We have been weekly for some time, but we are about to take a short break (close to a month) due to one player going on a work trip and another couple going on vacation, but we are slated to resume playing when they get back from vacation.

I GM some games online with my friends. Haven't touched an actual IRL game in forever.

Quote from: mcbobbo;753876What would be a better definition?  Preferably one that's not "if you say you are active, you are"?

I'd be on board with a wider period,  for example.  I'd be on board with exceptions for unavoidable dry spells, e.g. moving.  I'm not so much on board with "I was active in high school", "I enjoy reading the books", etc.

It would be kind of neat if we could arrive at a consensus.  Pie in the sky, I know.  But still.

What you say is reasonable. For example, I understand how a group of adults that play every two weeks may miss two sessions in a row, due to RL problems. Still, they're gamers.

I think that what would define being a gamer would be playing regularly, or having an expectation of playing in the near future (cons and similar events included). You may be going through a dry spell due to many causes (moving to another city, your group disbanded) and still be a gamer.

Quote from: The Butcher;753972I feel there's nothing to be gained from labeling posters as "gamer" or "not a gamer". "Non-gamer" is becoming the new "Swine", it seems. What happened to judging people's posts on their own merit?

For me if someone tells me they are a gamer, then I assume they are one. It is no skin off my back if some guy never plays in a game, but has an interest and adopts the moniker. I do think there is something to Kyle Aaron's point about butter non-gamer, that is a much more specific thing and does sometimes appear to be behind certain arguments you encounter online. It is also kind of a different animal.

Being worried about non-gamers is like rooting out the posers in high school to me. I mean, it isn't exactly a prestigious organization we belong to here. Do we really need to start putting up the velvet ropes and inspecting peoples' gamer cards?

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;754370I do think there is something to Kyle Aaron's point about butter non-gamer, that is a much more specific thing and does sometimes appear to be behind certain arguments you encounter online.

Oh great, now the gamers want to EAT the non-gamers.  Run for the hills!!!

Quote from: mcbobbo;754389Oh great, now the gamers want to EAT the non-gamers.  Run for the hills!!!

I've been watching Attack on Titan, so this conjures to mind an extremely fucked up image.

The real point here wasn't to shame anyone, just to analyze exactly how many people here are current and active gamers.  I have a theory that there's a larger proportion of actual gamers here than on other forums.

The whole premise and by extension the definition set by said premise and question is silly. The question asked should be..."how many here are active gamers?" And then further define what is considered "active". Which would better support the actual premise.

Meh you guys go argue whats the right internal.   I play online every other week. Lately we've had more players with issues in real life ao it's been a months or more since the last session.   We're meeting in Tahoe on August for a three day live session.   On average I'd say I'm a gamer. This month apparently I'm not.  I'm not happy about this last month.

Quote from: RPGPundit;755229The real point here wasn't to shame anyone, just to analyze exactly how many people here are current and active gamers.  I have a theory that there's a larger proportion of actual gamers here than on other forums.

I'm not seeing the evidence - there seems to be plenty of "anyone who actually games regularly must be fucked up/hate their kids" type stuff here from the BIGs (Bitter Irregular Gamers).

Quote from: Géza Echs;753192I don't have kids, but I can understand spending the hour or so for each. I can't understand being able to get together a group of at least three adults on a weekly basis for years on end. I've never known anyone - gamer or not - that had that much unwavering free time available to them.

My wife has no problem playing Rugby & going to Rugby practice twice a week. She makes me accommodate her schedule. Why shouldn't I do the same with D&D?

Because she plays rugby? Just sayin'.

Quote from: Marleycat;755830Because she plays rugby? Just sayin'.

Luckily she's only violent on the pitch...

Quote from: S'mon;755769I'm not seeing the evidence - there seems to be plenty of "anyone who actually games regularly must be fucked up/hate their kids" type stuff here from the BIGs (Bitter Irregular Gamers).

Eh, mine is more that if you have 5 adults that all have schedules that allow you to schedule the same time every week, without fail, you have much nicer daily schedules than my group does.

One has a variable schedule at work, two of my players have near opposite M-F schedules (one is 9a-5p, the other is 3p-10a) so our games are on the weekends, another has an autistic son and has to miss games occasionally due to that. I'm actually the one person who has a really super flexible schedule (I work from home and have tasks and deadlines rather than set hours), and even I have to bow out of games occasionally if a big project deadline is coming up.

Yeah, not everyone's group looks like mine, that is no doubt. But it isn't through lack of desire to play, and it isn't due to lack of commitment. Its just that work and family come first, and the specific commitments we have to work and family are a lot harder to plan around than some people's are.

If you have a game group of 5, you'll regularly get 3 of them showing up.

When they are young and have not much else to do, they're disorganised so miss sessions. When they're older and busy, they're organised but busy, so miss sessions. So whatever the age of the players, whatever their lifestyles, people will miss sessions.

This is why you have more people in your game group than you actually want, it's rare they'll all show up each time.

If you have 2 players, when one's absent things are a bit intimate.
3, the one absent is too often the one tying the other 2 together, and it's easy to end up with just 1 person there.
4 players is good, at least 2 will show up.
5 players is better, at least 3 will show up, though it might be different ones each week, there'll usually be at least 1 player's worth of overlap between sessions giving you some continuity, and if all 5 come it'll still work well.
6+ players gives you a lot of slack for missing players, but it's big enough that if everyone shows up this week it's pretty busy, and players may feel disengaged so that when you have just 3 next week, things are a bit flat.

This is why I've long found 5 to be a good number to have in a game group and then stick to the rule of - the game must go on. We play with whoever shows up.