true; if you like romance novels, it may be false. That subjective element has to be added onto whatever quality aspects are present in the writing. For me, a bad mystery novel may be more worthwhile than a good romance novel, because I like mystery novels more than I like romance novels.

For the cooking example, I don't care how well you can prepare a steak because I don't like meat. I can probably tell you 'this steak was prepared better than that steak' up to some level of accuracy, but those quality elements won't be able to exceed the subjective elements for me in that case. I'd generally rather have poorly cooked squash than well-cooked steak.

So I think its more useful to not try to reduce things into a single linear dimension. Its not that there are 'good players' and 'bad players' and its entirely summed up by that. Rather, there are players who are good or bad - objectively - at various components of play. Whether the player, at the end of the day, is a good or bad player for your table will involve a weighted combination of those objective measures.

You can also generalize somewhat about those weights, though this gets dangerous. Most tables will, for example, want a player to be genial person who gets along with people rather than a toxic personality who is constantly picking fights. I think its quite unlikely to find a table where the toxic persona is considered the positive direction. However, because of the constraints that differ between tables, a toxic persona may be more or less of a problem at different tables - for example, its less likely to be an issue in a oneshot where there isn't time for deep resentments to build than it is for a 2 year campaign.

Dienekes
2014-01-11, 08:30 AM
There are bad movies and good movies, there are bad novels and good ones, there are talented hobby cooks and awful ones as there is good acting and bad acting. I have yet herd a single argument ever why roleplaying games are the one single incredible exception in all cultural activities where there are no quality differences whatsoever. Except of course the core notion of all criticism concerning the issue of actual quality in roleplaying games: it cannot be true because it must not be true.

If you apply the same troll logic to anything else, a burnt, overcooked and mashed dish smelling like manure and something looking appetizing enough that you might actually want to eat it and that even tastes great, are exactly equal. And you should not complain about the diarrhea, because somebody might actually like it. By that logic, it is completely unfair that you are not allowed to play for [enter professional team in a sport you like] because you casually play [sport] in the park with your friends, and you have a lot of fun while doing so!

There are objectively better players, there are objectively worse players. Bad roleplaying is what bad players do, because they are, you know, not very good. The existence of more desirable traits in fellow players might very well be weighted differently based on personal preferences, but refusing to accept their existence is nothing but an expression of denial.
A player who is not able or willing to gain basic competence in the used rules is a bad player.
A player who is not able or willing to gain an elemental insight in the played setting is a bad player.
A player who is not able or willing to represent his very own character convincingly or at least consistently is a bad player.
A player who is not able or willing to actively and productively to the game in the most general of terms and thinks he's entitled to be entertained due to his presence alone is a bad player.
A player who is not able or willing to treat his fellow players with a minimum of decency and politeness and takes joy from be antagonistic to the others, is usually a rather toxic personality. And a bad player.
Or to summarize: any player who cannot obtain the most basic skills involved in actual roleplaying, cannot be conceived as a good roleplayer under any circumstances, in the same way a person without a sense of taste will probably not become a decent cook.

So, there are three possible ways: Either roleplaying games are the freak exception in all things humans have ever done where there are no quality differences whatsoever. Or, there are no quality differences period, and any claim of actually being good at something is inherently pretentious; or that there are better or worse roleplayers. Be honest to yourself, you know what is true as much as I do.

Let me ask you. Which is the best sport? Football, American Football, Baseball, Basketball, Golf, or Rugby

Which is the best boardgame? Risk, Chess, Checkers, Monopoly, or Settler's of Katan.

You can give an answer, but it would be ridiculous. Different games have different strengths, weaknesses, key skills, and what appeals as fun. For instance, I think Baseball, Golf, and Football are the most boring sports in the world and I wouldn't waste a second playing them. While American Football and Rugby are great. And Risk, and Settler's of Katan are better than every other boardgame on that list. A thousand times better than Monopoly, which is the recreational equivalent of being punched in the nose.

However, that's just my opinion. Elitism comes in when I claim that everyone who likes Chess are simple minded, anti-intellectual cretins who don't understand the joys of Katan. I'm positive the problems of this argument are self-evident.

Similarly, different rpg's have different strengths and weaknesses, some are better for specific things, others do that specific thing rather poorly. Now some systems just don't do anything right, or have a glaring weakness that can be discussed or played around. But that doesn't make the players that enjoy that game anti-intellectual or lazy. It means they have found a game that suits their needs and defend it's strengths from nay-sayers. The elitism only comes in when you don't let people play football without yelling at them that American football is better.

AMFV
2014-01-11, 09:32 AM
There are bad movies and good movies, there are bad novels and good ones, there are talented hobby cooks and awful ones as there is good acting and bad acting. I have yet herd a single argument ever why roleplaying games are the one single incredible exception in all cultural activities where there are no quality differences whatsoever. Except of course the core notion of all criticism concerning the issue of actual quality in roleplaying games: it cannot be true because it must not be true.

And hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of arguments of what exactly constitutes a good movie or a good book have happened. There isn't really an objective standard you can use for this, the same holds true for games. Without a set of criterion to judge things on it falls apart.



If you apply the same troll logic to anything else, a burnt, overcooked and mashed dish smelling like manure and something looking appetizing enough that you might actually want to eat it and that even tastes great, are exactly equal. And you should not complain about the diarrhea, because somebody might actually like it. By that logic, it is completely unfair that you are not allowed to play for [enter professional team in a sport you like] because you casually play [sport] in the park with your friends, and you have a lot of fun while doing so!

You're problem is that you're not comparing a mystery meat dish, you're comparing Burger King and Wendy's and saying that one is objectively better (It's Wendy's by the way). Without criteria you can't judge them very well, and once you have stated criteria that are different from other people's, then it comes down to the inability to account for taste.

Why would you not be allowed to compete in a professional sports team because you play with your friends, that analogy kind of falls apart.

In any case the point is that once you start claiming something that is a matter of taste is objectively bad or good, then you have problems, because not everybody will share your taste or your criteria for what is good and bad.



There are objectively better players, there are objectively worse players. Bad roleplaying is what bad players do, because they are, you know, not very good. The existence of more desirable traits in fellow players might very well be weighted differently based on personal preferences, but refusing to accept their existence is nothing but an expression of denial.

What is "Bad roleplaying". I submit that doesn't exist, there are groups that take roleplay very seriously, and there are groups that play games that border on the ridiculous, really there's no good or bad here."



A player who is not able or willing to gain basic competence in the used rules is a bad player.

Well this depends on the tone of the group, how extensive the rules are, and how much knowledge is required to play. I would say that if your player is not able to learn the rules then maybe a more simplistic system is needed. If he is unwilling, then the same applies, or you should move him to a different gaming group.

Some people have lots of stuff going on in their day and are not able to spend hours reading roleplaying game manuals to learn obscure and arcane rules, other people do, and judging the people that simply don't have those hours to commit is good for a certain kind of game, but not for including your friends in a game.



A player who is not able or willing to gain an elemental insight in the played setting is a bad player.

I'm not even sure what is meant by this, but if that setting is Greyhawk, it's pretty splayed out as is, most games take place without highly developed settings in my opinion, and those that do, often don't require as much effort, again you're assuming that what makes a good roleplayer is having the copious amount of freetime that reading the played setting isn't a problem.



A player who is not able or willing to represent his very own character convincingly or at least consistently is a bad player.

You mean a bad actor, not everybody can act equally, and sometimes it takes a minute to come up with the nature of the character, sometimes it you want to change the behavior of a character, this isn't bad roleplaying, it's just change. Consistency in portrayal is not the highest virtue.



A player who is not able or willing to actively and productively to the game in the most general of terms and thinks he's entitled to be entertained due to his presence alone is a bad player.

Yes, somebody that doesn't want to participate in the game is a non-participant, and that's bad. Although I'm not sure exactly how that wouldn't be obvious, I wouldn't even say it's a bad player, maybe they just don't enjoy the game. Also when you say "the most general of terms" you're basically saying that if people violate the social contract they are bad players, which is mostly true.



A player who is not able or willing to treat his fellow players with a minimum of decency and politeness and takes joy from be antagonistic to the others, is usually a rather toxic personality. And a bad player.

There are games where politeness isn't invoked at all and the players are all antagonistic to each other, Paranoia is an example of such a game, some WoD games. I give my friends **** all the time, even when playing roleplaying games, because that's a fundamental part of my culture, I don't think I'm a toxic personality, since I've had friends that I would die for and vis versa.



Or to summarize: any player who cannot obtain the most basic skills involved in actual roleplaying, cannot be conceived as a good roleplayer under any circumstances, in the same way a person without a sense of taste will probably not become a decent cook.

The problem is that these skills are very different, and varied, even in the same game played with different groups. You can't judge them because there is too much variation.



So, there are three possible ways: Either roleplaying games are the freak exception in all things humans have ever done where there are no quality differences whatsoever. Or, there are no quality differences period, and any claim of actually being good at something is inherently pretentious; or that there are better or worse roleplayers. Be honest to yourself, you know what is true as much as I do.

Yes, but this would be like trying to figure out who's best at chess if some players use games won as the winning goal, others use speed of games won, others use artistic arrangement of the chessboard, with such varied winning conditions having an absolute and objective good would be impossible, and roleplaying games don't just have three different schools of what constitutes good play, it's thousands.

Mono Vertigo
2014-01-11, 11:04 AM
It's still there, but it depends highly of the RPG(s) in question. One of the worst I've seen is Exalted, with elitists speaking against elitists playing the same game, same edition.
"This is not how this kind of Exalted should be played! I know that even the writers don't seem to know what's the proper way to play them*, but fortunately, I do!"
"These Exalted might be canon from the very beginning but they're ruining the whole feel of the game, which I think should be [genre X], and not [genre Y] as it's usually played by people who don't know better."
"That game element? It's stupid, and you're stupid for including it in your game, it ruins everything. Just take it out and replace it with [homebrew], it'll incredibly improve your game, no need to thank me."
Etc.
(That the 3rd edition is in development, and that the mechanics so far are reputed to be a gargantuan mess, don't help.)
It's hard to tell if the elitism was worse before (and how far away is that "before" anyway?). If anything, now there are so many more games around with hugely different focuses and systems, it might have gotten worse, not in intensity, but in quantity.


Not that I'm immune to elitism. When people type "oWoD" and "mechanics" in the same sentence, my automatic reaction is to laugh and point out how superior the nWoD system is (probably in the same way that the common cold is superior to the flu), and that translation guides are available to get the best of both worlds.
Despite me having never seen an actual oWoD book.
I should work on that.
(And when it's not "oWoD" but "Scion", I just laugh at the poor fools, then I remember that not only I haven't read these books either, but also that people are perfectly able of having fun without my help.)



*Paraphrasing several posts I've seen, not making myself any statement about game developers.

Jay R
2014-01-11, 11:15 AM
To answer the original question: No, elitism on the subject of X has not diminished or vanished, for any value of X. People are still people.


"The brotherhood of man is no mere poet's fancy. It is a most depressing and humiliating reality."
-- Oscar Wilde

Lord Raziere
2014-01-11, 01:34 PM
It's still there, but it depends highly of the RPG(s) in question. One of the worst I've seen is Exalted, with elitists speaking against elitists playing the same game, same edition.
"This is not how this kind of Exalted should be played! I know that even the writers don't seem to know what's the proper way to play them*, but fortunately, I do!"
"These Exalted might be canon from the very beginning but they're ruining the whole feel of the game, which I think should be [genre X], and not [genre Y] as it's usually played by people who don't know better."
"That game element? It's stupid, and you're stupid for including it in your game, it ruins everything. Just take it out and replace it with [homebrew], it'll incredibly improve your game, no need to thank me."
Etc.
(That the 3rd edition is in development, and that the mechanics so far are reputed to be a gargantuan mess, don't help.)
It's hard to tell if the elitism was worse before (and how far away is that "before" anyway?). If anything, now there are so many more games around with hugely different focuses and systems, it might have gotten worse, not in intensity, but in quantity.


Yarg >_< how could I forget?

I now remember about the people who elitist towards me about magitech. so what if its not apart of the original intentional game, its Exalted to ME! and all the people who think that just because they play it in some weird greek tragedy, that its somehow "better" and so on and so forth....

sigh. there is a reason why I don't go on the white wolf forums anymore. guess which one. first two guesses don't count.

and thats not the only kind of elitism, there is a certain kind of elitism out there that goes like this:
"I play human characters, therefore I am a better roleplayer than people who play elves and dwarves, because all elves and dwarves are stereotypes that I don't have time for, and if you flesh them out and make them more than just the stereotype, your obviously making them human, and therefore you should just roleplay a human anyways."

@ Black Jester:
sounds to me like you have less a problem with people being bad roleplayers, and more with people being uncaring jerks, but then again thats a problem for most of society that many of us have to deal with, so I don't see how this is a bad roleplaying problem in specific.

Kelb_Panthera
2014-01-11, 06:42 PM
There are bad movies and good movies, there are bad novels and good ones, there are talented hobby cooks and awful ones as there is good acting and bad acting. I have yet herd a single argument ever why roleplaying games are the one single incredible exception in all cultural activities where there are no quality differences whatsoever. Except of course the core notion of all criticism concerning the issue of actual quality in roleplaying games: it cannot be true because it must not be true.

Of your three examples; books, movies, and cooking; only one; cooking; can be measured objectively to a certain extent. Even then it's only the technique of the cooks and difficulty of the dishes that can be measured objectively. The flavor is still measured subjectively by each individual judge of a given dish. RPG's aren't a "monolithic" exception to all of human endeavors being objectively measured. It's simply one of many subjects that can't be objectively measured. Most forms of art fall into the same category.


If you apply the same troll logic to anything else, a burnt, overcooked and mashed dish smelling like manure and something looking appetizing enough that you might actually want to eat it and that even tastes great, are exactly equal. And you should not complain about the diarrhea, because somebody might actually like it.

It's no coincidence that you chose the only one of your previous examples that has some objectively measurable facets. The burnt lump of X that gives you diarrhea is a technical failure. It's certain that the cook who made it wasn't shooting for "burnt lump of diarrhetic filth." If you instead take a comparison of boxed Velveeta mac and cheese with a steak prepared by Gordon Ramsey, there -will- be people that choose the mac and cheese over the steak because taste is a subjective thing. The steak will certainly cost more but whether its actually worth the extra expense is something that anyone making the choice will decide on an individual level. Gordon Ramsey probably has objectively better technique than the nameless consumer who mixes up the Velveeta but if they're both serving the guy who prefers mac and cheese then the latter will be measured the better cook in that instance, especially if he has no idea of the difference in technique each dish required.


By that logic, it is completely unfair that you are not allowed to play for [enter professional team in a sport you like] because you casually play [sport] in the park with your friends, and you have a lot of fun while doing so!

Unlike all of your previously subjective examples, sports do, in fact, have an objective set of measurements with which to determine who is better at the given sport. There are quantifiable victory and/or failure conditions and each player can have their ability to meet/avoid those conditions measured in a way that is inarguably the same regardless of individual judges preferences.


There are objectively better players, there are objectively worse players. Bad roleplaying is what bad players do, because they are, you know, not very good. The existence of more desirable traits in fellow players might very well be weighted differently based on personal preferences, but refusing to accept their existence is nothing but an expression of denial.

There are not. What's good for one game is not necessarily good for another. I even gave you concrete examples of this in my previous refutation of this nonsense. A person can utterly lack any desirable traits. However, such a person is almost certainly not part of the set of RPG enthusiasts or, if he is, he will not be for very long unless he chooses to develop one or more traits that are desirable to the group he wishes to play with. No person has a perfect mix of traits that make him a perfect fit for every game.


A player who is not able or willing to gain basic competence in the used rules is a bad player.

Inability to grasp mechanics is only a minor impediment if the group plays fast and loose with game mechanics and can be completely overwhelmed by other traits a group finds desirable, such as acting ability and dramatic creativity. Having one undesirable trait does not make a player a bad player. It merely makes him ill-suited to groups that focus on that trait.


A player who is not able or willing to gain an elemental insight in the played setting is a bad player.

I'm not 100% sure what that even means but I'm willing to guess that you're talking about intimate familiarity with setting details. In which case, having such knowledge can be utterly inconsequential or even detrimental if the game master frequently changes or discounts those details or if the group plays in a generic world with -no- relevant details to be familiar with; possibly the result of a focus on the game's mechanical aspects. Again, an undesirable trait does not make the player a bad player, merely a bad fit for groups that focus on that trait.


A player who is not able or willing to represent his very own character convincingly or at least consistently is a bad player.

Consistency is the enemy of character development and being convincing is utterly inconsequential in nearly all cases. If you can convey the character's meaning there's usually a mechanic that makes the player's acting ability irrelevant. In d20 this is a set of skills for social situations (poorly implemented though they may be.)


A player who is not able or willing to actively and productively to the game in the most general of terms and thinks he's entitled to be entertained due to his presence alone is a bad player.

You're missing a verb here. Perhaps "contribute?" Anyway, a game is not hurt by such a player unless he actively disrupts the game in some way. What you're saying here is that introverts don't deserve to play and that's absurd. Could they play better, yes. Do they necessarily need to and are they hurting anyone by not doing so, no. There's nothing wrong with just quietly enjoying the company of your friends as long as you're not disruptive.


A player who is not able or willing to treat his fellow players with a minimum of decency and politeness and takes joy from be antagonistic to the others, is usually a rather toxic personality. And a bad player.

This is an issue that goes -way- beyond RPG's into general social interactions. It's also not universally problematic. My best friend and I are positively acerbic to one another in conversation. We call each other foul names, we disparage each others' manhood, we even sometimes engage in fisticuffs. None of this changes the fact that we have a strong emotional connection and would gladly stand by each other in the direst of circumstances. I say this with the certainty of having had it tested on multiple occasions from both directions. I'd gladly let him play in my games if we still lived close enough to regularly get together. Meat-grinder games are a thing and such adversarial attitude is not only acceptable but expected, perhaps even necessary.


Or to summarize: any player who cannot obtain the most basic skills involved in actual roleplaying, cannot be conceived as a good roleplayer under any circumstances, in the same way a person without a sense of taste will probably not become a decent cook.

Mozart was deaf. When there are objective technical aspects to a thing then a person can be objectively better or worse at those aspects but when whether the culmination of the application of those aspects is good or bad is a subjective matter you can't really say that someone is universally good or bad, only that they are good or bad at certain aspects and whether this is a good or bad fit for a specific instance. Someone who's bad at -all- aspects of the thing will either get better at one or another or will stop participating in that thing.


So, there are three possible ways: Either roleplaying games are the freak exception in all things humans have ever done where there are no quality differences whatsoever. Or, there are no quality differences period, and any claim of actually being good at something is inherently pretentious; or that there are better or worse roleplayers. Be honest to yourself, you know what is true as much as I do.

Except that roleplaying isn't the sole exception. Virtually all of art is a series of exceptions or, rather, art and gaming (and several other aspects of behavior) are part of the subset of human behavior that -cannot- be objectively measured. The fourth possibility, the one you missed, is that there is such a segment of human behavior and -that- is the possibility that is, in fact, true.

Airk
2014-01-11, 07:21 PM
There are bad movies and good movies, there are bad novels and good ones, there are talented hobby cooks and awful ones as there is good acting and bad acting. I have yet herd a single argument ever why roleplaying games are the one single incredible exception in all cultural activities where there are no quality differences whatsoever. Except of course the core notion of all criticism concerning the issue of actual quality in roleplaying games: it cannot be true because it must not be true.

Except that objective quality isn't necessarily the guideline we want here. Let's stick with your movie example. Do you only watch Oscar winning films? Do you even agree that they are the best films? Have you seen Argo? What about The Artist? Titanic? Did you like them? I think several of them were awful. Uh oh. Where is our objective standard now?

Your whole position is based on an irrational assumption that just because there are differences in quality that there must be a "best" and a "less best" and so on. That doesn't follow in this space, and examining any other creative activity will in fact SHOW you that it doesn't follow, so I wonder why you insist on using that analogy.

Beleriphon
2014-01-12, 01:01 AM
It may indeed be overstated but the affect of anonymity is nonetheless very real. Some people that would otherwise be tolerable if not particularly pleasant become real asshats when presented with the opportunity to do so anonymously and the internet gives them ample opportunity.

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19

Gabe explains it all on Penny Arcade. Caution for Naughty Language.

On objectivity, to retain the food example. We aren't really questioning whether a player is burning the food or turning out a perfect medium-rare steak on command. We're asking do we prefer Japanese cuisine or Mexican? Maybe I like classical French but somebody else likes Jamacian jerk, those are preference are purely subjective. There isn't some special scale that determines which one of those things is best, but there is a scale for my preferences and within each of those there are people that are very good at it and some that aren't so good. But that doesn't make the guy doing jerk chicken perfectly better or worse than the guy making perfect sushi at cooking. I just means they like doing different things within a related hobby.

In the same way if a group likes to not really do any roleplaying as such that doesn't make them a group of bad players. It does mean that as a group their preferences don't align with some other group. You can be bad at a lot of things related to roleplaying games such as remembering the rules, but that doesn't make one a bad player anymore than my inability to prepare risotto correctly makes me a bad cook.

Isamu Dyson
2014-01-12, 02:13 AM
If you're playing with a system, but doing the "wrong" things, yet still having a jolly good time, then what's the problem?

There are no RPG Police we have to hold ourselves accountable to.

Lorsa
2014-01-12, 05:44 AM
On the anonymity thing: I think the only thing anonymity can do is to make people show the true face. You don't automatically become a different person online, so if you're an asshat onlilne then you're an asshat pure and simple, just better at hiding it normally.

On RPG elitism: I would say "if you're having it fun you're doing it right" but that doesn't account for those that play RPGs not to have fun but for other reasons. So the truth is that if you're getting the value out of roleplaying that you want then you're doing it right. Whatever that value is would be up to the individual.

On elitism in general: Claiming that other people or their activities are somehow worth less than yours is ridicolous. Humility is obviously the greatest virtue. Everyone should be as humble as I am, indeed I am clearly a much better person than those elitists that are simply doing it wrong.

Mono Vertigo
2014-01-12, 06:15 AM
Yarg >_< how could I forget?

I now remember about the people who elitist towards me about magitech. so what if its not apart of the original intentional game, its Exalted to ME! and all the people who think that just because they play it in some weird greek tragedy, that its somehow "better" and so on and so forth....
Yeah, that's the main example I have in mind. Then there are Lunars. And Infernals, and Abyssals, and... you know, I believe the only Exalted whose existence isn't controversial are Dragon-Blooded, and that's because people are arguing instead about how strong they are intended to be.
Long story short, I used to be interested in Exalted, but the current atmosphere in the fandom is making me very hesitant to get introduced with the game.
Fortunately for me, the big appeal for me was Sidereals, with their reality ninja shenanigans, management/disruption of overarching plans for the world, and identity-switching. And the newest NWoD game is scratching that itch extremely well. So I'll take a look at Exalted again once I'm no longer afraid someone will scream at me "what why are you going with that character concept it's all wrooooooooooooooooooooooong you've got no idea about how this game should be played". :smallcool:

If you're playing with a system, but doing the "wrong" things, yet still having a jolly good time, then what's the problem?

There are no RPG Police we have to hold ourselves accountable to.

Precisely. If someone has fun with a game? Then there's no reason to criticize that. If you don't like a certain way of playing, then just don't join games where you're supposed to play this way. If you don't like a system, don't join a game using that system. It's not that hard.

Kelb_Panthera
2014-01-12, 06:53 AM
On the anonymity thing: I think the only thing anonymity can do is to make people show the true face. You don't automatically become a different person online, so if you're an asshat onlilne then you're an asshat pure and simple, just better at hiding it normally.

That's not necessarily true. Everybody has a little assiness in them and we're all tempted to let it show now and then. Anonymity offers just a little more incentive than a similar situation in a RL social situation where you actually have to show your face and be in the presence of those you're engaging and that little bit extra can give people that straddle the line the push that puts them over the edge. When that catharsis goes uncontested it reinforces the behavior in that social group and this can lead to people acting -very- different in that context than they do in face to face social contexts.

People are rarely so simple as to be accurately labeled as an ass or not when only viewed from one angle.


On elitism in general: Claiming that other people or their activities are somehow worth less than yours is ridicolous. Humility is obviously the greatest virtue. Everyone should be as humble as I am, indeed I am clearly a much better person than those elitists that are simply doing it wrong.

I love how you ended this paragraph. Then again I'm inordinately fond of irony.

Lorsa
2014-01-12, 07:42 AM
That's not necessarily true. Everybody has a little assiness in them and we're all tempted to let it show now and then. Anonymity offers just a little more incentive than a similar situation in a RL social situation where you actually have to show your face and be in the presence of those you're engaging and that little bit extra can give people that straddle the line the push that puts them over the edge. When that catharsis goes uncontested it reinforces the behavior in that social group and this can lead to people acting -very- different in that context than they do in face to face social contexts.

People are rarely so simple as to be accurately labeled as an ass or not when only viewed from one angle.

How many angles do you need to view them from before being able to judge them as such? I think that looking at behavior is usually enough, so if you act like an ass then that's what you are.

Claiming that you can't judge people due to their online activites is saying that online communication is somehow less important or worth less and I simply don't buy that. It's real people you are talking to no matter if you can see them or not. So the same behavior should be used as a guideline to judge someone's character regardless of which medum they use.

Indeed, I think it's even doubly assery to be rude under the guise of anonymity as people can't confront you about it as easily.


I love how you ended this paragraph. Then again I'm inordinately fond of irony.

Then you shouldn't move to Sweden. We don't understand irony over here.

In case it was unclear, Sweden is really the land of irony. I've heard it often gets us into trouble when we visit other countries like the US that have a somewhat different culture as far as I've understood.

Kelb_Panthera
2014-01-12, 08:00 AM
How many angles do you need to view them from before being able to judge them as such? I think that looking at behavior is usually enough, so if you act like an ass then that's what you are.

That's just it. You're only looking at their behavior in one context. How they behave on the internet is not necessarily the same as how they behave in person. Even in person, how they act with friends and family is not necessarily the same as how they behave toward business associates nor how they behave toward random strangers. People that behave fairly consistently across all social contexts are uncommon, at best.


Claiming that you can't judge people due to their online activites is saying that online communication is somehow less important or worth less and I simply don't buy that. It's real people you are talking to no matter if you can see them or not. So the same behavior should be used as a guideline to judge someone's character regardless of which medium they use.

I'm not saying you can't judge them. I'm saying you can't judge the whole of them. Since you don't interact with them in all social contexts you don't need to. What I'm saying is that if you took a measure of how many asses there are on the internet and the number of asses you see IRL from samples of the same size and demographics the former will consistently show a higher instance of assery, though not necessarily by a large margin.


Indeed, I think it's even doubly assery to be rude under the guise of anonymity as people can't confront you about it as easily.

I tend to agree to a certain extent. That's why I try to be consistent in how I behave online and off. That doesn't change the factual nature of my previous paragraph. A selection of people that aren't so bad in person are real jerks on the internet. It sucks and you can feel how ever you like about it but it's statistically provable fact.

AMFV
2014-01-12, 08:04 AM
If you're playing with a system, but doing the "wrong" things, yet still having a jolly good time, then what's the problem?

There are no RPG Police we have to hold ourselves accountable to.

I'm afraid I have to report you to the RPG police for that, you know how it is... hope the dungeons of the Wizard by the Coast treat you well...


On the anonymity thing: I think the only thing anonymity can do is to make people show the true face. You don't automatically become a different person online, so if you're an asshat onlilne then you're an asshat pure and simple, just better at hiding it normally.


Everybody is an asshat given the right circumstances though, it takes a profound force of will not to be an asshat, which society helps by having repercussions if you remove those repercussions, by having anonymity, then the force of will is simply too much for some. I don't think that it makes a person necessarily better or worse, because I can never understand the strength of will required for another person to resist temptation, their temptation might be greater than mine, so I can't really judge them.

Dimers
2014-01-12, 09:19 AM
A large part of why anonymity "brings out the worst in people" is simply the lack of responsive faces, and other body language to a lesser extent. Biologically, humans have a lot of behavioral control mechanisms tied up in being able to experience other humans' reactions. So it may not be the case that someone rude online is just covering up better in meatspace. It's quite possible that they just aren't getting the type of reaction that would make them be polite or moderate in person ... especially if the reaction they DO get from their online jerkitude is flames.

AMFV
2014-01-12, 10:02 AM
A large part of why anonymity "brings out the worst in people" is simply the lack of responsive faces, and other body language to a lesser extent. Biologically, humans have a lot of behavioral control mechanisms tied up in being able to experience other humans' reactions. So it may not be the case that someone rude online is just covering up better in meatspace. It's quite possible that they just aren't getting the type of reaction that would make them be polite or moderate in person ... especially if the reaction they DO get from their online jerkitude is flames.

True, also there are vastly different social rules in different scenarios, which are kind of blended on the internet and a lot of social norms haven't really evolved there, so you have a lot of culture shock and the fact that the culture hasn't really developed a specific etiquette yet.

Dimers
2014-01-12, 10:24 AM
True, also there are vastly different social rules in different scenarios, which are kind of blended on the internet and a lot of social norms haven't really evolved there, so you have a lot of culture shock and the fact that the culture hasn't really developed a specific etiquette yet.

I like your use of "Yes, And" technique! :smallsmile:

Jay R
2014-01-12, 12:09 PM
There are two mistakes you can make in trying to evaluate RPGs.

1. You can assume that everything is subjective, and that there is no difference except personal taste.

2. You can assume that there is one true objective "best" and "worst", and people who don't love the best and hate the worst are just wrong.

Both conclusions are equally short-sighted, leaving out a large part of what's going on.

The first mistake is made by those who discover that some people like Dumas' novel The Three Musketeers, and other people like the video Barbie and the Three Musketeers, and conclude that the only difference between the two is taste.

The second mistake is made by people who argue over which is the better movie: Casablanca or Citizen Kane? Both are excellent, but they are different.

The truth is more complicated. We each have a different mix of RPG goals, interests, and requirements (including amount of time needed to learn the rules). For any given mix, it is legitimate to determine that one game is better than another.

But that won't make it better for another person, with a different mix of goals, interests, and constraints.

Which is better, salt or sugar? If I'm drinking coffee, sugar is objectively better. If I'm eating eggs, salt is absolutely superior.

Which is better, STR or INT? My fighter and my wizard will never agree. That's fine, and both are objectively right - for them.

The best superhero game for me is Champions. Its rules match my interests better than any other. For people with less interest in modeling ideas mathematically, Mutants & Masterminds is better.

The crucial thing to realize is that Champions is in fact objectively better for my goals, and Mutants & Masterminds is in fact objectively better for their goals.

You cannot agree on the "best" game unless you agree on what makes a game better. But you can agree on a "best" game once you've agreed on what you are optimizing.

[The next complication is the possibility that some differences in goals and interests are simple matters of taste, while others are objectively better or worse goals and interests. But if so, who has the authority or the wisdom to determine which is which?]

All in all, I don't recommend trying to go any further than finding the best games for your own goals and interests, and don't assume somebody else is "wrong" for making another choice based on different goals. That's like a wizard sneering at a fighter for increasing his STR instead of his INT.

Mr Beer
2014-01-12, 04:14 PM
There are two mistakes you can make in trying to evaluate RPGs.

1. You can assume that everything is subjective, and that there is no difference except personal taste.

2. You can assume that there is one true objective "best" and "worst", and people who don't love the best and hate the worst are just wrong.

Both conclusions are equally short-sighted, leaving out a large part of what's going on.

This exactly.

Titanium Dragon
2014-01-12, 07:03 PM
In your experiences, and through your observations, have you noticed that RPG elitism/snobbery has become less of an issue?

I think the actual problem lies in the fact that people suck.

Here's reality: most roleplaying game systems are absolutely terrible. It is just reality. People will deny this with their dying breath, but if you look at them objectively, virtually all of them are flawed - many of them very deeply flawed.

Early editions of D&D (up to 2nd edition or so) were insanely deadly and random, to the point where characters would regularly die, or you'd have to do silly things to make sure that didn't happen.

Third edition of D&D was less deadly than 2nd edition D&D, but ended up with all sorts of really bad other problems. 3.x is hideously complex and almost hilariously broken - while in previous editions, the sheer randomness of death made spellcasting weaker (because yes, spells could randomly kill you if you failed your saving throw, but someone who hit you with an arrow and rolled an 8 could easily kill a number of second level characters) in 3.x, as characters became more resilient, spellcasting became even more broken, not only because characters leveled faster and spellcasters were less likely to die before reaching a level where they could actually survive and cast spells fairly freely, but also because of the greater resilience of everything, save or die effects became that much more powerful - and that includes things like Color Spray. Add to that the insane flexibility of spellcasters and the fact that you could much more easily get up to the level where you were casting high level spells, something which in 2nd edition could take YEARS, and it became vastly more problematic. But it wasn't just that - the whole system was completely bonkers, and optimized characters were orders of magnitude better than optimized ones, and casters varied between "overpowered" and "gods" depending on how well played they were. High level combat full of SoD's/SoS's became games of rocket tag, and even optimized combat PCs could deal hundreds if not thousands of damage per round. Character creation became incredibly complex as you got to higher levels, and characters could have access to dozens if not hundreds of abilities, let alone the nonsense that could happen with magic item availability.

Fourth edition was much more balanced, but suffered from the problem that it was STILL overcomplicated - as complicated as 3.x - but unlike 3.x, the fact that the game was incredibly complicated wasn't hidden from players. Everyone knew when they made a character that the game was complicated, and only became more so as you gained levels. Moreover, because of the way that powers worked, combat needed to last long enough for them to matter, meaning that every combat needed to last a number of rounds equal to at least your encounter powers +1, if not +2-3, otherwise you'd end combats without using all your stuff - a bit dissatisfying (and it would render having so many encounter powers pointless). Combat was actually interesting and fun, and highly tactical, the game part actually being enjoyable, but the trouble was that it also meant that combat encounters lasted for as long as 3.x combat encounters did (despite all the SoDs/SoSs, 3.x combat was long because of time spent looking stuff up) and players who didn't actually care enough to memorize their characters' abilities could take ages figuring out what to do. Combat length and gameplay flow was highly dependent on the skill-level of the players involved, meaning that players skilled enough to know better than to just do random things would take forever if they weren't skilled enough. Thus games could become a drag - an ideal 4th edition group had pretty good flow to it, but how many groups, ever, are full of purely ideal players? Especially from the get-go?

And even when flow WAS good, combat still took quite a while.

4th edition is still a pretty good game - it does have some balance issues - but it is only good for a specific type of game. This is actually true of all editions of D&D, but 4th edition just made it very obvious what kind of game it was, and that put off some players, who hilariously declared that 3.x was better, when it was exactly the same sort of game, but much more poorly designed.

So what else is there?

Exalted is just a total disaster rules-wise - it is cute enough at first but once you delve down into the system things get both complicated and very ugly, not to mention broken.

World of Darkness is all about the flavor, but still has major balance issues - it is less of a mess than Exalted, but it still has all sorts of issues which can break immersion or lead to people building or not building characters based on power rather than what they want to play.

GURPS is vastly overcomplicated and doesn't actually do anything well. It allows you to do a lot with it, but if you do a lot of those things, it doesn't work properly. It is very possible to make nearly useless characters as well, and there are other abilities which can be hilariously broken. Ultimately GURPS is basically impossible to play without houserules anyway (it is designed that way), but that also means that every time you play, you're basically learning new things about the system, preventing system mastery.

Alternity actually works pretty well mostly - especially if you use the alternative rules for skill points not being based on intelligence - but it is designed for a specific sort of game, a game which is not very heavily combat based at all, but rather much more investigationy or similar. The game definitely has combat rules, but the combat rules are designed to make the game action movieish, which is all well and good, but it means that getting into gunfights can easily get people seriously injured or killed. One excellent shot can mean a character is mortally wounded and will have to go get surgery. There are some aspects of the game which could be made better as well, but it works fairly well if you're using it for a specific sort of thing. It also requires the game to be set somewhere in, basically, the modern era - somewhere between the late 1800s and the future. It isn't designed for fantasy gaming at all - it is pure realism or certain types of sci-fi. And even there, combat-oriented games work poorly.

Mutants and Masterminds is hilariously broken to the point where you have to houserule it heavily AND sit there and make sure no one makes anything broken even after you do so, and it is very possible to make a nearly-useless character in it as well. It is also quite complicated, though less so than 3rd edition D&D.

I've played a lot of other games as well - MLP:RIM is way too complicated for what it is, AND quite unbalanced, with some races being vastly more powerful than others, and unicorns basically having totally handwaved powers. The game should be a much more basic system than it is; as-is, it is confusing.

Poison'd is fun for what it is, and is quite simple and easy to pick up, but it isn't really something that lends itself well to a really long campaign, more of a short pickup game type thing.

I've played at least one homemade system which was quite good for just general, generic roleplaying - it worked excellently for a community game, and was quite balanced. It was a solid thing for new players to pick up a game and learn how to play very rapidly, and people could get into it quickly. It could handle a wide variety of things thanks to its very simplistic rules. The problem is, ultimately, it doesn't actually go anywhere - it lacks complexity, which means that it lacks any real depth as a system. It doesn't even have levelling mechanics, because it isn't designed for that sort of thing.

All systems have various flaws, no system is good for everything (which is actually impossible - making a system which is good at doing everything is out and out something which cannot be done), the few systems I would consider good are limited in scope to relatively unpopular genres or genres which are done better by computers (Alternity is only good for modern to futuristic investigation/mystery type campaigns, 4th edition D&D is great for a fantasy-based combat-heavy game), the most popular systems (3.x, 4th) are used for all sorts of things they shouldn't be, every even remotely popular, in-print RPG varies from "complicated" to "extremely complicated" (Alternity is probably pretty close to as complicated as an RPG should get, and it is simpler than both 3rd and 4th edition, and it contains stuff which is more complicated than it needs to be)...

And that's ignoring other issues which are prevalent, such as the fact that combat is backwards from a dramatic standpoint (combat starts out scariest at the start of the combat, while it becomes least dramatic at the end of it, when a proper curve would be the opposite - you have to make very convoluted and weird encounters to end up with proper climaxes) and that most systems don't really give the GM nearly enough guidance (4th edition being one of the only systems I've ever played where the actual game's guidance on how to build stuff works properly for GMs).

The reason people get so upset is because they don't want to admit that whatever game they're playing is bad or has problems or shouldn't be used for a wide variety of things that it is used for for one reason or another. People cling to the idea that every game is perfect and balanced, when in reality most games in general are broken, and in RPGs, virtually all of them are. People want to be playing the best game, and thus, anyone talking about the merits of some other game, or how their game has flaws or whatever, must be attacking them personally. And if other people are playing other games, that threatens their sense of superiority and they get angry.

Personally, I've played enough 3.x that it has become an extremely unfun system for me to play (and that naturally includes Pathfinder and various other, similar derivatives) and its inherent brokenness makes both playing it and running it much less fun for me than I'd like. I do occasionally play in games of it, but I try to avoid it whenever possible. People get angry at me when I point this out, but it isn't "RPG elitism" or whatever - it is just reality. Casters are broken, the system is terrible, it is full of traps and extreme optimization, and the game isn't balanced at all and doesn't really work properly. It is just how it is. Even if you don't try and break it, it is STILL broken and still leads to unfun scenarios of players being overshadowed by other people who aren't even doing it on purpose.

Honestly I have a hard time honestly recommending ANY published RPG to new players - I can recommend 4th edition to experienced players, and Alternity to people who want to play certain sorts of games, but... apart from that? If someone entirely NEW to RPGs spoke to me, I'd recommend playing using the made-up system I mentioned above over any of them, simply because it is easy to get into and get used to actually playing a roleplaying game without the game part overshadowing all else. Expert level players may get a lot of fun out of 4th edition, but low-level players are likely to be intimidated by its complexity - and low-level players make up the majority of people who do anything.

But this isn't elitism speaking - it is just practical reality. If people get confused all the time, take ages deciding on doing anything, can't be bothered to memorize a four page long character sheet, ect., then some games simply aren't for them, and saying "that's elitist!" is dumb - it is unfun for the player in question (who is constantly feeling like they're either holding everyone back or being pushed around, or like they are ineffective) and it is unfun for the group (who either feel like they're being held back all the time, like they have to tell the newbie very basic things (to them), or that the newbie is a ball and chain around their leg, or that the newbie takes FOREVER and gah I want to have fun, not wait for this guy to spend ten minutes reading their character sheet again!).

I think that the RPG industry needs to cater better to these players, who, I feel, make up the MAJORITY of people who play RPGs, as well as helping out newbies more.

Qwertystop
2014-01-12, 07:09 PM
People: The likelihood of sarcasm on this topic, and the difficulty in telling it apart from actual opinion, has given me the feeling that some people might not realize that blue text is for sarcasm.

Well, it is. Please use it if you are being sarcastic.

EDIT: One thread also had purple for paraphrasing a hypothetical moron.

Well, it was a specific moron, but the use can be extended.

Isamu Dyson
2014-01-12, 07:10 PM
Most systems aren't generally flawed enough to the point of unplayability.

obryn
2014-01-12, 08:17 PM
People: The likelihood of sarcasm on this topic, and the difficulty in telling it apart from actual opinion, has given me the feeling that some people might not realize that blue text is for sarcasm.

Well, it is. Please use it if you are being sarcastic.

EDIT: One thread also had purple for paraphrasing a hypothetical moron.

Well, it was a specific moron, but the use can be extended.
I don't really do the blue text thing. I'm elitist that way.

Lord_Gareth
2014-01-12, 08:19 PM
I don't really do the blue text thing. I'm elitist that way.

I...I love you.

AMFV
2014-01-12, 08:28 PM
I think the actual problem lies in the fact that people suck.

Here's reality: most roleplaying game systems are absolutely terrible. It is just reality. People will deny this with their dying breath, but if you look at them objectively, virtually all of them are flawed - many of them very deeply flawed.

Objectively by what criteria?



Early editions of D&D (up to 2nd edition or so) were insanely deadly and random, to the point where characters would regularly die, or you'd have to do silly things to make sure that didn't happen.

That's a deliberate part of the game, if it's a deliberate decision then it makes sense that it wouldn't be a game flaw, the game was intended to be deadly and random.



Third edition of D&D was less deadly than 2nd edition D&D, but ended up with all sorts of really bad other problems. 3.x is hideously complex and almost hilariously broken - while in previous editions, the sheer randomness of death made spellcasting weaker (because yes, spells could randomly kill you if you failed your saving throw, but someone who hit you with an arrow and rolled an 8 could easily kill a number of second level characters) in 3.x, as characters became more resilient, spellcasting became even more broken, not only because characters leveled faster and spellcasters were less likely to die before reaching a level where they could actually survive and cast spells fairly freely, but also because of the greater resilience of everything, save or die effects became that much more powerful - and that includes things like Color Spray. Add to that the insane flexibility of spellcasters and the fact that you could much more easily get up to the level where you were casting high level spells, something which in 2nd edition could take YEARS, and it became vastly more problematic. But it wasn't just that - the whole system was completely bonkers, and optimized characters were orders of magnitude better than optimized ones, and casters varied between "overpowered" and "gods" depending on how well played they were. High level combat full of SoD's/SoS's became games of rocket tag, and even optimized combat PCs could deal hundreds if not thousands of damage per round. Character creation became incredibly complex as you got to higher levels, and characters could have access to dozens if not hundreds of abilities, let alone the nonsense that could happen with magic item availability.

That's only an objective problem if game balance is the goal, and for most editions of D&D it wasn't. Furthermore, many people have enjoyed it and played it. So it can't be as completely bonkers as you suspect since there are people that play it frequently and enjoy it.



Fourth edition was much more balanced, but suffered from the problem that it was STILL overcomplicated - as complicated as 3.x - but unlike 3.x, the fact that the game was incredibly complicated wasn't hidden from players. Everyone knew when they made a character that the game was complicated, and only became more so as you gained levels. Moreover, because of the way that powers worked, combat needed to last long enough for them to matter, meaning that every combat needed to last a number of rounds equal to at least your encounter powers +1, if not +2-3, otherwise you'd end combats without using all your stuff - a bit dissatisfying (and it would render having so many encounter powers pointless). Combat was actually interesting and fun, and highly tactical, the game part actually being enjoyable, but the trouble was that it also meant that combat encounters lasted for as long as 3.x combat encounters did (despite all the SoDs/SoSs, 3.x combat was long because of time spent looking stuff up) and players who didn't actually care enough to memorize their characters' abilities could take ages figuring out what to do. Combat length and gameplay flow was highly dependent on the skill-level of the players involved, meaning that players skilled enough to know better than to just do random things would take forever if they weren't skilled enough. Thus games could become a drag - an ideal 4th edition group had pretty good flow to it, but how many groups, ever, are full of purely ideal players? Especially from the get-go?


Overcomplicated, in your opinion you mean?



And even when flow WAS good, combat still took quite a while.

4th edition is still a pretty good game - it does have some balance issues - but it is only good for a specific type of game. This is actually true of all editions of D&D, but 4th edition just made it very obvious what kind of game it was, and that put off some players, who hilariously declared that 3.x was better, when it was exactly the same sort of game, but much more poorly designed.

Supposing naturally that balance is again what makes the whole thing fun, although that's not exactly true for everybody. Supposing that it is an objective truth is a little bit far out.



So what else is there?

Exalted is just a total disaster rules-wise - it is cute enough at first but once you delve down into the system things get both complicated and very ugly, not to mention broken.

World of Darkness is all about the flavor, but still has major balance issues - it is less of a mess than Exalted, but it still has all sorts of issues which can break immersion or lead to people building or not building characters based on power rather than what they want to play.

GURPS is vastly overcomplicated and doesn't actually do anything well. It allows you to do a lot with it, but if you do a lot of those things, it doesn't work properly. It is very possible to make nearly useless characters as well, and there are other abilities which can be hilariously broken. Ultimately GURPS is basically impossible to play without houserules anyway (it is designed that way), but that also means that every time you play, you're basically learning new things about the system, preventing system mastery.

Alternity actually works pretty well mostly - especially if you use the alternative rules for skill points not being based on intelligence - but it is designed for a specific sort of game, a game which is not very heavily combat based at all, but rather much more investigationy or similar. The game definitely has combat rules, but the combat rules are designed to make the game action movieish, which is all well and good, but it means that getting into gunfights can easily get people seriously injured or killed. One excellent shot can mean a character is mortally wounded and will have to go get surgery. There are some aspects of the game which could be made better as well, but it works fairly well if you're using it for a specific sort of thing. It also requires the game to be set somewhere in, basically, the modern era - somewhere between the late 1800s and the future. It isn't designed for fantasy gaming at all - it is pure realism or certain types of sci-fi. And even there, combat-oriented games work poorly.

Mutants and Masterminds is hilariously broken to the point where you have to houserule it heavily AND sit there and make sure no one makes anything broken even after you do so, and it is very possible to make a nearly-useless character in it as well. It is also quite complicated, though less so than 3rd edition D&D.

I've played a lot of other games as well - MLP:RIM is way too complicated for what it is, AND quite unbalanced, with some races being vastly more powerful than others, and unicorns basically having totally handwaved powers. The game should be a much more basic system than it is; as-is, it is confusing.

Poison'd is fun for what it is, and is quite simple and easy to pick up, but it isn't really something that lends itself well to a really long campaign, more of a short pickup game type thing.

I've played at least one homemade system which was quite good for just general, generic roleplaying - it worked excellently for a community game, and was quite balanced. It was a solid thing for new players to pick up a game and learn how to play very rapidly, and people could get into it quickly. It could handle a wide variety of things thanks to its very simplistic rules. The problem is, ultimately, it doesn't actually go anywhere - it lacks complexity, which means that it lacks any real depth as a system. It doesn't even have levelling mechanics, because it isn't designed for that sort of thing.

All systems have various flaws, no system is good for everything (which is actually impossible - making a system which is good at doing everything is out and out something which cannot be done), the few systems I would consider good are limited in scope to relatively unpopular genres or genres which are done better by computers (Alternity is only good for modern to futuristic investigation/mystery type campaigns, 4th edition D&D is great for a fantasy-based combat-heavy game), the most popular systems (3.x, 4th) are used for all sorts of things they shouldn't be, every even remotely popular, in-print RPG varies from "complicated" to "extremely complicated" (Alternity is probably pretty close to as complicated as an RPG should get, and it is simpler than both 3rd and 4th edition, and it contains stuff which is more complicated than it needs to be)...

And that's ignoring other issues which are prevalent, such as the fact that combat is backwards from a dramatic standpoint (combat starts out scariest at the start of the combat, while it becomes least dramatic at the end of it, when a proper curve would be the opposite - you have to make very convoluted and weird encounters to end up with proper climaxes) and that most systems don't really give the GM nearly enough guidance (4th edition being one of the only systems I've ever played where the actual game's guidance on how to build stuff works properly for GMs).

The reason people get so upset is because they don't want to admit that whatever game they're playing is bad or has problems or shouldn't be used for a wide variety of things that it is used for for one reason or another. People cling to the idea that every game is perfect and balanced, when in reality most games in general are broken, and in RPGs, virtually all of them are. People want to be playing the best game, and thus, anyone talking about the merits of some other game, or how their game has flaws or whatever, must be attacking them personally. And if other people are playing other games, that threatens their sense of superiority and they get angry.

Personally, I've played enough 3.x that it has become an extremely unfun system for me to play (and that naturally includes Pathfinder and various other, similar derivatives) and its inherent brokenness makes both playing it and running it much less fun for me than I'd like. I do occasionally play in games of it, but I try to avoid it whenever possible. People get angry at me when I point this out, but it isn't "RPG elitism" or whatever - it is just reality. Casters are broken, the system is terrible, it is full of traps and extreme optimization, and the game isn't balanced at all and doesn't really work properly. It is just how it is. Even if you don't try and break it, it is STILL broken and still leads to unfun scenarios of players being overshadowed by other people who aren't even doing it on purpose.

Honestly I have a hard time honestly recommending ANY published RPG to new players - I can recommend 4th edition to experienced players, and Alternity to people who want to play certain sorts of games, but... apart from that? If someone entirely NEW to RPGs spoke to me, I'd recommend playing using the made-up system I mentioned above over any of them, simply because it is easy to get into and get used to actually playing a roleplaying game without the game part overshadowing all else. Expert level players may get a lot of fun out of 4th edition, but low-level players are likely to be intimidated by its complexity - and low-level players make up the majority of people who do anything.

But this isn't elitism speaking - it is just practical reality. If people get confused all the time, take ages deciding on doing anything, can't be bothered to memorize a four page long character sheet, ect., then some games simply aren't for them, and saying "that's elitist!" is dumb - it is unfun for the player in question (who is constantly feeling like they're either holding everyone back or being pushed around, or like they are ineffective) and it is unfun for the group (who either feel like they're being held back all the time, like they have to tell the newbie very basic things (to them), or that the newbie is a ball and chain around their leg, or that the newbie takes FOREVER and gah I want to have fun, not wait for this guy to spend ten minutes reading their character sheet again!).

I think that the RPG industry needs to cater better to these players, who, I feel, make up the MAJORITY of people who play RPGs, as well as helping out newbies more.

So you literally like no games, and feel that you can objectively rate their quality? That seems a little absurdist.


People: The likelihood of sarcasm on this topic, and the difficulty in telling it apart from actual opinion, has given me the feeling that some people might not realize that blue text is for sarcasm.

Well, it is. Please use it if you are being sarcastic.

EDIT: One thread also had purple for paraphrasing a hypothetical moron.

Well, it was a specific moron, but the use can be extended.

The blue text is optional and isn't a forum rule, if you have to identify sarcasm it isn't really sarcasm.


Most systems aren't generally flawed enough to the point of unplayability.

This is true. In fact I enjoy most systems.

Roland St. Jude
2014-01-12, 08:34 PM
Sheriff: Locked for review all eternity.