Well the issue is the inherent attempts at trying to form a specific definition of what a "Gamer" is as some form of quasi-political tribe within the context of larger gaming community.

It has less to do with do you actually play (which I agree should probably be a good place to start) - than it is for this emergent left-leaning neo-liberal gamers trying to define "gamers" as those like them as opposed to everyone else. Hence as Gronan pointed out -WHO CARES? I don't care. But then that leaves the door open for the obvious opportunity to have the hobby reframed in popular media (as such) as to what a gamer is. What they wear, what they look like, what causes they should care about, what language they use, etc.

And sure, I can say none of this stuff affects me. But I'd be lying. When I try to get more players when I get a spot open at my table, I've started to get a lot of hyper-sensitive folks that wear this uniform either physically or mentally. I've had a few really get disturbed by things at my table, that most players of my age don't bat an eye at. (Yes, there's slaves in Calimshan and yes there are slaves. SLAVES! And no it doesn't make us racists by acknowledging that conceit) They walk in with notions in their head that resemble the Freakshow nature of modern D&D  ("A tiefling, an Aasimar Warlock, a Gnomish Barbarian/Monk and a gender-fluid elf dragon-blooded Sorcerer walk into a rural bar.") and bridle at my setup of expectations.

I've had players booted because they're not here at my table to play the games I'm running - they want to socialize and pretend they're in Big Bang-Theory or Critical Role cracking-wise at every scene and getting frustrated when my NPC's don't react to their insults with a chuckle and try to crush their skulls with a flanged mace.

Now I admit - I try to run things older-school with as much "realism" as I can allow (I'll defer to reality modified to accommodate magic to the point where society is reflective commensurate to the magic available - which for me defaults to 'powerful but very rare'). But I find Critical Role hopeless boring and not my kinda game. I look at Critical Role like "the Andry Griffith Show" and their campaign world is like the town of Mayberry. Whereas I'm trying to do Westeros by way of Melnibone and Aquilonia. They're *very* different conceits. I don't do spectators. I don't give a crap about people that not only don't game, but I don't care about people that pseudo-game and are there more to socialize than actually play. So yeah my bar is higher than probably others. But I'm not going to say that while I don't care, the rise of Critical Role and their ilk haven't had their soy-smelling milquetoast flotsam come beaching itself on my shores.

And maybe that just how it is. I don't care about labels as much as I care about my game. But that apparently is coming at a cost by those that adore and worship labels which I (and some of you) may not resemble.

I should also add - nothing they do is going to change how I game.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1030909That's actually a good analogy.

Could you clarify. What exactly is it that is a good analogy?

Quote from: tenbones;1031234And sure, I can say none of this stuff affects me. But I'd be lying. When I try to get more players when I get a spot open at my table, I've started to get a lot of hyper-sensitive folks that wear this uniform either physically or mentally. I've had a few really get disturbed by things at my table, that most players of my age don't bat an eye at. (Yes, there's slaves in Calimshan and yes there are slaves. SLAVES! And no it doesn't make us racists by acknowledging that conceit) They walk in with notions in their head that resemble the Freakshow nature of modern D&D  ("A tiefling, an Aasimar Warlock, a Gnomish Barbarian/Monk and a gender-fluid elf dragon-blooded Sorcerer walk into a rural bar.") and bridle at my setup of expectations.

I was worried (I worry a lot) I'd get in trouble running Wilderlands of High Fantasy with its 1970s sword & sorcery tropes - slavery, half naked Amazon warriors (including PCs), et al - but I have to say I've not seen this at all. All the new players have been really cool so far. And we have currently three tables GMing specifically the Wilderlands every Sunday (plus one alternate plane 4th table), so that's a lot of players. Maybe Britain is different - but we have a fair number of American players, as well as continental Europeans and others.

I tried very hard to be a gatekeeper, yesterday, but I think I'm not very good at it. Had a person who'd been watching Critical Roll come in to the FLGS to see what this RPG thing was all about, and I talked to them for most of the afternoon about the hobby and the history of the thing. They're now doing their first miniatures, and will be coming to RPG sessions at the FLGS.

So, I am a failure at being an elderly white male gatekeeper, keeping people out of the hobby. Hopefully, I can get some remedial training or something.

(Try not to trip over the heavy sarcasm on the floor, there. Thanks.)

Quote from: S'mon;1031266I was worried (I worry a lot) I'd get in trouble running Wilderlands of High Fantasy with its 1970s sword & sorcery tropes - slavery, half naked Amazon warriors (including PCs), et al - but I have to say I've not seen this at all. All the new players have been really cool so far. And we have currently three tables GMing specifically the Wilderlands every Sunday (plus one alternate plane 4th table), so that's a lot of players. Maybe Britain is different - but we have a fair number of American players, as well as continental Europeans and others.

I suspect it's my location. I don't mean to sound like the majority of players I encounter are this way - I'm in Texas, most people here are middle-conservative politically. But I live in a very vibrant gaming community where the local FLGS is a gamer's Nirvana but is totally converged with the pop-culture idea of what being a geek is. They wear the uniform, drink the Kool-Aid, play the proscribed way. *I* am a "Hoary Olde Beaste of Olde", which I've noticed from older gamers, they generally love everything I'm doing as if they've been trudging through the desert of Critical Role style gaming and wonder where I've been all their life. But it's happened enough in reverse where I'm very upfront in my interview process about the things we do (this is where Gronan's golden rule of Setting up Expectations comes in) where I've found people turned off by the notion that there are conceits to a campaign that diverge from "whatever is allowed in their favorite liveplay." i.e. non-contextualized PC's.

I detest liveplays largely because they're not the kind of games I run. Most of the Critical Role stuff, which people largely consider "among the best" - I consider little more than Scooby-Do the RPG. If that's the standard, then I'll happily leave it to others to enjoy. I'm doing something entirely different for people with entirely different tastes, wants and needs.

Quote from: chirine ba kal;1031298I tried very hard to be a gatekeeper, yesterday, but I think I'm not very good at it. Had a person who'd been watching Critical Roll come in to the FLGS to see what this RPG thing was all about, and I talked to them for most of the afternoon about the hobby and the history of the thing. They're now doing their first miniatures, and will be coming to RPG sessions at the FLGS.

So, I am a failure at being an elderly white male gatekeeper, keeping people out of the hobby. Hopefully, I can get some remedial training or something.

(Try not to trip over the heavy sarcasm on the floor, there. Thanks.)

You're doing Arioch's work. Bless you.

Quote from: chirine ba kal;1031298(Try not to trip over the heavy sarcasm on the floor, there. Thanks.)

* DONK! * Ow!  * Zwizz! * Oops!  AIEEE! * clatter of ironmongery as the Glorious General falls down the stairs *

Ah, it's a man's life in the Tsolyani Army.

(Yes, we used to do this sort of thing at Phil's.  His eyes would narrow, his foul little cigar would tilt upwards, and he'd say "Very funny."  Which only made it more amusing.)

Quote from: tenbones;1031420I suspect it's my location. I don't mean to sound like the majority of players I encounter are this way - I'm in Texas, most people here are middle-conservative politically. But I live in a very vibrant gaming community where the local FLGS is a gamer's Nirvana but is totally converged with the pop-culture idea of what being a geek is. They wear the uniform, drink the Kool-Aid, play the proscribed way. *I* am a "Hoary Olde Beaste of Olde", which I've noticed from older gamers, they generally love everything I'm doing as if they've been trudging through the desert of Critical Role style gaming and wonder where I've been all their life. But it's happened enough in reverse where I'm very upfront in my interview process about the things we do (this is where Gronan's golden rule of Setting up Expectations comes in) where I've found people turned off by the notion that there are conceits to a campaign that diverge from "whatever is allowed in their favorite liveplay." i.e. non-contextualized PC's.

I detest liveplays largely because they're not the kind of games I run. Most of the Critical Role stuff, which people largely consider "among the best" - I consider little more than Scooby-Do the RPG. If that's the standard, then I'll happily leave it to others to enjoy. I'm doing something entirely different for people with entirely different tastes, wants and needs.

Okay, I'll bite... what's a "liveplay?"  Do you mean a podcast game?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1031436Okay, I'll bite... what's a "liveplay?"  Do you mean a podcast game?

yeah. To me - it's people making a show of their game. It's detracts from the gaming itself. It's one of the reasons I don't allow "spectators" to my table. No significant others, no kids, no friends in the next room watching TV or playing console games while we play etc.

May sound draconian, but I'm there to run a game and play with the least amount of extraneous distractions as possible. Broadcasting across the web? That's ludicrous to me, for a number of reasons, not the least of which is because the content of my games would be, in this politically correct climate be probably objectionable (my games would be close to Game of Thrones in content expectations - usually.)

Got it, thanks.  Playing RPGs for an audience sounds dumb anyway, besides not fun.

I had a revolutionary thought, why don't someone ask one of the frequent podcasters what the deal is? Do they ham it up or what?

As for myself the two times I did it, (once player, once referee). The only effect it had on me is on my OOG language i.e. swearing. Other than I played and refreed like I always had. Well except for not being able to use Roll20 because of the tech.

I have been podcasting some sessions and not podcasting others. Enjoying both. With the podcasts, the main difference for me is stuff Estar mentioned (minding my words a little more) and occasionally saying things so anyone listening can understand what is going on (for instance just providing a sentence to contextualize the situation a bit). I definitely have fun recording them. I see their value is probably limited to audiences who want to look at other GMs adjudication approaches, new GMs or people who just like listening to people game. I am sure most podcasts are on a spectrum in terms of how much things get hammed up. If people are hamming it up, and enjoying themselves, I say its fine.

One advantage I like with podcasting recordings is I have a record of my sessions. If there is some question that arises later in the campaign, we can go back and check the recording.

There is a distinct difference between podcasting for other's consumption and recording your sessions for personal use.

The idea of people playing over the internet itself is not the issue. I've recently started doing it with a few of my friends from LA, and yep it works great. But this idea that you're going to broadcast your tabletop game for other people to watch is inevitably going to affect how you GM or how your players play. This is obviously dependent on the content of your games too.

If people are content to run family-friendly adventures (and/or modules) great. But I maintain the point of gaming is not to be entertaining for a crowd, but for the players and so it'll be affected.

And if you're into letting all things hit the table in your games (mostly) then you're not doing yourself any favors at all. Case in point, I took a casual glance at Warhammer Fantasy podcast games for the purposes of content matter. Sure there's gallows humor in WHFRP. But for the most part, I couldn't tell the difference between the games being played in Warhammer or 5e Forgotten realms because they seemed (at least the few I watched) to have this whole "gameshow" kinda vibe to it. I have no idea if it's sub-conscious or it's the format. There's a larger "silliness for silliness's sake"-factor going on and I can't shake the gut-instinct it's for the camera.

Well, according to the CR guys, they don't change anything about how they play. They just broadcast it.