I have written this post before, but it was a long time ago and sometimes you have to repeat things so people don't forget.

Roleplaying games are a form of entertainment based on a specific set of virtues, among them shared creativity, and being venues for face-to-face socialisation and hospitality. They bring people together (in a partly moderated social environment), and at the bottom of it, the whole thing is about getting together in groups and having some kind of fun. It is actually a pretty wholesome activity. What's more, the majority of people engaged in this hobby are pretty okay.

There has been a lot of hate levelled at this hobby and hobbyists; hostile generalisations, slippery slope arguments and false equivalencies dragging down online communities into a vicious circle of hatred and self-loathing (these always go together). But I don't really want to focus on that, because I think it is a counter-productive way of looking at things, and it only serves to make things worse. What I'd like to speak about is gaming as a positive hobby and a positive influence.

Right now, I am directly involved in two game groups; one a circle of friends I have been playing with since 2007 (and with one player, since 1995), and the other where I am the new guy. These are pretty different; one is old school as interpreted by people Who Were Never Actually There and the other is more of a general gaming style with some stylistic and structural influences from TV series; one is rules-light and the other is more rules-intensive; one is sandboxish and very hands-off and the other is episodic with loose but preset storylines. But both are a group made up of good people, including married couples, a freelance journalist, students, a small entrepreneur guy with three kids who is more petite bourgeois than I can ever hope to be, a guy who used to work as a bike courier and now works at another logistic position, and so on and so forth. That's people from different walks of life with different politics, interests and secondary hobbies; tending towards young, lower middle-class and male, but only in the general sense. The common element is that they are people committed to playing games together, being entertaining and contributing to each other's fun; they are people who are enjoyable company, gracious hosts and grateful guests. They are, in rather different ways, good people, individuals I trust and like.

I am not saying there have not been conflicts of various kinds in these groups. They have mostly occurred because different people wanted different things in the same game, and sometimes because of conflicting personalities. It has not always been easy, but we have solved these conflicts by discussing our issues and trying to find good compromises. At one early point of my current campaign, I was pretty bummed by seemingly irreconcilable differences of opinion, but in the end, we seem to have weathered it. Had it been impossible to do, I think I would have had to either ask people to leave the group (hard, because I enjoy playing with all of them, they just didn't work well together in that specific context) or call it quits and come up with something new. That happens; it has happened to previous campaigns that fell apart because our common ground was lost or something like that. I think I still have to watch for this thing re-emerging, and for latent passive-aggressive behaviour (which is the clear signal you are dealing with some kind of trouble), but maybe that's just GM anxiety.

What matters, I think, is that the people in these groups have largely positive attitudes towards gaming. They play with the intent to make other people enjoy gaming as well. They share spotlight. They work with each other and the GM to make the session enjoyable. (Okay, one particular individual is a compulsive in-character thief - whether that's an amusing running joke or a source of conflict is an interesting question, and a question of degrees. We also don't mind a little in-character conflict.) There is sufficient trust in these groups to work from an assumption of goodwill - both the GM and the other players are there for a good experience, and both GM and character decisions come from that assumption. Generosity and good faith are indispensable in gaming, like all group-based activities.

How to have good groups? My social criteria for games are fairly simple: I play games with people I would enjoy to sit down and drink a beer with (or substitute something similar). These are not particularly strict standards. These are not exceedingly loose standards either. If they are impossible to meet, it is better to do something else. Interestingly, the only time I have really been burned in the last few years has been a one-off when I disregarded my own rule - the GM brought along a guy I knew from a gaming forum without consulting me, and I did not want to look like an asshole by turning him away from the door. I knew he was a narcisstic, malicious douchebag, and surprise of surprises, he played a narcisstic, malicious douchebag in the game, and he was narcisstic and malicious about the game afterwards. It was just a breach of hospitality, and an erroneous judgement on my part.

Nevertheless, my experiences with the broader game community I interact with have also been positive. In the recent two years or something, I have been frequenting an old-school mini-convention organised by a friend (and party member). This has exposed me to significantly more people than the usual home games as both player and GM, and again, it has been a pleasant run - there was one game I did not enjoy and one player I found to be kind of a jerk, but the rest was actually very good - people getting together and giving their best. Of course, I do not want to play down the role of organisation and scale: these events were organised to have a point (actual gaming followed by an evening of chat at a friendly pub), they were focused on a specific subset of games (old school and small print games), and they were lightly screened (we knew the majority of the people online, and obvious assholes would have been turned down). They were on a human scale. But with these caveats, once again -- the gaming was enjoyable, and the participants were perfectly normal, likeable people.

It is increasingly hard for me to reconcile some of the online perceptions of the gaming hobby and the actual one I participate in. They seem to be worlds apart. I am finding a lot of the second online, actually; I could give you a long list of people I'd happily invite to play if it was possible, and publications such as Fight On! and Knockspell, along with some blogs seem to embody the things I find enjoyable. And of course, I were more sensible and it wasn't for a morbid curiosity, I would just disengage from the parts that didn't give me that. Well, that is hard. I make mistakes. But I also try to get better.

I suppose this is getting a bit long and it is getting too late here, so the essence is this: gaming is a socially productive and benevolent hobby when approached well. It lets you meet people who are charming, generous and fun. It can be a force for good in your life, and maybe on a social level as well. It is a wholesome thing to dedicate your free time to.

Thank you.

As a GM, I have a rather lengthy list of non-system-specific rules that govern "my" table. Rule Number 1 is the DM is a trustee of the group, blah blah blah. We all know those rules.

Rule Number Zero is "you have to be somebody I'd want to hang out with outside of nerdy past-times." Never failed me yet.

Quote from: Melan;553470the essence is this: gaming is a socially productive and benevolent hobby when approached well. It lets you meet people who are charming, generous and fun. It can be a force for good in your life, and maybe on a social level as well. It is a wholesome thing to dedicate your free time to.

My experience during the hey-day of D&D gaming when I was at school was that those who admitted to being gamers were frighteningly nerdish so our group never admitted it and was closed and insular. Gaming may be a social boon but I have been very cautious about whom I ask to play, perhaps too cautious. I think it is a shame that D&D is harder to explain to the unfamiliar than Tolkien is to the reader who ignores fantasy, because I believe a much broader category of personality would in the end appreciate D&D than can suffer through the elves and goblins of the printed page.

I think a game is exactly as interesting and fun to play as the people at the table and that it is a general misperception that the enjoyment comes from the books.

I am glad you wrote this Melan.

I too have different experiences online than off. I see a lot more negativity online than off about gaming. Although I do see some out their in the real world. People are more interested that I role-play than what I role play most of the time--they're happy to meet me and talk about whatever games we both enjoy without usually getting negative about the other persons game.

I have more women in my groups than seems to be the average. and our groups tend to be social. Albeit, there are times when anyone can be a little anti-social for various reasons.

In general the people I meet are productive members of society, working jobs, living lives with family and children; The gamers I know are ordinary people. They have their interests, but also function as much in the world outside as anyone else. Oh a few may be less astute or less "normal," but its not a big deal. Online makes it seem like most role-players ARE backwards and anti-social, at each others throats over trivial issues. As one friend said "Online 'life' is drama." It was rather astute statement.

I too play with people I'd sit down and hang out with. Sometimes they may bring someone along I'm not fond of, but usually those types of people don't last long.

I've got two groups, not counting the online people I play with. One,  I say that it  is my "sister's" group because it is many of her friends and "family." They're my friends too, but not as close as they are to her.

The other group, is more flaky with less stable job situations, and has no 'ownership.'  Its "our" group and its made up primarily by a lot of my friends. Most of these friends I made when I worked at a bookstore, and invited them home to game with me after getting to know them a little, and of course people added on to that group of friends over the years.

Its funny because I'm both the most and least social member of the group. Once I warm up, I get along well with people, I love talking to them, finding out about their interests and such. Yet, I suffer from anxiety that was severe enough to impede my social activities beyond immediate friends for a while. It is marginalized at the moment thankfully.

I try and not be negative online--years ago, I was, like anyone else, I can be at times. Now though? Its just not worth the effort. I may like or not like something and try very hard to help people find games that work (for them) and enjoy gaming. I'm honest, but I try and not be brutal about it.

Yet it is an interesting thing to watch the differences between the two "worlds," and I think a lot of it boils down to the social issues of being "practically" anonymous online. Although that is changing. More and more, our social lives now extend online, and what we do, say, and how we act is more and more going reflect on us offline as well. I think this can be both good and bad. Good in that maybe it will bring people to being themselves, and trying hard to be the same person online as off.

Thank you for bringing this forum some (direly needed) perspective.

I agree with the OP 100%. It also reflects my own experiences with the hobby.

Thanks Melan for your long and thoughtful post, my experiences echo yours. Closing in in 3 decades of great gaming with great people.

My experience with gaming matches yours. It is like any other activity with some great folk and some not so great folk involved. Your attitude going in matters a great deal. If you approach an activity with enthusiasm, optimism and openness, you will generally have a better time than if you come in anticipating problems. This is as true in gaming as it is elsewhere. The internet tends to emphasize certain points of division or highlight problems people encounter. I can't say I have had too many issues at the table.

Mine are also similar. When I felt our group needed new blood, I would attend local large group meetings, or allow someone to bring along a friend if they know them very well. About half the games I am involved with take place at my house. I am guessing here, but I imagine there are many here who feel the same way, probably in a similar age range - you invite people into your home and you want to have social comfort. I ask people to leave politics and religion at the door though.

I really enjoy conventions though. You do find the angry unibomber type now and then, but mostly people who enjoy being around other people.

I am rather lucky in that most everyone I've gamed with has no dog in the online fight (this most recent brouhaha, edition wars, etc.).  When I tell them about the latter, they're always a bit incredulous.  However, having looked at later versions of D&D they seem to prefer AD&D (which is why we game together).  

While I can't say everyone I've gamed with is a friend, I will say that I only game with people I like.  Life's too short, etc.  

Mostly, I no longer consider myself a "gamer" - that is, I won't just try any game (again, mostly).  This also falls under the "life's too short" (with the corollary money's too short, too) category; I have x amount of time to devote to gaming.  I can't afford to travel to cons, and the local ones suck.  So I'll stay at home and play AD&D until they take the books from my cold dead etc.

If I stuck solely with the classic modules (g/d/q, T1-4, the A series, the S series, a few of the WG and C modules) I never played when I was young, assuming a module a month (4 sessions of about 4 hours each), I'd have years of adventuring before I "ran out" of published stuff I really, really wanted to play.  Then there's the virtually limitless making things up on my own option.  Castle Delve has the potentiality of being a years-long campaign, for example.

I love AD&D.  I don't just mean "it has nice modules" or "I like the way Gary wrote the rulebooks", I love it all.  I love the rules, the aesthetics, the lot of it.  I get a big laugh out of people who decry and rail at it, because at the end of the day I still have fun with it, because of and not in spite of how it works.  

If I had to pick a game to play in addition to, I would say it'd be Warhammer Fantasy Role-Play, because it's a love letter from the UK to Original D&D.  If I could pick two, I'd say Hero System also because it is truly a Swiss Army knife of a game system.  However, I know not many people grok Hero System and it's very hard to teach to newbies.

I've got a shelf full of other games:  Castles & Crusades and Lejendary Adventures both of which I had to have when I was working on some stuff for Gary, but I never really played C&C much at all (just a few one-off sessions) and LA not at all.  Mechwarrior, which I haven't played in over a decade, Heavy Gear, both d20 Star Wars books, Wheel of Time d20, 3.5 books, hell I've even got a copy of Cyborg Commando...but really it's just AD&D these days.

Viva AD&D, viva gaming.

Quote from: _kent_;553561My experience during the hey-day of D&D gaming when I was at school was that those who admitted to being gamers were frighteningly nerdish so our group never admitted it and was closed and insular.

The main reason I never played at my school was because I commuted and couldn't justify staying around, but the desire to avoid the stigma was there. Then I grew up, moved to the city where I currently live, and my life up to that point was over and largely irrelevant. Actually, that's when I picked up active gaming again, around the age people tend to drop it.

I saw some fucked up behaviour among gamers when I was a kid, but in retrospect, it was not any more fucked up than the things other kids got into. We were immature and made mistakes immature people commit. Nowadays, the people my age I know from gaming are mostly post-geeks. Not enough of them have dropped the habit of reading bad fantasy, though, which I did.

Quote from: Melan;553719grateful guests ... post-geeks

These are two descriptions I like. The grateful guest has the right attitude for game which draws on many parts of our personalities and post-geek sounds like recovering alcoholic - a laudable effort.

My regret about D&D is that while I could always convince friends to try the game on for size I have met many people socially whose interest in film or reading or music so matches my own that I know they would really enjoy playing in a campaign but at the same time I know from experience they will politely refuse and think I am a touch mental.

Now maybe Im wrong about this notion of a wider appeal and only those of us haunted by fairy tales in our youth are susceptible to D&D's lure. It's just that the game as it functions on game day as an imaginative conversation in full flight should have universal appeal.

I don't understand why the Fantasy genre is not accorded the same respect as say Film Noir and If D&D had roots in Film Noir I could sell it all day long serving up Lovecraft via Raymond Chandler, Dashiell Hammett and James Ellroy.

Quote from: Melan;553719Not enough of them have dropped the habit of reading bad fantasy, though, which I did.

It is often suggested that bad Fantasy novels are no worse than any bad fiction. They are worse. So called good fantasy like Game of Thrones is the equivalent of generally bad fiction and there are very few fantasy works worth reading but they are worth re-reading and re-reading to experience glorious power of imagination set free.

Quote from: _kent_;553561My experience during the hey-day of D&D gaming when I was at school was that those who admitted to being gamers were frighteningly nerdish so our group never admitted it and was closed and insular. Gaming may be a social boon but I have been very cautious about whom I ask to play, perhaps too cautious. I think it is a shame that D&D is harder to explain to the unfamiliar than Tolkien is to the reader who ignores fantasy, because I believe a much broader category of personality would in the end appreciate D&D than can suffer through the elves and goblins of the printed page.
ks.

When I first started in 86 i was too young to be aware of the stigma, but I was probably fell into the geek category if I am being honest. When I hit highschool in the early 90s (and really started playing a lot) something changed. Being a geek was kind of cool, so there really wasn't a stigma at all (it was one of those wierd times where being a jock as considered a bad thing). My sister was a cheerleader and I was a gamer/musician. We both went through the same school system and I really believe I had an easier time than she did because of the whole 90s culture. Not only was I part of three seperate gaming groups at a relatively small highschool, but at one point half the kids on my morning bus were actively involved in my friends Rule Cyclopedia campaign. There were also countless vampire groups in my area. No idea if this matches other peoples' experiences or not. It could just be where I was from.

When I discovered D&D my last year in grade school (1980), all the "in crowd" played.  You wanted to be seen playing.  It wasn't really a "nerd thing" until the later 80s as far as I could tell.

Thank you for posting this, Melan. After the heaviness of this past week's subject matter, a post like this one is very much appreciated. It is healthy to often remind ourselves why we are here in the first place. Cheers!