From: batemanc@p4.cs.man.ac.uk (Mad Chris)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board,rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Hostility in Gamers toward Certain Games
Date: 8 Sep 92 13:22:58 GMT
Followup-To: rec.games.board

My mailer daemon is being an absolute B*****D to me at the moment
and I just know this is going to get bounced. Anyway, I'm going to
give it a try anyhow...

------------------------------------------------------------------
As a preamble, let me just say that I'm a role-player, board-gamer,
card-gamer, live-role-player, wargamer, MUDict and computer gamer in
that order. I don't like Monopoly, but I'll play it because I'll play
anything (Monopoly is the tactical equivalent of Snakes and Ladders:
I don't enjoy that either). Anyway, the way I see it is like this:
The main reasons for playing a game are summarised below in Table 1.1
with each being rated on a scale of 1 to 5 with * meaning a variation
depending on the exact case. I stress these are purely subjective
values and I've obviously had to be very stylised to produce such a
useless chart.

			    TABLE 1.1
			    ---------

		     RPG  Board  Card  LRP  Wargame  MUD  Computer
ENJOYMENT             *     *      *    *      *      *      *
EDUCATION	      5     *      2    1      3      4	     *
FINANCIAL GAIN	      0     1	   5    0      0      0	     0
STRATEGIC KNOWLEDGE   3     *      2    3      5      1      *
PHYSICAL CHALLENGE    0     *      0    5      0      0      0
MENTAL CHALLENGE      *     *      2    2      3      1      *
HUMAN INTERACTION     5     *      2    3      1      5      0
COMPETITION	      1	    5      5    4      5      2      2
VARIETY		      4     5      2    3      3      2      3

Now before you rattle off compaints of the form:

<game type> should not be rated <rating> because <reason>

All I'm trying to say is two things:

(i)  Every game suits a certain type of person at a certain time
(ii) Every type of game teaches something different - or nothing at all

One of the reasons I reckon RPG's are so rife amongst students is because
they are very educational - I reckon them to be the single most educational
activity in existance. Yes, even more educational than lectures, because if
you are playing an RPG you are playing for fun and hence paying attention.
Of couse, you never know exactly what you are going to learn, and you are
limited by the factors of:

(i)  The sum of all player knowledge
(ii) The sum of all designer knowledge

But there's still a lot of stuff to be learnt. But having said that, I don't
think to myself 'Oh! I could do with some education - lets do some role
playing', but the point is that as well as there being different REASONS
to play certain games, there are different VALUES in certain games.

I don't think this was the point I was trying to make, actually. Can anyone
tell me the point I was trying to make?
(Too little sleep: that's the problem.)

While I'm at it, will the person who said that the problem with RPG's was 
having to set aside one player as the GM please stand up. Whilst I agree
to the reverse of this argument: that one of the strengths of board games
is not having to set someone aside, I personally really LIKE GMing - and I
know I'm not alone. I don't see this as a problem because just as different
people like different games, some people prefer to GM and some prefer to 
play. I don't think the hobby would have survived so long (and so well) if
it wasn't for this.

I'm going to give up on this: I can barely keep awake as it is, and I'm not
sure I'm making any sense. I mean, for Arioch's sake, I've got a labled 
table in this post...

And I bet it doesn't get through...

All Hail Discordia!

Mad Chris.