Is it true that D&D rules are copyrighted to the extreme? What other examples do you know?

I don't think there was any public backlash aside from the red cross.

This is more like with Notch and Bethesda where some opportunistic lawyers contacted him over a game he was making where he had used the words 'scrolls' in the title and they were sending him a cease and desist notice I think.

The point is these sorts of copyright/trademarking laws and so on are very overreaching at times and even if it's quite obviously a load of crap that they can do this small indie companies for example don't have the funds and the expertise to defend against them in court.

It makes me wonder whether or not silly trademarking should even be written into law because of this, ever wondered why there aren't any new NFL games by other games companies aside from EA? They paid a ton of money in order to have the franchise all to themselves even though they're a terrible company especially by today's standards.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/09/05/technology/innovation/madden-25/index.html

Now obviously, I have less issue with this, because NFL is an actual brand rather than something more vague like a symbol or a name but I'm just pointing out where I stand on this. I think that trademarking and copyright can be very anti-business and stop competition from growing because of the reasons I mentioned above, it's too expensive for small indie companies and developers to defend against.

https://kotaku.com/video-games-arent-allowed-to-use-the-red-cross-symbol-1791265328

If I didn't mention it before here's the full article on the red cross subject, it was for the health symbol, so pickups and stuff like that or having the red health symbol on a HUD. It's absolutely important for all of us as games developers to be aware of these dodgy lawyers who will use these sorts of rules to try and screw over smaller competition.

 

You can believe that all you want. You can even try to justify it. Neither of those tactics will make it true though or your opinion any less ignorant to the people who know better. This has nothing to do with trademarks nor did it have anything to do with opportunistic lawyers.

Think about it for a moment and you'll realize how senseless your argument is. Would an opportunistic lawyer go after someone who upon receiving the equivalent of a cease and desist will immediately try to obey? There was no money exchanged between the developers and the lawyers. There were no court sessions. They simply obeyed and removed it.

Opportunistic lawyers go after patents. They go after companies that are trying to manipulate the market. They don't go after some small time developer who was willing to follow the law but never realized it was a law in the first place.

One example does not set a precendence. We don't suddenly need to be wary of every single thing we do. It's not at all important for us to try to avoid these people because by the very definition you're trying to push it's impossible for us to avoid them.

If there was any discussion to be had in this thread it was thrown out in favor of this conspiracy theorist nonsense.

 

Dude, chill out. Take off your tinfoil hat. No one is out to get you.

You really need to do a bunch more research into IP protection laws. Preferably with a guide who actually works in the field. You are taking a bunch of extreme examples and edge cases, and trying to apply them to the general case. That's not how the law works.

 

It makes plenty of sense. It's crazy how often people think they "know" something based on portrayals in games / movies / books / and so on. A heck of a lot of people, including myself, mistakenly thought that the symbol was a reference to medical aid because that's how it's commonly used in media.

And, by the way, there are cases of entertainment media being specifically allowed to use the red cross symbol. They just have to use them properly so that they support what it's meant to represent rather than undermining it.

Also, the symbol is in fact very specific. So you can easily have something in your game that is very similar if that's really what you want. It just has to not be the very specific thing that is the red cross symbol.

No, it's suggesting that if lots of people put a swastika on something that isn't actually Nazi then the meaning of the symbol will be diluted and change over time.

And that's a fantastic example for you to have raised, because that dilution and change has happened to that exact symbol!

The swastika, also known as the gammadion, was in fact an ancient religious or spiritual symbol which had positive meanings. That's possibly even why the Nazi party picked it as their symbol. Then, over time, it became so incredibly strongly associated with Nazis that when western people see it they think of something totally different - not at all religious, not at all spiritual, and not at all positive.

 

Excellent point!

When something is associated with pain and suffering, the more we see it used innocuously in games and other forms, the less it means, the more we accept the current use of the symbol by hate groups, which in my opinion is used to intimidate and cause pain to others. One could say, however, that not using in the historical context (games and movies that realistically portray the era and the atrocities that were committed) would be equally harmful as we should always remember...and not using the symbol would simply be glossing over what really happened.

 

Actually that's not true at all. One of the sign of being adult is the ability to make distinction between fantasy (videogames for example, but also fairy tales and other myths) and reality.
This is the scientific basis of the age-restrictions of certain media. Young people (children in general < 6-7 years old) have less ability to make that distinction. Around seven, there is a difficulty to accept that stories have reality in them, but around 10-12 the balance usually found.
(It is important to note that it is a rude generalization, since there are some adults who can't make distinction between reality and fantasy, and there are some children, who're better at it, but it is not the norm.)
Among other things, this is the reason why video games or movies do not have effect on behavior in case of healthy people.

This also means that the distinction between video game nazis and real life nazis also can be made and usually made by the consumers of the media.
There is no scientific basis of this 'dilution' up to date.

 

Have there even been any studies of this? I would love to see them if there have been because on cannot say there is no scientific basis until the studies are actually done. I did a search and could find nothing. Not saying you are wrong, just that we have no studies to show either way.

But there have been studies that show desensitization to violence based on exposure. I do not want this thread to turn into a bunch of developers trying to defend their violent games. That is not what this about....and I do not agree that violent games begat violence, so we can get that out of the way and please, do not turn this into that kind of thread.

I am old enough to have talked to people who lost parents and family members during the holocaust. That leaves a pretty strong emotional memory in your head when you see elderly people tell you about the horrors they experienced. My own kids though, do not have that emotional connection. They see the Nazi symbol on TV news and while they know it is not a positive thing, they do not really "get it". It does however, open the door for discussion which I think helps a great deal. A game with Nazi symbols in a historical context would do the same.

Time and exposure makes things more normal. In our day and age, school shootings are becoming normal, so much so that a young high school student in Texas said yesterday that she expected it to happen. It just happens. Wow...at her age, I never would have imagined a shooter in my school. Now, we are no longer surprised.

That is dilution. It has nothing to do with games. It has everything to do with a new normal due to exposure to something that was once not normal.

 

Since almost every other aspect of fantasy and reality are separated (distinction was made), there is no reason to think that the organizations, symbols in fantasy would have any effect on real life organizations or symbols.
Video game violence does not cause real life violence (other than short term slightly more aggressive behavior, which is non-violent, according to studies I've seen over the years - It's important that I'm not a scientist, so I may be wrong in some cases, I'm just a curious amateur). This also means violent video game towards certain groups of people does not cause violent behavior towards the group of people in real life (actually does not cause violent behavior in general). (Although it is possible that people having aggressive thought towards the subject would more likely pick the violent video game towards those people at the first place, this is something I do not know).
Another simple example: no matter if you like trash horror movies/games with blood and violence, this has no effect on your behavior when you see a real life human being dismembered.
In another words: the fantasy people dismembered won't dilute your emotions towards real life people dismembered.

Yes, that's true when the consumer of the media accepts those as real life events. But since healthy people accepts video games as fantasy, I don't see the reason to count any effects. As people make distinction between fantasy violence and events and real life ones I think we need to make the same distinction between them.

I think you mistake the expectations with the emotional dilution. If you objectively look at the late events here in the States, you can expect, that it will happen. Since we have done nothing to prevent it.
The real problem occurs when the real life events have their emotional dilution effect (it's not a scientific expression, I'm trying to express myself clearly): it happens, and everyone just shrug and move on.
This is not the case in general (luckily). And again, these are real life events and accepted real life events.

Again: everything I write is my opinion as a non-scientist, although interested amateur.
Also disclaimer: I like both non-violent and violent video games to consume and I work on both violent and non-violent video games in my free time.

 

I am a scientist, so I prefer to rely on data and experts than someone's opinion. To each his own! Have fun.

Extremely disappointed that you had to go to the defense regarding violence when I asked you not to as it is not the subject of this thread.

Really hate that I have to be careful of everything I say in these threads due to some people's single minded need to defend constantly.

Not really in the mood to go there. Bye, bye.

 

It's OK at least geologists have rock solid arguments.

 

Except for that anecdotal story @angrypenguin shared.

Many people that grew up playing Doom associate the Red Cross symbol with medical supplies. I was one of them. So we have at least one confirmed case of dilution in action.

 

And the gammadion. I mean the swastika. I mean the Nazi symbol.

Or you could hit up Google and find loads of examples of symbols that have changed in meaning. Here's one of the first results.

 

And yet stories of various kinds are routinely used in education, debating, illustrating points, and so on and so forth. They are regularly used to express or communicate. Popular stories, including stuff like Star Wars and Harry Potter, are in part so popular because they communicate values that resonate with people.

 

Exactly, resonate with people because of the shared values, not because they are teaching you things.

If it were that simple, we still would live in a barbaric world with all kind of violence on every corner. Every child has been fed with horror stories. Including (I assume) us: Little Red Riding Hood ring a bell? Horror. Snow White? Horror. Hansel and Gretel? Also.

You (we) read these to children, but also we explain (hopefully) to them that it is fantasy. And later they develop the capability to distinct fantasy from the reality. That's what I'm talking about.

Nope. It would diluted if the same people on the battlefield wouldn't recognize this symbol. No healthy person would think that they're seeing Doom health packs on the roof in a war zone.
It's not really dilution. It's secondary purpose. Just like the swastika has two purposes in India. Usually people know what it means in the context of the Indian culture and what it means in the context of the European history and in the context of the Second World War.

There is nothing wrong with symbols have multiple purposes, unless the secondary purpose is in the same context. When it is, then the dilution can happen.

Similar example the communist red star versus red star on the Heineken bottle. Same symbol, multiple purposes, and still no healthy minded person would think that Heineken is working on the restoration of the USSR or something.

 

My sister loves using the following cartoon series as an example.

Spoiler

Her poor kids ended up watching Dora the Explorer as well as the other subpar cartoons they make now.

 

Your own examples are shooting you in the foot here. Fables are stories specifically used to teach things.

 

Well, my daughter is 19 already, but she has grown up on Grimms' and Hungarian Folk tales, which are similarly violent and/or sexual and she became a decent young lady. And later on Tom&Jerry, which is another example of excessive violence.
And still, she's just fine.

Well, you really should start to make distinction between the usage of these material (with proper explanation) and the standalone teaching stuff. As I said before, but I'm willing to repeat myself this time: with those explanations (does not matter where these come from) you develop the capability to make distinction between fantasy and reality. You know... you don't think that the pixel-soldiers are real.
Neither the pixel-red-cross on a box. It is actually that simple.

 

Here's another example. How many peoples' familiarity with military ranks comes largely or even entirely from literature, movies, games and other entertainment media?

Why not? It directly demonstrates that things in "fantasy" can and do have an impact on people in the real world, and that this is so widely and commonly known that we use it in formal training (one of my examples) and raising our children (one of your own).

Your argument, on the other hand, seems to boil down to repeatedly implying that we're children if we don't see things the way you do.

Letters are symbols, and their meaning certainly seems to transfer between games and the real world. Otherwise text in games would be gibberish, because it's "fantasy" and all adults know that the meaning of symbols is not transferrable between "fantasy" and "the real world".

Except that that obviously isn't the case. It is actually that simple.

 

Maybe I was not clear. In this case I make sure: I don't think that you're children. I was explaining that separation between fantasy and reality is an important thing. When you learn from stories, you're using this ability. If you have knowledge about one thing in the real world and the same thing in the fantasy world, you won't think that the fantasy world is the same thing.
E.g. the pixel soldier is not a real soldier, the alcohol what you drink in the Skyrim is not real, won't have any effect on you. And the hero in your story also not you and it's not real. It's a simulation at most (although it has to be really good one to reach that point). When it comes to VR, I would be more careful, because of the complex sensory stimulus. But the ordinary video games or other media (comic books, fairy tales, novels and movies) are certainly recognizable as fantasy.
My argument is that above childhood you will make distinction between a fantasy event/symbol and a real one.

Yes, but you wouldn't think that the Elvish scriptures are real, right? So not every letter is transferable. Why? Because you're transferring your real world symbolism into the game. You give context to the fantasy, that's the point I'm making. And you don't give the context of the video game to the real world events.
The fact that you can actively learn a written symbol is not new. You can make up your own language if you want, nothing new.

If it were true, that you learn from the video games, my generation would think that Hitler was a robot with minigun-arms and random loot were lying around in the castles. You learn from it, but not this way, you make the distinction between the real world events and the fantasy events and context and you will be end up with a vague setting, which may or may not have any effect on you (like it is good to help out your peers, or it is not that good feeling to harvest the little sisters).

So, the take-away from my (too long) answers is that we give context to the fantasy using our previous fantasies and some real world mixture and not the other way around.

 

And that's saying that anyone who doesn't agree with you isn't "above childhood".

This kind of extremeness isn't helping. The point of contention obviously doesn't exist at the far ends of the spectrum. It's at the grey areas in the middle.

You're arguing as if everything is as obviously black-and-white as your example of Mecha-Hitler. If that were the case then there wouldn't even be a discussion to have, and copyright wouldn't be such a complicated thing.

But I know that the Red Cross symbol is real. So when I separate fantasy from real, where does that go? On the "fantasy" side like Mecha-Hitler, or on the "real" side like letters and numbers?

 

Nope. My text and my argument does not say that. My argument says: if you can't make the distinction between fantasy and reality you're not above childhood (or something terrible happened to you and you failed to developed your ability to make this distinction). It's nothing to do with the acceptance of my argument. I never said such thing.

Well, since there are no organization or context of red cross (as an organization) or ambulance in the doom, you probably will put it on the fantasy side.

Maybe these pictures help to make my point. People should not have problem to make distinction between these:

 

Kind of case in point.

Before the whole 'you can't use the red cross in games' thing, I would have simply thought this meant a truck carrying medical supplies. My understanding of the symbol from video games would flow through to real life.

 

So is the focus on ambulances.

 

People shouldn't have a problem with a great number of things but we do. Just look at all of the threads started by people asking how they can start learning Unity. We have an entire section of this website dedicated to learning it and yet none of them thought to check it out.

 

(-_-)

 

This seems to be a problem with so many people. I have a son like this. Very difficult to explain the gray areas, he just does not get it. Everything is either black and white. So, if one thinks that way, I can totally understand why they cannot understand why most things are fuzzy gray. A simple black and white world is so much more comforting. Complexity is confusing and discomforting.

In my son's case and probably in many, there is a very good excuse why he has difficulty outside the black and white. But the good news is that it makes him very good at math. lol

Oddly enough, geology is considered a soft science because so much of it is interpretive and subject to change. I think it was part of why I was drawn to study geology rather than a hard science (not hard as in difficult but hard as in more rule based). In many ways, a good geologist has to be creative, think outside the box, and be open to changing their interpretation on the fly depending on what they find in the field or what a colleague finds.

So you could say that rather than geology being rock solid, it is more flowing and dynamic, more like a river or a glacier.

 

If you have absolutely no knowledge of the symbol beforehand, that's an educational problem. When I was a kid (and I grew up in a former communist country, and it was communist at the time), they thought us the meaning of this symbol.
Specifically. "If anything happens, don't attack this, if anything happens, and you're injured or you have injured people with you, this is probably a safe place for a moment".

So I will change my mind because of your argument, slightly. Without proper education, the symbol may mean something else. That's true. As it is true for the letter 'A' and the symbol of poison as well.

But let's examine this further.
What happens on the battlefield when you are the attacker with your knowledge.
- You haven't seen this symbol before, not in real life, not in video game. You have no idea what it is.
- You have seen this symbol in a videogame, it means medical supplies or medical people to you.
What will you do? Is it different? Because I do not think so. If you are a decent soldier (obviously not you, personally, but let's generalize a bit) you will not attack this symbol.
If you aren't a decent soldier, you will attack it, no matter what it means.
And the third option:
- Your superior teaches you what it means. And the fact that these places are protected by international treaty.

So still, I do not see a single path which would harm the cause, unless this cause is l'art pour l'art just the brand itself and the fact that they can monetize it. As they're doing it IRL.

Oh, BTW, at the time we had medical kit in our car, in the 70-ies, 80-ies, and it was a white box with red cross on it. And on the second image above is a Hungarian ambulance with red crosses on it (also from the 70-ies or 80-ies). Normal, everyday ambulance. And after that I was exposed to the doom medical kits too.
And somehow I know (and I believe most of the Hungarians too, unless they forgot) what red cross means on the battlefield, and some of you, who absolutely wasn't exposed to it does not.
So, is it a dilution problem or is it a general educational problem?

Oh shoot. I'm not even that good at math.
(I'm good at logic and critical thinking, but not math... despite the fact that I'm a developer )

 

As an interesting aside, one of the cited arguments against using the red cross in civilian service is it implies to aerial surveillance that there is military nearby. According to the Geneva convention, its not okay to bomb the cross. But it is okay to bomb to hell and back anything nearby a cross.

Which is probably a more compelling reason not to misuse the symbol.

 

Well, most people didn't have the privilege to grow up with your wonderful communist environment/era and have "educational problems", myself included. I guess when your generation finally dies off the world is gona be doomed... You should quit your developer job and join the education sector so you can teach us what we need to know

 

Don't worry, there is a reason I live in the US instead of the "wonderful communist environment". I get it, I should get off, shut my mouth and leave you to yourself. I will, do not worry. Apparently no one should write their thoughts here, unless they are in line with yours. Well, it's okay by me, good bye.

 

It looks like the communists taught you well.

 

These last few posts look so out of place when one has to "read between the lines." lol

 

Hi, can someone explain table-top role-playing games to me? I see these people in cafeteria talking about elves and trolls and dragons. Are they just making it up as they go along? What are they basing the stories on? Is it just elements of different books they read like Lord of the Rings? "A dragon swoops down. He has the ring of Elron in his mouth. What do you do?" I don't get it. There were always a lot of these guys upstairs in the student union doing this stuff. I tried to eavesdrop to find out what is going on. But to no avail. I can only conclude that in fact they themselves don't even know what they're doing but none of them will admit it. Is it just a safe way to talk to people without actually having to say anything meaningful? I simply can't put my head inside theirs. I would go over and ask them what they're doing but I have a feeling this would frighten them.

 

Understandable, P&P rpgs require a fair amount of intelligence and creativity to play.

 

It's basically shared storytelling. One person is in control of the overall story, everyone else is in control of just their character. The person handling the overall story provides a setting, goal and challenges to the rest of the group. There's usually a set of rules in place so that things don't get too crazy, and while it's completely optional there's a whole bunch of reference material available for basically any type of setting you might want, including quite a few well known IPs. That's pretty much it.

 

Basically its a shared story telling experience. The game master lays out the basic world frame work, and the players take actions in the world. At its heart, the p&p rpg core loop looks like this:

- Game master describes a situation
- Players decide how to act in the situation
- Game master tells players the result of their actions

This cycle repeats into infinity.

Most games have rule sets that confine game play. But the story is made up within that ruleset. You can get premade stories, or you can write your own.

Imagination really. The game master sets out a framework. The players then decide what to do in the framework. Together epic stories are made.

Fantasy games are certainly inspired by LOTR. And hundreds of other places. However many worlds have their own unique lore. And much of the world is determined by the players actions. You'll find every bodies story line gets unique pretty quickly, even if they start in the same place.

You can always run with "Can I watch?". Most groups will say yes. Stay out of the way, but feel free to ask for clarification on what happened during the downtime or after the game. Just don't bring over a crowd with you. One or two spectators is fine, but nothing kills a game like a dozen plebs asking questions and interrupting the flow.

Probably not a valid approach. You might be able to make sense of a game if you grab the appropriate players handbook and read all the rules. But its much less effective then simply asking to watch or participate.

Don't go in with that attitude. You'll sound like an arrogant douche, and no one will want to play with you.

Unlikely. If you are a hot girl and its a stereotypical group of nerdy guys, they might not know what to make of you. But most of the time gamers are welcoming to new people wanting to try out the hobby. If you ask nicely, they might even let you play for a while. Most GMs have ways of incorporating new players in with prebuilt characters. Just be aware that if you want to play more then a session or two, you will need to commit to the entire campaign. Casual players don't really work for p&p rpgs.

 

May I point out the irony of this being an excuse to not talk to people?

You're making a bunch of unfounded assumptions about them in that post. Just because you don't understand what they're talking about doesn't make it meaningless, and despite what sitcoms may tell you a great number of people playing those games are in fact highly sociable.

Instead of being a creepy antisocial eavesdropper, how about starting a conversation yourself?

 

As @angrypenguin pointed out, I think that stereotype is largely from tv/media, though it may have been more of the case in the early days, players are broad ranged as video game players are today really. While sure, it exists, that can also be said about video game players and certainly developers.

Indeed, and many of the hardcore players tend to lean on the extrovert side. I have friends who met, dated and got married after meeting through campaigns. It's an immensely fun and social and creative activity.

---

I have never worked at studio where there weren't at least one or more campaigns running, some for many years. (one that had been running so long, none of the original players/dms still worked there). I mostly play/run Cthulhu scenarios, but enjoy the fantasy and sci-fi ones as well. Our current studio leans more on the board game side, but that is because of our distributed nature. Twitch has become big place to play as well these days. Gamers play games, of all types. Bashing and being a dick about other's interests is fairly ignorant and unjustified.

 

Very true.

The high school group I GM'd back in the nineties matched the stereotype perfectly. But that's not reflective of the groups I see playing today.

I haven't personally played a P&P role playing game in a long time. These days all of my role playing is live action. All of my table top time goes into board games. Neither of those groups meets the stereotype either. My board game group pretty much breaks all stereotypes you can imagine.

 

That’s ‘cause board games these days are teh awesome!

 

I have a friend who joined a D&D group that was starting fresh and one of the first things she did was write a backstory for her character. Last I heard it was at least twelve pages long and she wasn't done yet.

Between freely available communication programs and affordable tabletop simulation many groups are online.

http://www.fantasygrounds.com/home/home.php

 

One of the biggest D&D nerds around is a total jock - Vin Diesel. This video should be helpful and/or entertaining, because Matt Mercer is the DM:

D&D is the easy entry for fantasy RPGs, Call of Cthulhu is an even easier horror variation (character generation is REALLY quick, which is handy when it's likely to die within an hour or two). FFG's Star Wars games (there are three, because that universe is so freakin' huge) are great introductory sci-fi RPGs. Both D&D and Star Wars have beginner sets which don't cost a lot, should you start that obsession.

 

D&D creators (Wizards of the coast) provide tons of books that describe the world and creatures in it. And combat mechanics. D&D version 3.5 had 50 books worth of stuff. Few hundred pages each.

Based off those books D&D, the dude called dungeon master makes up some sort of story.

Players create their characters, using races, classes, etc, available in the game. Like in RPG.

Using maps and figures they play through narrative with DM (Dungeon Master) acting like script writer that makes the world react to player's actions.

Here's the kicker. You can do ANYTHING.

In a computer game, normally you're set within bounds of narrative and cannot deviate too far from it. The game is scripted and set in stone.

In Pen and Paper game, there's no limits, because game master has human level intelligence and can adapt to any choice you make. So, let's say you're tasked with some sort of "save princess" stuff. You can ignore the request and go hunt squirrels. You can kill the princess and marry the dragon. You can try to usurp the kingdom after saving the princess. You can accidentally end the world. Or try to. Of course, DM might have their own ideas too, and can try to steer plot in different direction.

So, it is sorta collectively written narrative, but at the same time it is a game.
Here's a good example from dorkly:

Spoiler

 

OK, thanks for explaining. I guess its kind of like when you're little and you make up games like "I'll be superman" You be "spider man" and then you go from there. I was never any good at that since I must lack imagination. Well I did but I preferred talking to my friends about the rocket ships we were going to build in the future and the computers that you'd be able to wear on your wrist etc. Or how we'd become millionaires by making comics. You know, like realistic stuff.

Yep, have to say out of the 100 or so rollplayers I've encountered (UK) it was 80% nerdy guys and 20% nerdy girls. And yes, it is quite easy to tell the difference between someone on the football team (or cheerleading squad) and a D&D player just by looking (or listening). Not that there is anything wrong with being nerdy. Hey that's me included I imagine. (Well I imagine I'm an Indiana Jones type character but that might not be close to reality).

I mean, if it was just the cheerleaders playing D&D on their days off, don't you think I would have already written a 100 page backstory and volunteered as games master already?

I have to admit it does sound kind of fun though. Maybe I will try an online version if there is one.

What gets me is if you can do anything, can't you just cast a spell that kills all your enemies and lets you win the game?

 

There's "talking" and then there's talking. OK, not like typical men every come together and talk about their "feelings" anyway! We like to talk about other stuff maybe like football or fly-fishing or cars... apparently. It's like we like talking as long as its not about ourselves.

 

Yes, very true!
I joined a local pen and paper group many years ago. My son was 12 and had trouble with reading and writing. I took him to the meeting and was talked into joining a table. I had a blast! So I stayed and eventually both my son and I became GMs and even ran games and conventions. My son's reading skills went way up and his writing even more as he started writing complex adventures to share with the Guild members as well as creating his own settings and worlds. It was one of the best things we ever did. My girls got involved too eventually. My husband tried it, but was not his thing so he got a night at home alone twice a month.

Yes, the Guild was mostly guys but there were girls too, often the girlfriends of some of the guys or mothers like me who joined their kids. What a great bonding experience!

Some of the guys, like my son, are shy and awkward, but in the midst of the game, they often are the most outgoing, the ones who have the most to say, and save the day. Many of the guys and most of the women who I have played with are very outgoing. It takes a certain amount of confidence to start actually role playing a character and these guys do that well. While others dive deep into numbers and statistics and how to win (just like an rpg video game), these folks dig into their character, develop his/her skills based on the experiences they have. They become part of the story, sort of like in an MMO.

One very positive thing about table top gaming is the social aspect. You are not just sitting behind a screen playing games all day. You are instead making friends, laughing, sharing food, and learning, in the case of a young shy person, how to interact socially.

Those people at the table will not turn you away. They might be surprised you are interested, but if you are polite, they will sit you down and show you how to play. Try it at least once. While we no longer go, I often miss the experience.

When my husband and I were visiting New Jersey to find a house to rent (upcoming transfer to the area), we attended a Game Development Meetup. There were several young men there, maybe 20's. When they found out I played tabletop games, they were so excited and begged me and my son to play with them when we moved up there.

So...tabletop gaming transcends age. I was flattered and surprised that these young men wanted to play games with an old lady like me. lol Another reason to try...when you spend time with people of different age groups, other than your own kids, you learn so much. And you can also pass along what you know to these young people. It is a great and rewarding experience.

 

Well, I forgot to turn off the alert for this topic, so I'm lucky that I read these posts.

I already said that I grew up in a "wonderful communist environment". Well, the first time I played AD&D was in 1985. Since most of the written things from the west was strictly prohibited, we played with photocopied and hand copied versions of the rule books.
Also, since in our country the mandatory foreign language to learn was the Russian, we started to learn English on the go while we were playing and trying to understand the rules and the setting.
But it was so much fun, we thought it worth all the risk and inconvenience. (Of course it lead me to some mistakes too, because of the lack of proper understanding the 'turn dead' spell was like the skeletons and other undead just turned around and flee instead of to be destroyed. )
But we managed and it started us on a path which is invaluable in our lives even 30 years later. I picked up history and the interest towards all kind of sciences and also to gaming. Before that I didn't really play any board games, but after that we started to have fun with those too.
I play p&p since then more or less regularly, although since I've moved to the west coast, it's hard because of the scheduling issues (7-9 hours difference).

There are many advantages if you play:
- kicks off the imagination very well, since you form a story together and almost none visual input, you will play it in your head
- improve the communication skills because you're playing with others and you do almost everything verbally
- if you're involved seriously, it can kick of interests towards various things like math (probability), history (depends, if the world or environment relies on medieval tropes)
- it even can improve your writing skills if you spend proper time to write the background stories for your characters

If you have the opportunity to sit down and play p&p, do it! At least once. It's just fun and it has too much to offer to not to try IMHO.

@Teila based on your posts here on the forums, I'm not surprised that people would like to play p&p with you, I would do that as well

 

Oh god. If I was the DM, I would give her five sentences to explain the character's personality and the reason they are adventuring. She could then list quirks, but any more than that and she's already created a more epic story to the character than what the campaign will be.

 

Not uncommon at all.

I personally prefer to have blank slate characters and let the back story grow over the game sessions. None of the other players are going to dive deep into your backstory. Who cares if you hate orcs because your family was slaughtered by orcs in your distant childhood. But if we start off in a village, establish friends, and then kill them all by orc. Then your hatred will be real.

Its mostly time, not availability. Plenty of groups around me. I just can't commit to a campaign with the rest of life at the moment.

 

Generally with fantasy and such I’m the same. With CoC, I prefer my players to have a decent back story, but that game is much less about combat (well... effective combat, anyway). Plus it’s kinda fun when they have put a lot thought and time into an interesting character, only to have it die horribly in the first couple of hours. They tend to play a bit more cautious with subsequent characters.

One of the cool things about my last studio, is they actively encouraged gaming. Thursdays were game night, and if you participated, it was basically a half day of work. Dinner was pizza and beer instead of the usual, and pretty much all the conference rooms and common areas turned into a variety of games, magic, rpgs, vintage video games and board games. Work pretty much stopped a little after lunch and setup and games began. It was super convenient to mix with real life, I miss that quite a bit.