|Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber||
Allow me to address your initial argument/inquiry then Vivianne.
You initially posed the stance and inquiry that violence was not what was posing an issue to expanding the player base for tabletop RPGs and drew a comparison to the presence in video games as a means to refute:
The comment I responded to wasn't about whether it was bad or wrong for tabletop games to be focused on violence. Rather, it was arguing that a focus on violence would make it difficult to attract new players to tabletop games. This is clearly false, as seen by the analogy to video games. A focus on violence hasn't stopped a lot of video games from being violent. Whatever it is that keeps tabletop games from being more popular, it isn't violence.
While no one has argued that violence is what has kept tabletop RPGs relegated to a niche market, this was your first argument. And I fully agree that violence is not what is keeping the tabletop player base much lower than that of video games. More likely causes are:1) the fact that you have to use your imagination (it is not a delivered product).
2) the fact that you typically have to use your math skills for play.
3) the fact that it is a social game typically played in a face-to-face environment with which some folks are not comfortable.
4) the lingering stereotypes ... be they of the insulting (gamers are lazy, unwashed, socially inept, etc.) or fanatical misinformation (gamers are demon worshipers, members of covens, etc.).
5) the fact that the games focus on niche material (though sci-fi and fantasy have grown in popularity, they are still predominantly niche material).
That said, your initial analogy is misleading and false. The point that you were referring to initially was the concern that should a parent observe a game and hear reference to the term "murderhobo" being bandied about in reference to the players, not the "bad guys", then it could result in a loss of a potential player. A more accurate comparison would be a parent observing a PvP match of Counterstrike, Call of Duty or any other FPS and hearing the player banter and making the call based on that. It is not about the violence in the game, it is about the behavior of the people playing the game.
Your next post included the following:
My experience with the word murderhobo is that it is often used as a criticism towards certain kinds of roleplaying games, largely D&D and its descendents. It refers to a type of game that facilitates the "kill creatures that look different from us and take their stuff" playstyle. The word is also used to refer to that playstyle, typically in a derogatory manner. Cf. "rollplay vs. roleplay".
That is, "murderhobo" isn't used non-roleplayers saying something about tabletop roleplaying games, it's used by roleplayers saying something about certain tabletop games. Your idea that this is how people who don't play tabletop roleplaying games view people who do is unfounded.
As this thread developed in response to a separate thread involving the use of "murderhobo" within the ruleset, it was not being used to describe a playstyle, it was being used to describe a character's downtime actions. While I do not argue the term is used by non-gamers, someone hearing the term could very well google it an end up with the definition posted by DrDeth:
I gave the definition I found on the internet and it matches how i use the term. ""Murderhobo(s)" is used especially to refer to characters (or entire parties) of looser morals who tend to regard massive collateral damage as an inevitable and unremarkable consequence of their actions, or who are quite happy to slaughter otherwise friendly NPCs at slight provocation or the prospect of financial gain".
As such, to claim it is beyond the reach of a non-gamer is disingenuous at best. And as are in a world where information can be found almost instantly, the reasons to not rely on claims that a term is not used outside certain circles as being a defense for their use increase beyond the inherent nature of such claims and terms.
It is implying that playing Pathfinder is like playing popular video games? Why is that a bad thing? Honestly, it's really easy to compare to video games to describe tabletop roleplaying games: "It's like video game RPGs but instead of the story and NPCs being programmed in, one of the people playing is in charge of that. Also, rather than interacting with party members through extensive dialog choice systems, you just roleplay with other players."
In this quote you to touch upon one of the reasons the analogy between video games and tabletop is weak at best and outright false at best. Video games and tabletop games, while similar in that they are both games of the roleplaying genre, are inherently different creatures.The plot line is not hard coded, so you cannot claim the use of the term was beyond your control. You cannot make the claim that you are powerless to do anything but follow the preprogrammed plotline and story arc.
To the contrary, you, the players and GM, have complete control and therefore have no one and nothing to hide behind if your actions drive away potential players.
I've not played GTA, but when I've seen people talking about it online, they've talked about its characters and plot. Ditto for WoW. Those games aren't devoid of meaning and story.
True. They do have story ... and sometimes the story is pretty dang good. But then there is playing the game outside of campaign mode, which is pretty much a "mug and carjack fest" for GTA (and don't get me wrong, I had a blast stealing the freaking tank). They are also not without content that many parents deem inappropriate for their kids, which does erode away the "violence is not the reason" argument on at least the front of the younger audience.
Oh get over yourself. The D&D is witchcraft thing is over. When the most common thing cited as espousing that view is a Chick Tract, you can be certain it's a fringe view. Stop demanding that everyone react to a non-existent threat.
People who play roleplaying games aren't being oppressed somehow by people (who also play roleplaying games!) saying "murderhobo".
And then there's this. This supports your argument how, exactly? The late 70's through the 80's were a rough time for gamers, especially in the Bible Belt. This actually still does go on today as one of the removed posted from this thread apparently pointed out. Is it mainstream? Nope. Not at the moment. But it is something gamers should be aware of. "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it" and all that.
Additionally, this was you showing complete disdain and trivializing the opposing viewpoint. You really had not "proved" anything at this point (as you are claiming to have done), you're just violating the first rule of the boards.
I'm going to skip over most of your next post in the thread (as it just touches on the above points again without adding to them) except for this bit:
I'm sure that Adamantine Dragon considers this an important issue. The problem is that this "important issue" is just a bogeyman in his head.
Another example of first rule violation ... and still no "proven" argument.
The problem is that not all concerns are valid. The concern that people saying "murderhobo" will lead to people thinking Pathfinder encourages violence and witchcraft which will lead to Pathfinder being unable to attract new players is not a valid concern. This can be seen by comparing a similar medium, namely video games. Accusations have been thrown at video games, saying that they promote violence and satanism. Consider the video game Doom. You even see this sort of accusation in the present/recent path, though it is much more fringe. See e.g. here, here, here, or here.
A similar medium has survived and even thrived under the same sort of accusations of violence and satanism that have been thrown at tabletop roleplaying games. If someone thinks that these accusations scare a significant number of people off from roleplaying games, they have to explain why the same hasn't happened to video games. Why are such accusations a threat to tabletop games but not video games?
Again, in this section, you use the video game analogy. As pointed out earlier, it is not the violence itself that is the issue so much as the actions and behaviors of those who are participating in the game. You are better served to compare the in game chat of the two mediums.
However, in comparing those two, you then fall into the level of accessibility to them. For tabletop, one need only be present in order to observe and game and hear any terms or conversation thrown around the game table. One must be logged into hear the in game chatter and as such the comparison between tabletop and video games falls apart.
It's certainly true that tabletop games are a niche medium. However, I think this can be easily explained by perfectly mundane reasons. It's hard to get people into tabletop games because, for example,
- monetary costs (buying books, miniatures, gamemats, etc.)
- spending the time upfront to learn the rules (it doesn't help that for a lot of tabletop games, the rulebooks aren't very well written and it takes a decent amount of system mastery to build a competent character);
- finding other people to play with and finding a common time to meet;
- ongoing time commitments and keeping schedules sufficiently consistent;
- lingering social stigma that tabletop games are weird/nerdy.
This can be explained without appealing to moral panics about violence and satanism.
There is no reason to be concerned about the threat to tabletop gaming posed by the word "murderhobo" because it poses no threat. That is why such concerns are being dismissed. It's not that the concern is less important. Rather, the concern is entirely unimportant.
To counter your list, a new game is very often more expensive than any give rulebook and allows one(1) person to play.
The learning curve I will not argue.
Online gameplay has reduced this argument, but yes, is a historically accurate statement.
That lingering social stigma is not limited to the nerd factor. There is still the "evil" stigma in some circles.
So all in all, no real "proof" at this point either. and then you follow up by calling the counter argument "unimportant".
Skipped a post in which you raised the same "why did it not affect video games" question.
And then this:
I did the same thing in my post on the second page of this thread. I explained why the concern isn't valid and then dismissed it. My most recent comment just expanded on my earlier argument. I don't think other people commenting in the thread should be obligated to argue why Adamantine Dragon's concern is invalid before saying anything else. The thread already contains an argument (and a later expansion of that argument) that his concerns are invalid.
Gotta love a claim of proof without proof.
followed by :
I have refuted Adamantine Dragon's position. I explained why his conclusion does not follow from the premises. If someone disagrees with this, then they should provide a coherent reason to disagree. Just calling it an opinion is a dishonest attempt to avoid addressing the points I raised.
And my response is thus:
At this point there really is no "proof", especially to AD's OP of basically not liking the term as a catch all for the game and the player characters for EVERYONE. Give up the pretense of having "won" the argument, because you have not done so by a long shot. Your attempt at analogy is flawed at best and your attitude to your fellow posters is less than desirable.