The death of tabletop roleplaying


General Discussion

1 to 50 of 109 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Over the last few years, I've observed a disturbing trend in roleplayers, both here on the forums, out there on other forums, and at various play tables: People keep asking questions about simple rules that are clearly spelled out in the rulebook.

I suspect this growing trend in willful ignorance is because many roleplayers today simply don't have the patience required to sit down and read the rulebooks. For the most part, they probably just start playing and hope for the best, relying on others to hold their hands along the way until it finally clicks, if it ever does.

What's more, roleplaying games keep getting simplified over and over again to better accommodate this new generation. Simpler rules, after all, don't require as much reading or take as long to learn.

It is this impatience, I fear, that will ultimately doom this hobby in the years to come. The next few generations will increasingly not even bother picking up the books in lieu of something more immediately exciting, such as the latest VR game.

What do you think? Have you observed similar trends at public tables or online? Do you think it a genuine threat to the well being of our beloved hobby? Is there anything we, or the game companies, can do to avert this impending disaster?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't notice it being any more common among gamers now than it was a decade or two ago, personally. There have always been people that don't care that much about learning the rules (or who don't care about reading the setting material beyond the minimum they need to play.)

As far as the health of the hobby, I think we're actually doing better now than ever before in terms of both the quality and quantity of games available to choose from, whether we want to go with industry leaders or indie publishing and whether we prefer our games with lots of crunch or rules light.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Congratulations, you've noticed how the high entry bar (complexity of rules, the need of having somebody be the GM, ALL THEM RULEBOOKS) of RPGs made them fall behind board games.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Sitting down and reading rulebooks end to end was not how I started playing any new RPG when I was a kid. We'd make characters (using the character creation process to lead us to the rules) and launch into it from there. If the game was good enough I'd read the rulebook thoroughly once it looked like we were going to keep at it.

There was a time when RPGs were more popular than now and computer games had less penetration then. Those factors probably are linked. Kids don't have more or less patience now though that I can tell.

TL;DR version - no, there never was that sort of golden age suggested in the OP.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I've been playing RPGs for 30+ years and I don't think I've ever sat down and read a rulebook cover to cover. I skim the rulebook so I know where things are. Read highlights and then look up rules as I need them so I don't think what you're highlighting is a new thing.

I also think tabletop RPGs will always offer something that computer games and even VR games will not and that is the fact that their scope is infinite. You can literally go anywhere and (at least try) to do anything within the world you're playing. Even with the most powerful computers we are still unable to simulate an entire living breathing planet which is what an RPG allows the GM to put in front of players if they want to. Until computing power catches up to that I don't see RPGs dying by the wayside anytime soon.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

When I first started playing, I knew absolutely nothing about Pathfinder. Never even held a Pathfinder book before I showed up to the group. Which was the DM and his girlfriend, specifically to teach me. Since that humble beginning, I've now acquired quite the collection of RPG books.

And I've never read any of them cover-to-cover. I do, however, read the parts I need to know for what character I'm playing, and things I plan on doing.

However, I have seen this scourge you speak of. As well as people who just can't seem to "get it." Who will ask which die to roll for check, even after they've been playing for ten sessions. Or who has to stop the game to look up a spell that they've cast dozens of times already.

It is annoying. But I don't think it will lead to the ending of table-top gaming as we know it.

What I DO think will end it is the complete disregard of the RP part of RPG. Everywhere I look, I see people who just don't care about actually role playing the character they make. Power gamers, min-maxers, That Guys, whatever you want to call them. The people who only care about the numbers, the math, and throw personality and character out the window.


Ravingdork wrote:

Over the last few years, I've observed a disturbing trend in roleplayers, both here on the forums, out there on other forums, and at various play tables: People keep asking questions about simple rules that are clearly spelled out in the rulebook.

I suspect this growing trend in willful ignorance is because many roleplayers today simply don't have the patience required to sit down and read the rulebooks. For the most part, they probably just start playing and hope for the best, relying on others to hold their hands along the way until it finally clicks, if it ever does.

What's more, roleplaying games keep getting simplified over and over again to better accommodate this new generation. Simpler rules, after all, don't require as much reading or take as long to learn.

It is this impatience, I fear, that will ultimately doom this hobby in the years to come. The next few generations will increasingly not even bother picking up the books in lieu of something more immediately exciting, such as the latest VR game.

What do you think? Have you observed similar trends at public tables or online? Do you think it a genuine threat to the well being of our beloved hobby? Is there anything we, or the game companies, can do to avert this impending disaster?

As opposed to the halcyon days of yore when the players weren't allowed to read the ruleboks, but were supposed to learn their craft at the hands of an experienced GM.

Nah, I haven't seen such a trend. There have always been people who didn't "sit down and read the rule books". There have always been simpler games and games that revelled in their complexity and swings between them in popularity.

In short "kids these days, get off my lawn."


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Well...that's a relief. :D


2 people marked this as a favorite.

*cough* Honestly, what irks me more than people asking questions answered in the books ( which can easily just be an oversight or a failure of memory, as often its not the easiest thing to locate specific rule cites )?

Is when people make declarative statements about what is in the rules book, which aren't actually true. Ignorance can be corrected simply by providing knowledge. Willful misinterpretation, not so much.

Which is to say, insofar as the Paizoverse has a "problem", I'd say its less with people who don't read the book, and more with people who do read the book, but with an agenda unfiltered by self-awareness.


Overuse of computer/console based games does have implications for brain development in children and adolescents, especially today's more graphically realistic games. The reward pathways become wired differently for people who overuse any given modality (i.e., video games, television, radio, print text, oral tradition, etc.). By "overuse" here, I don't intend any judgement, just a factual statement of degree. The neural reward pathways for children and adolescent steeped in video games fire differently than those of children and youth steeped in print. This leads to some of the differences observed by us "older" gamers whose childhoods were spent with printed game materials and whose video games were limited to the local arcade and, if we were fortunate, an Atari 2600 with more than just Combat and Space Invaders.


What will save table top roleplaying is that people who write the games need to realize that their core audience are highly creative. People who play RPGs are often the most creative at their craft.

If Table-top RPGs continue to make rules for the most creative of people, then the hobby won't die.


I think that "reading the whole rule books end to end" is not the point; the point is to read the portions of the books that are relevant to your character. That's what I took from RD's post, anyway.

I do think that today's gamers have less patience, and that our hobby will probably die out because of that. It will likely outlive me, though, so I'm not that concerned. All things pass.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Corathonv2 wrote:

I think that "reading the whole rule books end to end" is not the point; the point is to read the portions of the books that are relevant to your character. That's what I took from RD's post, anyway.

I do think that today's gamers have less patience, and that our hobby will probably die out because of that. It will likely outlive me, though, so I'm not that concerned. All things pass.

Pretty much this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Corathonv2 wrote:

I think that "reading the whole rule books end to end" is not the point; the point is to read the portions of the books that are relevant to your character. That's what I took from RD's post, anyway.

I do think that today's gamers have less patience, and that our hobby will probably die out because of that. It will likely outlive me, though, so I'm not that concerned. All things pass.

Let me regale you with two stories of DMs who hadn't even opened the core book.

Story #1: We shall call this DM "Chris." Chris wanted to get a group together to play. He had never played before, or ran a game. He admitted as much. We players thought it would be ok, since new people should be welcomed to the hobby. We did not expect him to show up not having even glanced at the rules online.

What proceeded was a clusterf~~% of two sessions wherein he allowed pretty much every 3rd-party supplement during character creation. So we had a pirate with modern machine guns. A vampire lord with over a dozen thralls. A were-bear that managed to have all of his stats at at least 20. And a Barbarian with a shield and ax. I was the Barbarian.

Eventually, the were-bear infected every other party member with some random were-mutation. The vampire became a were-shark. The pirate became a were-tiger. He infected an entire island-city. He then infected a flying cracken.

Eventually, this DM stopped responding to texts, calls, or any other form of communication and just vanished. So, oh well.

Story #2: This DM blames me for ruining his game. It was supposed to be based in the Magick: The Gathering universe. Three people had already played a couple sessions before I entered.

He couldn't remember his custom character creation rules that he made, since he never bothered to look up how to actually make characters. So, knowing nothing about Magick: The Gathering, I ask him if I could play a very fast character that just hit stuff.

During the course of the creation, I ended up with a druggy and a custom combat-drug that was a cross between meth and meth. It was basically meth.

My first mission? Steal a cupcake. Magical cupcakes. From a magical cupcake factory. "Ok," I thought. "This isn't going to be a serious game."

I steal a cupcake, acting like a methed-out meth-head when I got caught. The players decide to strip me, hang me by my ankles from a tree, burn my clothes, and punch me while I hang there. So again, not very serious.

Long story short, we get together, and his big-bad kills me in one hit. On my turn, because of a nat-1 to hit him.

He then steals my soul. And I get a nat-20 to take over his body from the inside, then proceed to kill the big-big-bad. And the DM hates me for ruining his game.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I've been playing RPG's since the late 80s. There are more people/companies making games and more people buying those games today, than at any other point in that history. If anything the hobby is growing. I remember when DragonCon was one hotel lobby, it's now 5 full hotels and several city blocks full of people. There are literally multiple YouTube and Twitch streams and podcasts dedicated to various games. People are literally watching some of them like they'd watch sitcoms.

That trend may not continue. It may plateau or wax and wane, but I don't think now is the right time to worry about it.

In all those years, I've seen players that read rulebooks cover to cover. I've seen players that read just the handful of sections that pertain to their character. I've seen players that refused to crack open a book unless they were dragged to a table kicking and screaming and chained down until they read something, anything about the game. This hasn't gotten any different over the years, in my experience, it just is.

People play these games for different reasons. To some people, it's just an excuse to hang out with friends or significant others. For others it's a complex puzzle that they must master every nuance of. For others, it's a way to tell a story or practice their acting. All of those (and basically every other reason to play) are equally valid.

I read every book, cover to cover, multiple times. I re-read the sections that I find hard. I memorize page numbers and whole sections of rules text so that I can answer people's questions at the table or at least tell people where to find rules when they ask. That doesn't make me any 'better' than anyone else. It's just how I work. Other players work differently, and that's completely okay.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wait, you're supposed to read the rule book cover to cover? Every GM I talked to was like "No don't do that."


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
WhiteWeasel wrote:
Wait, you're supposed to read the rule book cover to cover? Every GM I talked to was like "No don't do that."

Of course not, it would be a threat to their power if players did that and suddenly knew more about that game then they did.

;P


Ravingdork wrote:
WhiteWeasel wrote:
Wait, you're supposed to read the rule book cover to cover? Every GM I talked to was like "No don't do that."

Of course not, it would be a threat to their power if players did that and suddenly knew more about that game then they did.

;P

Yeah, Gygax was such an power hungry tyrant wasn't he?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber

One of the interesting things that I've observed over the past couple of decades is system design that shows an increasing dislike for randomness and risk. Dice used to be a big thing in all parts of the game, but more and more modern d20 systems seem to be moving to point buy, fixed starting gold, fixed hit points per level, Taking 10 (and equivalents) to flatten skill risk, etc. It's also increasingly hard to die from edition to edition--to the point that in Starfinder you almost have to beg for it :) Preferences are subjective, but I do miss the approach of the past sometimes.


Ravingdork wrote:
WhiteWeasel wrote:
Wait, you're supposed to read the rule book cover to cover? Every GM I talked to was like "No don't do that."

Of course not, it would be a threat to their power if players did that and suddenly knew more about that game then they did.

;P

Thing is though they told me that when I asked about being a GM myself.


Jhaeman wrote:
One of the interesting things that I've observed over the past couple of decades is system design that shows an increasing dislike for randomness and risk. Dice used to be a big thing in all parts of the game, but more and more modern d20 systems seem to be moving to point buy, fixed starting gold, fixed hit points per level, Taking 10 (and equivalents) to flatten skill risk, etc. It's also increasingly hard to die from edition to edition--to the point that in Starfinder you almost have to beg for it :) Preferences are subjective, but I do miss the approach of the past sometimes.

I think at least the first part is due to the prominence of the build game. Character design being such an important part of modern D&D especially, leaving any significant part of it to randomness cuts into the system mastery of it all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jhaeman wrote:
One of the interesting things that I've observed over the past couple of decades is system design that shows an increasing dislike for randomness and risk. Dice used to be a big thing in all parts of the game, but more and more modern d20 systems seem to be moving to point buy, fixed starting gold, fixed hit points per level, Taking 10 (and equivalents) to flatten skill risk, etc. It's also increasingly hard to die from edition to edition--to the point that in Starfinder you almost have to beg for it :) Preferences are subjective, but I do miss the approach of the past sometimes.

I much prefer the fixed-systems for point buy, gold, and hit points. Though that is mainly just so that players don't get an edge-up on other players.

A Rogue with some good attribute rolls could completely dominate any game. And then add in the chance of that Rogue also having more hit-points than the Barbarian, and what's really the point of having other players except for meat?


My wife had trouble because the books were unwieldy for her.

So, I started getting pocket editions.

Saved our marriage!

Not really, but it makes game night easier. :-)


That said, learning is sometimes easier by doing and asking then reading.

So I don't mind silly questions.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
WhiteWeasel wrote:
Wait, you're supposed to read the rule book cover to cover? Every GM I talked to was like "No don't do that."

Of course not, it would be a threat to their power if players did that and suddenly knew more about that game then they did.

;P

Yeah, Gygax was such an power hungry tyrant wasn't he?

I've heard rumors.

WhiteWeasel wrote:


Thing is though they told me that when I asked about being a GM myself.

Wow. For real?


Ravingdork wrote:


Wow. For real?

Yeah, they tell me it's too much information to digest and it's just better to skim it/look up as you need. I'm not too inclined to agree with that.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
WhiteWeasel wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:


Wow. For real?
Yeah, they tell me it's too much information to digest and it's just better to skim it/look up as you need. I'm not too inclined to agree with that.

Depending on what game you're playing, that might actually not be too far off from the truth. The sheer amount of information and rules can be quite intimidating. (Pathfinder has over 30 hardback books and over a hundred paperback supplements.)

Still, how much information one can digest should probably be determined by the person wanting to learn, and not by the GM.


12 people marked this as a favorite.

The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.-socrates


To contribute something to the main topic, it could possibly be Sturgeon's Law. Seems like tabletop games are more accessible now than ever before and being a "nerd" isn't stigmatized like it was decades ago. So games "back in the day" only attracted the people that were really into it. And now days, you just have nine joe schmoes throwing dice around for every great role player.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

This thread reeks of crotchetiness and gatekeeping.


Armok: God of Blood wrote:
This thread reeks of crotchetiness and gatekeeping.

Do elaborate, please.


WhiteWeasel wrote:

To contribute something to the main topic, it could possibly be Sturgeon's Law. Seems like tabletop games are more accessible now than ever before and being a "nerd" isn't stigmatized like it was decades ago. So games "back in the day" only attracted the people that were really into it. And now days, you just have nine joe schmoes throwing dice around for every great role player.

I think this is definitely a major contributing factor.

This thread is interesting to me, because I'm something of a newcomer when it comes to tabletop gaming. I only had the slightest exposure to 3.5, and I got my start in the hobby around 2012 or 2013. I was a regular player of Magic: The Gathering, so figuring out complex and fiddly rules interactions was something I already enjoyed. Once I had been introduced to Pathfinder, it wasn't long before I had read the book cover-to-cover, (though not in a single sitting or from front to back.)

As I've taught other people new to the hobby, I've definitely noticed there seem to be 2 general camps I can group players into. Camp A are the sort who read rulebooks obsessively, like to engage in theory crafting, and are probably the ones who actually want to GM after playing a PC for a while. Right now my usual gaming group has 3 people who would probably fall into Camp A, alongside myself.

The 2nd group, let's call them Camp B, are much less interested in the finer points of the rules, but they probably enjoy roleplaying, the competition of tactical combat, and the social atmosphere of the game. My group right now has 3 people who'd fall into Camp B, with 2 more in between the 2 camps, each leaning toward a different one.

I definitely get the sense that the "Camp B" members of my group would probably not have joined the hobby on their own. The "Nerd Elitism" as well as social stigma against "nerdy" hobbies both would have worked to discourage these players.

I've never had a problem with these more "casual" players, because since my entry into it they were present in the community. From what I see in this thread, though, my feelings are not universal. I'd be curious to see if there's any correlation between time spent in the hobby and prevalence of these "anti-casual" (or "hardcore" to borrow some elitist videogame lingo) attitudes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've been playing RPGs since the early 80s and while I do generally read the rulebooks, I don't do so obsessively. I've got little real interest in theory crafting and find most of the complex and fiddly rules interactions frustrating at best and generally bad game design.
It's the roleplaying and the in game challenges that I enjoy. I don't GM much, but that's more due to social issues than anything - it's an enormous stressor for me.
I guess I fall more into your Camp B, as over the years have most of the best GMs I've played with. At least for my preferences. I've played a lot other RPGs besides the D&D family, both more rules-light and a few even crunchier.

I'm not fond of the "casual" terminology as you use it here. I've certainly played with plenty of casual players - those there more for the social interaction and the silly jokes rather than the game itself, but I don't think there's much correlation between "casual" and "into the mechanics" - other I suppose that casual players will be less into the whole package. I have seen some come in from video games (or card games) with a very strong focus on the rules and mechanics and then drift out again because they weren't into the actual roleplay interaction side of the hobby.


Armok: God of Blood wrote:
This thread reeks of crotchetiness and gatekeeping.

Hops in tub

*shake shake shake shake*

How about now?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

What's gatekeeping?


I actually did read the core book cover to cover, but that is more to reinforce all the rules for the sake of other people. I have the reputation as an encyclopedia of rules, while avoiding being a rules lawyer.


Ravingdork wrote:
What's gatekeeping?

While it's not my place to speak for the god of blood, I can offer a general definition.

Gatekeeping is a form of elitism in regards to a given interest. Wanting to keep the "dirty casuals" out. Takes different forms depending on the fandom. For instance, "hardcore" PC gamers who prefer games with a lot of mechanical complexity, what they would term "having a lot of depth" and what others might term as being "overly complex, clunky, and intuitive", and would view any attempt to change those mechanics to make it more accessible as "dumbing down" rather than, say, "streamlining".

Basically someone who says "the way I like this thing is the only proper way to like it, and anyone who doesn't meet my standards isn't a real fan and doesn't belong."


I can find active, open games of Tunnels and Trolls, Earthdawn 1st edition, or any other variety of inactive development games with ease on any of the wide variety of VTT or online gaming sites. There's more direct support re: community for games and gamers, rules discussion, and designer interaction across the entire industry than any previous era. Everything from video playthroughs, podcast discussions, and support for gamers with a variety of physical handicaps is a level I couldn't even dream of when I started with gaming.

The death of tabletop gaming isn't in any way something to worry about, unless you're determined to be the gatekeeper for OneTrueWayism.


I read all general rules and everything concerning early level play. Once the characters start to level up, I read what's relevant next (class powers, feats with prerequisites, spells).


Dread Moores wrote:

I can find active, open games of Tunnels and Trolls, Earthdawn 1st edition, or any other variety of inactive development games with ease on any of the wide variety of VTT or online gaming sites. There's more direct support re: community for games and gamers, rules discussion, and designer interaction across the entire industry than any previous era. Everything from video playthroughs, podcast discussions, and support for gamers with a variety of physical handicaps is a level I couldn't even dream of when I started with gaming.

The death of tabletop gaming isn't in any way something to worry about, unless you're determined to be the gatekeeper for OneTrueWayism.

I believe that what Ravingdork is saying, though feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, is not that people can't or shouldn't play. It's that they eventually won't WANT to play because they have to read the books and actually learn how it works when they could just hop onto The Elder Scrolls X: VR Edition for immediate gratification.


I'd certainly hypothesize that you are seeing a false trend, in that there are more people playing table-top roleplaying games than ever before, however, the same number of "hardcore" players still exist, meaning that the population is becoming diluted and leading to a false conclusion.
There is still a market for niche, older style games, however, the market for accessible, simpler, and easier games that require little to no investment on the players' parts is becoming a larger and more lucrative segment.

That being said, the TT market will not die, anymore than the PC market did about 15 years ago when everyone started screaming that the sky is falling.

If you don't like the majority of players, that's fine, just find a group of likeminded individuals.


Azalah wrote:
Dread Moores wrote:

I can find active, open games of Tunnels and Trolls, Earthdawn 1st edition, or any other variety of inactive development games with ease on any of the wide variety of VTT or online gaming sites. There's more direct support re: community for games and gamers, rules discussion, and designer interaction across the entire industry than any previous era. Everything from video playthroughs, podcast discussions, and support for gamers with a variety of physical handicaps is a level I couldn't even dream of when I started with gaming.

The death of tabletop gaming isn't in any way something to worry about, unless you're determined to be the gatekeeper for OneTrueWayism.

I believe that what Ravingdork is saying, though feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, is not that people can't or shouldn't play. It's that they eventually won't WANT to play because they have to read the books and actually learn how it works when they could just hop onto The Elder Scrolls X: VR Edition for immediate gratification.

Perhaps, but that we can still easily find people playing 30 year old games suggest that he's wrong. That people still are interested.

What may be happening is that the surge of interest in 5th has brought many new players (or brought back old casual ones) and more of those than of the long term gamers are "casual", so the percentage changes without actually reducing the number of hardcore players.
That's assuming there's anything to it all beyond "kids these days".


Mr Jade wrote:

I'd certainly hypothesize that you are seeing a false trend, in that there are more people playing table-top roleplaying games than ever before, however, the same number of "hardcore" players still exist, meaning that the population is becoming diluted and leading to a false conclusion.

There is still a market for niche, older style games, however, the market for accessible, simpler, and easier games that require little to no investment on the players' parts is becoming a larger and more lucrative segment.

That being said, the TT market will not die, anymore than the PC market did about 15 years ago when everyone started screaming that the sky is falling.

If you don't like the majority of players, that's fine, just find a group of likeminded individuals.

That's what I was trying to say :)

I am amused though by the general transition to crunchier games being considered "older style", when it wasn't that long ago that the OSR movement was talking about getting back to the old lighter "rulings not rules" style.
"What goes around ..." I guess.

I suspect it's not a general trend caused by video games or anything, but more of a cyclical thing.


I suppose I would be considered a "hardcore" gamer, even though I've only been playing for five years. My first DM said I was a natural, and I still take pride in that. That being said, with all the (filthy) "casual" players, it is very hard for me to find a game that I'm suited for.

I'm not saying that their style of play is wrong. If you have fun just joking and messing around, then that's the kind of game you should play. My issue is just that those types of people have been flooding into the game more and more recently, and as a result, it has become harder for players like myself to find games where we can have fun.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
FormerFiend wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
What's gatekeeping?

While it's not my place to speak for the god of blood, I can offer a general definition.

Gatekeeping is a form of elitism in regards to a given interest. Wanting to keep the "dirty casuals" out. Takes different forms depending on the fandom. For instance, "hardcore" PC gamers who prefer games with a lot of mechanical complexity, what they would term "having a lot of depth" and what others might term as being "overly complex, clunky, and intuitive", and would view any attempt to change those mechanics to make it more accessible as "dumbing down" rather than, say, "streamlining".

Basically someone who says "the way I like this thing is the only proper way to like it, and anyone who doesn't meet my standards isn't a real fan and doesn't belong."

Ah, so it's a variation on the No true Scotsman fallacy.

Azalah wrote:
I believe that what Ravingdork is saying, though feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, is not that people can't or shouldn't play. It's that they eventually won't WANT to play because they have to read the books and actually learn how it works when they could just hop onto The Elder Scrolls X: VR Edition for immediate gratification.

While true, make no mistake, I AM a crochety old grognard (which is hilarious to me, 'cause back in my day my friends and I used to make fun of grognards).

After thinking about it more in-depth, I am inclined to agree that it is likely an observation of a false trend, and that there are actually more active participants within the hobby than there used to be (of all kinds...).

Nevertheless, games (of any kind) that offer faster, easier gratification (because let's face it, scheduling 5 people for an event that amounts to nearly a full day is HARD to do!) remain a threat to the hobby as a whole.

Azalah wrote:

I suppose I would be considered a "hardcore" gamer, even though I've only been playing for five years. My first DM said I was a natural, and I still take pride in that. That being said, with all the (filthy) "casual" players, it is very hard for me to find a game that I'm suited for.

I'm not saying that their style of play is wrong. If you have fun just joking and messing around, then that's the kind of game you should play. My issue is just that those types of people have been flooding into the game more and more recently, and as a result, it has become harder for players like myself to find games where we can have fun.

When was the last game you (any of you) have had in which even a single player didn't pull out their phone or other electronic device at the table to look at something that wasn't related to the game?


While it's true there are over 30 books, you don't need to use them all. I published a 3PP setting for Pathfinder, and because it includes archetypes, you don't need the APG, and while it includes samurai, you don't really need the guide with samurai, though it might help. There are monsters included, but allowing one or two bestiaries can help. Ideally my setting is best run using the Core only. But anybody using my setting can use however many books they want to, but just saying it's unnecessary to run a fun game with just a limited amount of books.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
When was the last game you (any of you) have had in which even a single player didn't pull out their phone or other electronic device at the table to look at something that wasn't related to the game?

Honestly? I don't remember the last time that hasn't happened.

I swear, if I get in another game where someone interrupts another player just to share a meme...


thejeff wrote:


I'm not fond of the "casual" terminology as you use it here. I've certainly played with plenty of casual players...

I'm not really fond of the term "casual" either, a failing of language I guess. Were I reciting that post in person, I'd hope the facial expression corresponding with "casual's" air quotes would reinforce my ironic use of the term.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Azalah wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
When was the last game you (any of you) have had in which even a single player didn't pull out their phone or other electronic device at the table to look at something that wasn't related to the game?

Honestly? I don't remember the last time that hasn't happened.

I swear, if I get in another game where someone interrupts another player just to share a meme...

Haha. For me that is the ultimate sign of respect (or lack there of) for a GM.

If you say "no eletronic devices at the table that aren't directly assisting with the flow of the game" and they consistently share memes (interrupting people's turns and the like), then it is clear they don't respect you as a GM.

I find that my closest friends and roleplayers have fallen into this tiring habit, while many newer groups/SOS groups I've been throwing together do this far less frequently (presumably because they aren't as comfortable around me as my friends are).

Kind of like how people say you should never date a coworker, or move in with your friends; it makes people too comfortable. They end up unconsciously taking advantage of the relationship, doing things they never would (or should) do otherwise.

Scarab Sages Starfinder Design Lead

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Over the last few years, I've observed a disturbing trend in roleplayers, both here on the forums, out there on other forums, and at various play tables: People keep asking questions about simple rules that are clearly spelled out in the rulebook.

This is nothing new. I was the official WotC rules-sage for d20 Modern for a while, close to 15 or so years ago, and got to see every question submitted for consideration by fans.

I'd conservatively say more than half were incredibly basic things clearly covered in the rulebook.

Obviously I didn't pick those to answer, since I had very limited space.

1 to 50 of 109 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Starfinder / Starfinder General Discussion / The death of tabletop roleplaying All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.