Over at tBP on this thread :

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=302075

One poster said this (which I agree with):

QuoteOriginally posted by Old Geezer
I'm just attempting to counter the frequent statement that older games were "primitive" or "incomplete". They are simply a different hobby.

With, Tyberious Funk's old school thread, I'm thinking, are there two distinct kinds hobbies within rpgs ? I mean, is this why there is such a disconnect amongst certain gamers?

There seems to be such wide gap - design philosophy, playstyle etc - between these two hobbies. What do you folks think?

Regards,
David R

This very well may be true. If so, some people like only one or the other, others like both. I don't know aboutthat, though. I prefer to think of it as a range, with some games sitting here and some there, and a whole mess in between, gradually shading from one to the other. Pundit feels differently.

-clash

To my mind, there's a great big territory and the maps people draw of it reveal more about the cartographers than about the terrain.

You want to draw a border and say "Stuff on this side is in the country of OldSchoolia and stuff on that side is not"?  That's cool, so long as it doesn't deny the basics that are known of the territory (i.e. there are games that cross any border you choose to draw, and people in both countries seem to have a lot of fun).

Quote from: flyingmiceI prefer to think of it as a range, with some games sitting here and some there, and a whole mess in between, gradually shading from one to the other.

-clash

I like this point. I think, this (the whole mess in between) is where most folks with diverse tastes in games share common ground.

Regards,
David R

I agree that there's a range of types of games -- but also that it's not a range between just two points...

Quote from: StuartI agree that there's a range of types of games -- but also that it's not a range between just two points...

I agree, it's a circular spectrum.

are we talking about the hobby splitting into different gaming factions and styles as in the same way Progressive Rock is broken down into hundreds of sub-genres (and no Im not talking about Sci-fi vs fantasy).

I think it's a contiuum. Some people have narrow cutoffs, others run the gamut.

Saying it's a "different hobby" sounds like a pissing match between two of those folks with narrows "gaming bandwidths".

Quote from: Lawbagare we talking about the hobby splitting into different gaming factions and styles as in the same way Progressive Rock is broken down into hundreds of sub-genres (and no Im not talking about Sci-fi vs fantasy).

To quote myself from another thread here...

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaIt's like rock & roll, which people used to say would never last. It has, but each new batch of teenagers embraces a new form of rock & roll that rejects its forebears, while the predecessors deride the tastes of their successors (which I think bears an unmistakable similarity to RPGPundit's perceived gaming-culture-wars, and perhaps bears out his concerns to a degree).

The point of which is, it's all music, but different styles for different tastes, different tastes for different generations.  Some people have broader tastes, some narrower.

!i!

It's certainly not two different hobbies IME. Traditional games (including D&D) have always had a vast range of play-styles. I think there's an ideological distinction that's usually draw by imputing some (questionable) way-of-playing to one side or the other and then distancing yourself from that.

Like the GM Fiat Story-Games threads or the DitV-isn't-an-RPG threads here.

-Marco

Really? I'd say its much more like the way a certain Swine has recently taken to trolling on my Blog making comments that D&D is only suitable for preteens and is not real "roleplaying" but "Just gaming".

The two hobbies are really two cultures. The one believes in playing RPGs for a full range of reasons, including for Fun and because its a Game; and the other side believing RPGs exist to create pretentious "stories" and that other RPGs are incapable of being "intelligent".

They not only despise (real) RPGs like D&D, but they believe that people who play them are brain damaged and mentally defective in other ways, and refuse to acknowledge that there is NOTHING that they do that is more intelligent than what anyone else can do with D&D.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditReally? I'd say its much more like the way a certain Swine has recently taken to trolling on my Blog making comments that D&D is only suitable for preteens and is not real "roleplaying" but "Just gaming".

The two hobbies are really two cultures. The one believes in playing RPGs for a full range of reasons, including for Fun and because its a Game; and the other side believing RPGs exist to create pretentious "stories" and that other RPGs are incapable of being "intelligent".

They not only despise (real) RPGs like D&D, but they believe that people who play them are brain damaged and mentally defective in other ways, and refuse to acknowledge that there is NOTHING that they do that is more intelligent than what anyone else can do with D&D.

RPGPundit

You know, someone should really just put together a script which will randomly compile your rants for you.

It may save you a lot of time making the same tired point over and over again.

-O

I think, it's not so much about an ideological divide or at least, I'm not really interested in this aspect of the discussion. What I'm looking for, is folks who have been into rpgs (perhaps since the beginning...I got into it the early 80's)and their changing experience with the game

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RWhat I'm looking for, is folks who have been into rpgs (perhaps since the beginning...I got into it the early 80's)and their changing experience with the game

My changing experience, from my first Red Box Basic Set D&D character Jim Bob the Luckless Fighter (highest stat: STR 9, I think it was), on April 1st, 1983, up to now is... I'm more fussy about what I play and who I play with more than once.

I'll play with anyone, and any game, at least once. I guess there might be some exceptions - if for example droog invited me to game, I'd assume he was just inviting me to insult me in person. I can live without that. But in general, anyone, any game, at least once.

The fussiness comes in for the second session

As I see it, it's like this: I'm 35 years old, hope to have children soon. My gaming days are numbered. I won't live forever, and will only get busier as the years go on. So if I have only so many game sessions left, I want to make the best of them. Much the same goes for the work I do, or the loving I make with my spouse. I'd like to live life to the fullest I reasonably can.

So that makes me fussier about who I game with, and what I play, more than once.

Also, plus, as you grow older you become more curmudgeonly, until you become a grandpa then sometimes you mellow out

"Grandpa, your fireball killed my fighter!"
"Sorry, lad. Here, have a resurrect scroll."

I don't know, David.  Often times you don't see something change when you're too close.  People who haven't seen my kids for three months talk about how my kids have grown.  It's not so evident to me.

That's why, in all humility, my POV is interesting (no one ever accused me of being humble!) because I started playing in 1979 (or '77 or '78, I killed too many brain cells in college - hey, I'm brain damaged!) and then left the hobby for a long time.  I played until about, oh, '94 or so.  Then I left (too busy with new wife, business, job, and house). I returned in 2004, playing D&D in its newest incarnation.  I started reading about theory in 2006, which is how I ended up here.

My point is, I wasn't close to the game when it went through all of these major changes.  When I left, D&D was still dominant (I remember my group being resistant to changing to 2nd Ed.) and the Internet, for purposes of how it's used to discuss games today, was barely a blip on the screen. When I came back, my how things had changed. And I noticed a lot of it whereas I think some people don’t as they have been close to it for so long.

Just a thought.  YMMV, IMHO, FWIW…

EDIT: D&D is still dominant; upon re-reading I implied otherwise. But the widely accessible diversity is much greater.