Consider that part of the problem is, is that we are exploring just how diverse the hobby is, and that the term role play has long been tossed around as a catch all.
Having set definitions is divisive, but that's not necessarily a bad thing, take E-Gaming for example, pretty much any competitive game has both the casual and competitive side of it, the division there is actually beneficial, casuals don't want tryhards ruining their fun the same way the experts don't want casuals ruining their game. Of couse our hobby is not a competitive one, but having a clear distinction will end up helping both sides. It is clear that there are people seeking different things when playing RPGs, and helping it be clear will end up benefiting everyone. Either way thanks for sharing your thoughts
Separating us from them help you get the team of players you want to play games with. Imagine that you are gathering people for a tennis, while some of the people will be rugby players. Do you really want rugby players in your team? No. You exclude people and pick only those you will be at home with, when it comes to storytelling, combat, time of play etc. A GM who runs free form games won't feel good with a rules lawyer and vice versa. Now. All one need to do is to understand that his way is his way and maybe few other people only. But doing that requires something more than being an rpg hobbyist. Not everyone os capable of doing so. I was attacked numerous times for my approach to WFRP. For me original IS the Warhammer. Rest is just an "official" modification of rules, that mas made and release by a team of not original game designers. And all those mods can by easily oincorporated to my "1e" Warhammer book by myself. Is there any need for me to buy yet another rule book? No. But I was called names for not buying books I don't need. Sometimes having rules that were invented by my peers 30 years ago, but recently added to 4th edition. Wow. Just wow. In other words, if someone doesn't get the idea that my way of playing is what suits my, and what I am saying is a pure description of how I do things it is his problem not mine. Many people just feel attacked or threatened by statements of different ideas. Youare either grown up human being or not. PS. What is a role playing game? Well, name speaks for itself. It's a game about ROLE PLAYING a certain character. What opart of ROLE PLAYING isn't clear? ;) End of discussion. That's why I am strongly against modern shorthand ttrpg. It's rpg vs crpg (computer rpg). In latter cases there's no role playing in it. Plain and simple. The best solutions are always the simplest ones.
![[UA] NAVI vs MOUZ | BO5 | IEM Rio 2024](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/CMBYk0cbGoA/mqdefault.jpg)
Consider that part of the problem is, is that we are exploring just how diverse the hobby is, and that the term role play has long been tossed around as a catch all.
Rock on.
I do hope to never come across as divisive, and to always recognize that my way of thought isn't the only way to think. 🙂
Division is to distinguish an enemy. Diversity is to build bridges with discussion.
Thanks for recording this, I share your sentiment.
Having set definitions is divisive, but that's not necessarily a bad thing, take E-Gaming for example, pretty much any competitive game has both the casual and competitive side of it, the division there is actually beneficial, casuals don't want tryhards ruining their fun the same way the experts don't want casuals ruining their game. Of couse our hobby is not a competitive one, but having a clear distinction will end up helping both sides. It is clear that there are people seeking different things when playing RPGs, and helping it be clear will end up benefiting everyone.
Either way thanks for sharing your thoughts
Separating us from them help you get the team of players you want to play games with. Imagine that you are gathering people for a tennis, while some of the people will be rugby players. Do you really want rugby players in your team? No. You exclude people and pick only those you will be at home with, when it comes to storytelling, combat, time of play etc. A GM who runs free form games won't feel good with a rules lawyer and vice versa. Now. All one need to do is to understand that his way is his way and maybe few other people only. But doing that requires something more than being an rpg hobbyist. Not everyone os capable of doing so. I was attacked numerous times for my approach to WFRP. For me original IS the Warhammer. Rest is just an "official" modification of rules, that mas made and release by a team of not original game designers. And all those mods can by easily oincorporated to my "1e" Warhammer book by myself. Is there any need for me to buy yet another rule book? No. But I was called names for not buying books I don't need. Sometimes having rules that were invented by my peers 30 years ago, but recently added to 4th edition. Wow. Just wow. In other words, if someone doesn't get the idea that my way of playing is what suits my, and what I am saying is a pure description of how I do things it is his problem not mine. Many people just feel attacked or threatened by statements of different ideas. Youare either grown up human being or not. PS. What is a role playing game? Well, name speaks for itself. It's a game about ROLE PLAYING a certain character. What opart of ROLE PLAYING isn't clear? ;) End of discussion. That's why I am strongly against modern shorthand ttrpg. It's rpg vs crpg (computer rpg). In latter cases there's no role playing in it. Plain and simple. The best solutions are always the simplest ones.