Roleplaying Arrogance

Obsidian · Post by **Obsidian** » Sat Jun 22, 2002 11:47 am

Theres another old saying, that one who knows 10% will appear a master to one who knows 1%. I admit my knowledge falls in the <1% area, and there are so many people out here who have at least 10%. CE, Fable, come to my head immediately in the political fields which I read most often, and there are many more out there who are of great knowledge. My praise for fable however, runs over that he seems to know his 10% in every single field, and I am always taken aback at the breadth of his knowledge, that was my post.

As for the original topic, RP cultures are overly stereotyped imo, as the geeky social misfits. I know plenty of people who role play like nuts and don't fit that, even the occasional athlete. Albeit, there are plenty more who fit the stereotype.

And to the GB forums, these are the best forums I've ever found. The people here are kind, interesting and opinionated in a non-hostile way. My requests for help have always been granted without prejudice, even dumb ones like where is the rest button for BG 1?

Compared to other groups of games like Battlenet, Infantry online etc I find roleplayers a much more tolerant group, if a bit aloof at first.

ILL WILL · Post by **ILL WILL** » Sat Jun 22, 2002 2:56 pm

Truly insightful responses, apparently in keeping with the style Gamebanshee forums...

I think Highlord Dave's response is interesting. The idea that roleplayers tend to be (on a general curve) more intelligent (or at the very least, of a more intellectual bent) than their peers is probably a "social truism." Also a social truism is that those of a more intellectual bent are somewhat removed from the masses in a cultural respect.

So it may not be too great a stretch to say that people who are smart, and are aware that they are smart, come across as arrogant. This may work under the theory that people get frustrated with others who do not grasp concepts as easily, or who are not as informed about a particular field (here, roleplaying games). The result is the appearance of arrogance, rudeness, haughtiness.

ILL WILL · Post by **ILL WILL** » Sat Jun 22, 2002 3:07 pm

Oh and your welcomes are appreciated.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Sat Jun 22, 2002 3:48 pm

Originally posted by ILL WILL
I think Highlord Dave's response is interesting. The idea that roleplayers tend to be (on a general curve) more intelligent (or at the very least, of a more intellectual bent) than their peers is probably a "social truism." Also a social truism is that those of a more intellectual bent are somewhat removed from the masses in a cultural respect.

But is it really so? I haven't seen any studies of intelligence of RPG:ers as a group, but speaking from personal experience, it is not my impression that RPG:ers are more intelligent than the average population. Why would it be so, ie what support is there for this hypothesis?

So it may not be too great a stretch to say that people who are smart, and are aware that they are smart, come across as arrogant.

Again, I do not agree with this. People who are smart and know they are smart do, IMO, not come across as either more or less arrogant than the average population. If anything, I would think the opposite.

fable · Post by **fable** » Sat Jun 22, 2002 5:50 pm

But is it really so? I haven't seen any studies of intelligence of RPG:ers as a group, but speaking from personal experience, it is not my impression that RPG:ers are more intelligent than the average population. Why would it be so, ie what support is there for this hypothesis?

I would second @CE's remarks, above. Roleplaying would only appear to indicate that the people who do it have (and this is strictly my personal observation) more developed imaginations than the average, with a strong sense of nostalgia, and a flair for the dramatic. High intelligence is not necessarily part of the equation, even if we could all agree on a single definition of intelligence--which I doubt.

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Sat Jun 22, 2002 5:58 pm

Originally posted by C Elegans
But is it really so? I haven't seen any studies of intelligence of RPG:ers as a group, but speaking from personal experience, it is not my impression that RPG:ers are more intelligent than the average population. Why would it be so, ie what support is there for this hypothesis?

Before you ask, none of my evidence is based in any sort of scientific study; it is strictly anecdotal based upon my own observations. I will also limit my comments and the term "RPGers" to people who are seriously into role-playing games, not occasional players or folks who got the D&D Basic Rules boxed set for their 12th birthday. RPGs are a hobby, in much the same way that cars or sports are; they consume a tremendous amount of time, energy and money. It is my observations that the people who play RPGs share some of the following characteristics:

1) An avid interest in fantasy and science fiction. This can include TV shows, movies, books, comics and any other medium. I think many people play RPGs because they are not "doers"; an RPG enables us to be a wizard or superhero instead of the student or wage slave that we are in our daily lives. Instead of an asthmatic kid with glasses, I can be the sorcerer who saves the world and gets the girl. Escapism is at the heart of RPGs.

2) A general disposition towards non-conformity. I think a lot of people who play RPGs are not in the mainstream. There is general uneasiness among many people (fueled by fundamentalist religious groups) about role-playing games because they often feature the occult, magic and other things which these groups feel are threatening towards the souls of young people. This distrust is often relished by RPGers who also (secretly) get a thrill out of doing something "regular" people don't think they should do.

3) A generally well-rounded knowledge base. RPGs require people to know a lot of things about a lot of different disciplines. I think part of this comes from comic books and shows like Star Trek which, while fanciful, are generally based in theoretical scientific principles. This knowledge may not be enough to write a dissertation, but instead is general knowledge. For instance, many game systems incorporate general principles of physics (often made-up physics, but plausabily realistic enough to fuel our suspension of disbelief) in its combat and movement systems. A good gamemaster is enough of a jack-of-all-trades to be able to manage a "realistic" universe so that he/she can stay one step ahead of his/her players.

4) Creativity. Role-playing is a very cerebral activity. All of the action takes place in the minds of the players. While some people use miniatures or models, true role-playing action is still based in an intangible story line without fancy 3-D rendering, texture mapping or THX-quailty sound. It is my experience that players and GMs alike tend to be high in creative talents; after all, many of us spend quite a lot of time and energy generating a fictional world to play in, character backgrounds and all of the other little things it takes to bring a game to "life".

So are RPGers necessarily smarter than the average person? No; there are plenty of smart people out in the world who do not play RPGs and there are a lot of not so smart people who do. Similary, while some D&D players may be able to rattle off the stats of every creature in the Monster Manual, there are sports fans who can tell you the batting average of every person who has every played for their favourite baseball team. However, I believe that because of the creative and intellectual activity which goes into conceiving a campaign and seeing it through to completion, RPGers tend to be on the higher end of the intelligence curve, because I think that stupid people just can't absorb the amount of raw information that goes into role-playing. I believe that the combinations of the rules, stats and creative energies needed draws people into RPGs who are at the higher end of the IQ spectrum.

Of course, my qualifying statement to all of this is that my statements are based upon my own experiences and that people of like dispositions, interests and intelligence levels tend to congregate together. Since I am smarter than the average person, the people I tend to hang out with (and play RPGs with) are also of above average intelligence. I would be intersted to see a scientific study of self-identified RPG enthusiasts and if there is a relationship between their IQs, social skills and self-image in relation to a general population of people who do not identify themselves as RPGers.

ILL WILL · Post by **ILL WILL** » Sat Jun 22, 2002 7:06 pm

There's a point I think may bear reiterating. My perception of the "roleplaying populace" as arrogant is founded upon the same data as my perception of it as brighter-than-average: personal observation. I do not believe either perception could withstand any scientific scrutiny.

That said I'd like to reference Fable's contention that roleplayers tend to have more developed imaginations than the average. Imagination is an attribute of intelligence, from what I've read, that is accepted by the scientific community as being correlative to intelligence as a whole. That is to say that there is a relationship between a strong imagination and high intelligence. What the strength of the relationship is though, I'm not sure.

fable · Post by **fable** » Sat Jun 22, 2002 7:51 pm

@Ill Will, I guess we should take a moment to establish what you consider the "intelligent average," and how anyone might demonstrate qualities that place them above this. I would also question, wtih respect, that imagination and intelligence are in any way related. Children as a rule are extremely imaginative, regardless of how they do in self-proclaimed "inteliigence tests." Similarly, most adults are unimaginative, yet show no perceptible drop in intelligence through childhood.

ThorinOakensfield · Post by **ThorinOakensfield** » Sat Jun 22, 2002 8:44 pm

I think people become arrogant whenever they are good at something, whether it be sports or games. Not all people, some.

KidD01 · Post by **KidD01** » Sat Jun 22, 2002 10:23 pm

Re: Re: Roleplaying Arrogance

Originally posted by Weasel
But in the end, I grew tired of answering the same questions again and again....finally I decided not to visit the BG2 forum again. Boredom...maybe..

"Please look under the topic 'How to get X'
to the topic
'Where is X'
to get your answer"

made me feel like I was just wasting my time helping people.

I think what Weasel point is some people are too lazy to use the search feature......in this matter failure to use search feature and asking a question being covered sometime ago make others "pissed". As example : question about Jaheira romance keep popping up (the last time I was active in BG2 forum) even though there're already many threads covering that question. which is why I also grew tired and "lock" myself in SYM and others forum

frogus · Post by **frogus** » Sun Jun 23, 2002 4:04 am

I'm not sure, but maybe we should try and get IQs from everyone in the RPing forum...

Anyway, I do believe that more RPers are smart than in an average cross section of society. It could well be because Sci-Fi and Fantasy are the two genres which most combine interesting and stimulating intellectual ideas with excitement and (dare I say it) fun...thus making them appeal to clever kids.

As for arrogance, I think that everyone is slightly arrogant on the internet, just because they don't have to deal with the consequences...as for RPGers being more arrogant than other folks, I think that is completely untrue. In real life, the few people I played D&D with as a kid were very sweet, and non-condescending, even to me, a child...

The bad end however, are the 'Baseball Stats' school of RPers, as described by Dave:

Roleplaying is creative, and it can appeal to the creative kids with big imaginations and serious ideas about important things... however, it is also loaded with rules, and strict discipline with plenty of texts and figures, which can appeal to the obsessive fascistic personalities who made the younger boys clean their shoes in private school, and will go on to be masons....

EDIT - however, I am not a very serious roleplayer, and haven't played non PC RPGs since I was about ten or eleven, so am not that 'in touch' with the community....

Ode to a Grasshopper · Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:01 am

First of all hi @Ill Will in case I forgot to say so earlier.

@CE-I find you have (in addition to all the other things we all like about you, of course) an extensive scientific knowledge, not only in your chosen field of neuroscience but also in general.

Now onto the topic. I know for a fact that I'm quite a bit brighter than normal (I'm so good I'm so good etc.

), and while the majority of people I meet IRL come across as seeming slightly dense to me I have rarely found this with the people here at GB. Based upon my own limited experience RPGers do tend to be brighter than average, but then I have not met many RPGers outside of this forum.
Second of all, I like RPGs and I am arrogant, though I'm also usually a nice, friendly, easygoing guy. My arrogance rarely manifests itself but I am definitely arrogant, especially when challenged. The only other people I know who like DnD IRL are the same, so my own experiences back up Ill Will's conjecture while confirming a lot of what other people have already said.

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:07 am

I think one reason why people usally percive their own sub-culture as brighter then average is that you usally communicate more efficiently with that group. And if two people have difficulties communicating chances are big they will think it depends on the other one's stupidity.

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:54 am

I must admit it would appear that i am one of these arrogant so and so's if this is anything to go by, that was mostly in jest however i do get tired of people not using search features and asking the same questions continually. I wouldn't go to the trouble of flaming a person for asking that question, sometims i even answer it, however i do disagree with the idea of the same question being asked over and over again.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Sun Jun 23, 2002 7:15 am

To my knowledge, there are no studies of RPG:ers intelligence compared to the average population, and thus, all of us can only speculate from personal experience and observation, me of course included. A scientific study would not only have to measure a large cohort of RPG:ers and compare them to the population average, it would also have to control for factors that affect intelligence test scores such as age, social class, education level, culture, etc.

This said, let me present some scientific knowledge and theories that may have relevence for our discussion:

1. Intelligence and creativity Like Ill Will posts, there is a positive correlation between intelligence and creativity, ie people who score high on intelligence tests also tend to score high on creativity tests. Now, is there a connection between creativity and imagery? And is there a connection between creativity, imagery and role-playing? My answer, based on how creativity tests are constructed and scored, is no, not necessarily.

Creativity tests used in behavioural science, have little in common with having a vivid imagery and fantasy. Examples of such tests are that you get a paper with unconnected dots and lines, and you are told to draw a picture from this within a certain time limit, often a short time. You result is then compared to a normative sample of 1000 such pictures produced by other people, and you get scores for originality, number of lines you have added, degree of elaboration etc. Another type of creativity test is that you get a normal, logical problem with a number of different correct solutions. Your solution is then compared to other peoples solutions, and again you get scores for originality, efficiency, etc. Yet another creativity test is to produce as many different works as possible in a limited time. You get scores for how many words you produce, how long the words are, and how "common" they are. So a word like "chair" would get you a lower score than a word like "idiosyncratic". So as you see, many creativity tests contain the same elements as normal intelligence tests: element of stress, solving a problem, having a good vocabulary. Accordingly, a correlation between the two is hardly surprising. I however doubt that imagery of the kind you train in RPG:s, have any connection to the "creativity" measured in creativity tests.

2. Intelligence and social skills There is a positive correlation between scoring high on intelligence tests and scoring high on tests of social understanding and social skills. Again, this is not surprising, it is just unfair! We all wish the world was fair. Wouldn't it be much more fair if talent was equally spread among the population? I think it would, I wish it were, and before I started research in cognitive science, I also thought it was. If you are not good at one thing, then you are good at something else, yes?

Sadly, no. In idividual cases this might be true, but statisticially, when looking at large groups, it is the contrary. People who score high on general intelligence tests, also tend to score high on tests of social skills, tests of musicality, tests of creativity, tests of math skills, tests on language skills, etc. Focusing on social skills, there is a simple explanation for this:

Our social skills are based on our ability to understand social codes and signs, read face expressions, body language, intonation, etc. and respond properly to this. It also involves communication skills. There has long been a hypothesis that social skills should differ qualitatively from "intellectual" or logical skills, and this hypothesis was much based on studies of autism. However, modern autism and cogntive research have demonstrated social skills do not differ much from other cognitive skills. Social skills require understanding and grasping of very complex situations that are unpredictable, as opposed to mechanical understanding of regular and predictable patterns such as maths or computer programming. The key concepts here are complexity and degree of predictability.

If it is true that role players have less social skills than the average population, then that would rather predict less intelligence than more. However, we do not know wheter role players do possess less, more or average social skills either.

3. Intelligence and Sci-Fi/Fantasy Some posters have mentioned there is a connection between RPG:ing and interest in Sci-Fi/Fanstasy. Interest in Sci-Fi/Fantasy is then used as an argument for the higher intelligence of RPG:ers, but again: what support is there for the hypothesis that reading Sci-Fi/Fantasy is connected to intelligence? Why would those 2 genres attract or create more intelligent people than other genres? A lot of Sci-Fi and Fantasy is not educative or related to science, that's why it's Science Fiction and Fantasy and not Tetrahedron Letters, Annals of Physics or text books about world history. What is the connection IYO?

3. Anecdotal evidence We must also look into the value of anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence demonstrates that a phenomena exists, and when the anecdotal evidence differes - as in our case - it simply demonstrated variation. Let's say we have a study of 5000 Chinese kids and 5000 US kids, and the study shows they score equally in intelligence tests. Let's then say I meet this incredibly stupid Chinese guy, whereas I have 5 US friends who are very smart. That doesn't in any way disprove the study - it just shows individuals differ a lot, and if you read the study of the 10000 kids, you will find that the range of intelligence scores is very large, and that the range and standard deviation from the average, is the same in the US and Chinese kids, as well as the average score. So anecdotal evidence is simply an example of a range.

4. What conclusions can be drawn from our various experiences? We can all present only anecdotal evidence. But why do they differ so much? The reasons are many, and selection bias as well as observer bias (ie our own biases) are likely candidates. For instance, it might be that the RPG:ers I have met are much more disturbed and less smart than the avarage RPG:er, because of some selection bias or because I fail to see how smart they are. Most RPG:ers I have met, belong to circle of people who know each other - maybe this specific group has an inherent selection bias, people tend to b drawn to people who are similar to them. Maybe my sample of RPG:ers is not so smart, whereas for instance HLD:s sample are very smart people because of other biases, for instance they may all be friends of HLD who is a smart person - thus, the probability that smart persons are drawn to him are much larger than the probability that stupid persons would be drawn to him.

Another confounding factor might be that we define "intelligence" differently. Yet another bias might be that we, like Dottie says, tend to find people we can communicate will with, more intelligent than people we can't communicate well with.

Sorry for the long post!

fable · Post by **fable** » Sun Jun 23, 2002 7:40 am

Originally posted by frogus
Anyway, I do believe that more RPers are smart than in an average cross section of society. It could well be because Sci-Fi and Fantasy are the two genres which most combine interesting and stimulating intellectual ideas with excitement and (dare I say it) fun...thus making them appeal to clever kids.

With respect, I find that the sci-fi/fantasy genre is extremely hackneyed, filled with mindless, endlessly repeated cliches that frequently substitute for the one true complex idea: observing the complexities of an individual human being. Even the books I truly love in the field (and I think there are some real classics) haven't got a single stimulating idea among 'em. They can offer great music in language, fantastic images, wonderfully oversized characters--but ideas? Sci/fi and fantasy? If you find an idea in the works of that lot, chances are it was either imported from another genre (Ron Goulart's clever transplant of the 18th century comedy of manners, for example), or first written by HG Wells. And as for fantasy--well, gag me with a spoon owned by an environmentally conscious elf who sings sweet bardic songs.

Intellectually stimulating? Not a book in the lot.

Hell, if you check out the boards of MMORPGs where people roleplay, you'll find that most of them get their ideas about the subject, not even from decently written books--but from PnP modules. As a former gamemaster for DragonRealms, I still wince at the number of posts we had from people telling us loudly and plainly that we simply *couldn't* make a dwarven community in "this particular way," since "everybody" knew dwarves "behaved like etc." AD&D said so.

Roleplayers aren't great visionaries, nor do they read literature where bold ideas are put forth--which are arguably found inside non-fictional speciialed fields, and extremely complex. Roleplayers (and I say this as a general statement, while cognizant of specific exceptions) are romantics, seeking escape from reality into an "environment lite" where they can blur the edges of vision and thought, and ignore the harsh cultural details (the Middle Ages, for example, had extraordinarily harsh living conditions, little social change, few material goods, haphazard justice, a non-existent medical system, barbaric punishments and enforced religious conformity) in favor of a brief technicolor thrill.

I am highly leary of the whole concept of determining intelligence in anybody, nor do I really understand what trophy the winner receives who comes up with the prize in a given test. But if there is such a defineable quantity as intelligence and it involves the conceptualization of complex concepts, I'd expect to find those people in the most esoteric and recondite of specialized professions. Just my POV.

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Sun Jun 23, 2002 8:06 am

Originally posted by fable

With respect, I find that the sci-fi/fantasy genre is extremely hackneyed, filled with mindless, endlessly repeated cliches that frequently substitute for the one true complex idea: observing the complexities of an individual human being. Even the books I truly love in the field (and I think there are some real classics) haven't got a single stimulating idea among 'em. They can offer great music in language, fantastic images, wonderfully oversized characters--but ideas? Sci/fi and fantasy? If you find an idea in the works of that lot, chances are it was either imported from another genre (Ron Goulart's clever transplant of the 18th century comedy of manners, for example), or first written by HG Wells. And as for fantasy--well, gag me with a spoon owned by an environmentally conscious elf who sings sweet bardic songs. Intellectually stimulating? Not a book in the lot.

Im certainly not as knowledgable in litrature as you seem to be, but isnt there atleast some sci-fi that present an idea in a good way? I think you're abit harsh to lump those two genres together...

fable · Post by **fable** » Sun Jun 23, 2002 8:59 am

Originally posted by Dottie

Im certainly not as knowledgable in litrature as you seem to be, but isnt there atleast some sci-fi that present an idea in a good way? I think you're abit harsh to lump those two genres together...

I was just re-using @Frogus' lumping.

I'd unlump 'em, but I think they really do belong together in a sense. Nearly all the literature in both fields is simply what book publishers would call mass-market niche. It's fast turnaround, pulp stuff that's meant for people who already know exactly what they're getting in advance. It's tailored to their expectations. Note, I'm not suggesting it's poorly written, and as I wrote above, I like quite a few things in the field. But I come to them with what I hope are reasonable expectations. I look for exceptionally good writing, boldly drawn characters, etc. I don't look in sci-fi or fantasy for stimulating ideas--in fact, they're arguably the opposite of works that stimulate intellectually. Sci-fi and fantasy are "comfort genres." They sell well because they avoid deviating from the accepted ways. At their best, they retell old stories and old ideas with panache. They can make you think--but not about ideas; about the way an author uses the language, or how well the author brought a character to life. That's my impression, at any rate.

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Sun Jun 23, 2002 9:33 am

@Fable: In that case, what exactly do you mean with the term sci-fi? One of my favourite sci-fi novels is Solaris by Stanislaw Lem and i certainly dont think its that unimaginative. There is also authors like Ray Bradbury and Denis Lindbohm (swedish, Dont know if he have been translated to english

) that, Whatever you may think of their books, Do not imo follow the default template you often see in fantasy litrature.

I even think authors like Philip K **** and Frank Herbert can be imaginative at times.

There are also much sci-fi with more social focus like A Clockwork orange, 1984 and Egalia's Daughters wich imo hardly can be described as comfort books.

I agree though that there is much sci-fi that do follow the pattern you describe, but i think you're being quite unfair against a genre that imo contain much imagination.