From: nicholso@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov (Melvin H. Nicholson YBH)
Subject: Re: Hostility in Gamers toward Certain Games
Organization: NASA Ames Res. Ctr. Mtn Vw CA 94035
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 92 19:24:26 GMT

As usual, I'm going to take at look at extreme positions from some
unspecified middle ground and try to make analysis both side and maybe even
draw a useful conclusion or two.

Given the newsgroups side, it shouldn't be surprising to see that the
boardgame-hating RPG'ers and RPG-hating boardgamers locked horns.  I'll
start with the anti-boardgamers first because they posted first, and
then get to their counterparts later.

The first (and most common) mantra of the foaming RPG enthiusiast who
meets a lowly boardgamer seems to be "What?  A boardgame?  But
boardgames involve no IMAGINATION."  This is insulting and untrue.

Within a boardgame, even one with a tightly constrained range of
movement, there is much room for imagination.  Finding a new way to
convince France that an Italian Fleet in the Tyrhennian really isn't
a threat or perhaps totally ignoring the "absolutely required" station
in 1830's New York in favor of a novel Chicago/Deep South diesel run
which travells by way of Montreal can be truly imaginative.

"Yes," conceeds the RPG'er, "but the RULES in a boardgame constrain what
you can do.  In a Role Playing Game, you can do ANYTHING."

Boardgame players have accepted constraints and are working to act
within those constraints as imaginatively as possible.  Whether you
realise it or not, as an RPG player you have accepted a similar set of
constraints by accepting a game master and a rules system.

I suppose I could go on to petty issues, but those majors ones should be
sufficient for now, and I can't think of any other BIG issues right now,
so on to the manic boardgamer.

"RPG's are for young students who don't have to work in the Real
World(tm).  RPG players are IMMATURE."

At least the insults go both ways.  I don't need to point out that many
mainstream snob call ALL of us immature just for playing games.  I
refuse to believe that it is any flaw in maturity that tips the favor
toward RPG's.  Games of this nature can cover serious and worthwhile
topics in a mature and meaningful way.

"Hmph," sneers the zealot, "but those games have no structure!"

Those games can have as much or little structure as the designer and
master want (within the limits of their abilities personally).  That
is precisely what draws mny of the players/masters --- they DISLIKE
the structure of boardgames.

Oh, any one note on extremists on just about any polarized issue.  "Sure
boardgamers/RPG'ers/Democrats/Republicans/my side do that to, but they
aren't as snobbish about it."

What hypocracy!  I leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure out
why that is so ironic.  I will note, however that the term THEY is often
used in the above structure.  My thoery is that this is out of some
attempt to appear objective/uninvolved/whatever, out of the popular
belief that objectivity lend correctness.  The operation is probably
unconscious, but I am sure it is present.

Tending away from the extremes, a few real problems/tradeoffs can be
found with both genres.  The big complaint I have for RPG's is that
they require a game master, who must be set apart from the others and
usually must be impartial to at least some extent to make the game fun.
This seems intrinsically alienating.  Also the typical absense of
winning conditions often lacks a sense of completeness I find to my
taste.  Finally, I like the equal standing of competition which can be
found more easily in boardgames than RPG's.

The RPG players may point out that in shedding the victory conditions
they gain a sense a self determination in forming their own goals.  They
gain a flexibility of action limited only by the imagination of
themselves and that of their game master (if your move is too subtle for
the game master to figure out, it is likely to fail).

In summary, Boardgames gain direct competition and objective control but
pay for this with a constrain of action, while RPG'ers gain potentially
infinite flexibilty at the price of setting apart a game master and
placing the onus of consistancy upon him.

The question of which you prefer is largely a matter of taste, trading
off the prices for the gains.

I am *not* going to extend this to the BIG GAME/SMALL GAME argument, as
the conclusion comes out exactly the same, just like almost any
preference issue: Worth and cost are subjective.

Mel




Newsgroups: rec.games.board