The Holy Trinity (of MMOs) Part Two: Diversity over Inclusivity.

MMOs have tried to become more and more inclusive.
The more inclusive an MMO is, developers reason, the more subscriptions are attracted and perhaps you'll have a hope of recovering the investment.
Considering the expense of developing an MMO, this is completely understandable.
It is entirely incorrect though.
World of Warcraft has it's massive share of the market not because it is so easy to play, not because everything can be done by everybody.
It is so big because it changed the nature of MMOs. It required communities to develop in order to see large parts of the game. Those communities attract more interest and increase subs.
It is the community behind the game that powers Warcraft's massive popularity, and those communities were built when the game was not inclusive at all.
As inclusivity had increased, communities have suffered, as Blizzard can attest with a decline in server populations as people migrate to greener pastures and whole servers die, all the while the subscriber base remains high.

I believe whole heartedly that what needs to be offered is diversity of play, rather than inclusivity.
Many ways in which to play the game, not an ambiguous crap heap than anyone can dive into and "complete" with little effort.
That is where the trinity comes in.

For the last several expansions Tanking has become more simple and far easier.
Anyone arguing with this point is an idiot, I'm sorry.
Blizzard themselves have admitted as much and with sound reason.
The Looking For Group tool requires FAR more tanking players than any raid team can provide.
1 tank and 1 healer for each 3 dps. Fine if every guild is a 10man, but in the modern 20, outdated 25 and archaic 40man, that ratio is impossible to maintain.
And so, tanking was made easier to attract more players to the faster queues, lowering queue time for everyone. As anybody using the LFG tool can attest, the queues are still not friendly for a damage class.
Their design philosophy also wants player experiences to be fairly short. 20 minutes in a dungeon, not the 2-3 hours of vanilla, or 1hour+ of burning crusade.
The old requirements of Crowd Control classes meant Blizzard addressed this by giving most classes a CC ability, and then removing any need to use them in almost all content. Only a limited selection of classes could use Area of Effect abilities to clear a lot of monsters quickly, so all classes were given access to AoE. Players then dedicated their play time to finding ways to make all encounters reliant on these new damage abilities, as the raw damage output was exponentially higher.
All of this served to kill the diversity of classes and options for players, replacing it with being inclusive.

It might be fun in the moment to see big numbers, but people become bored very quickly of doing the same things again time after time.
Blizzard does an exceptional job of designing Boss encounters that remain engaging and challenging, but this in and of itself is self defeating. As a long time raid and guild leader, players are trained to play poorly by the game outside of high end raiding and expect to compete immediately without effort. Newer players are simply not made ready for endgame with the tools provided by blizzard, but must be plunged directly into the fire to be tempered. A frustrating proposition for all involved.
Add to this the latest tool for finding a raid, and for many joining a community is simply not worth it.

So, how to "fix" the problem and build content that is engaging and encourages communities to flourish.

• Remove ubiquitous aoe

Players should need to target the thing they need to attack, not just point in the right direction.
At the moment we have MMOs build around players spraying and praying in the general direction of danger. When they are finally required to target monsters tactically, it becomes an exercise in herding cats.

• Restoring the Trinity

Design specialisations around their job in the raid.
Tank specs should be designed around controlling the behaviour of monsters, damage reduction and raid utility. If a tank is required to track a complicated rotation and many dps ability cooldowns in order to be effective they are not playing a tank, they are playing a glorified dps.
Healing is largely unfuckupable, though I think more hybrid roles are awesome (this is the one area I think Blizzard has done remarkably well, with healers able to switch to fairly substantial damage on the fly)
Damage classes should specialise and vary. Build classes that can do certain jobs very well, and put content in that makes them useful. Kiting, Crowd Control, debuffing, AoE. This should be that persons role in any encounter. Make some classes/specs more difficult to get right, some easier. Give people options in playstyle and don't stress perfect balance or the fact a VERY limited part of the player base will exploit.

• Crowd Control is FUN and USEFUL

Making Crowd Control ubiquitous was somewhat necessary for Blizzard, as mages were essentially mandatory in even 5man content.
Unfortunately, at the same time they gave everyone (including tanks) easy AoE and made crowd control entirely redundant. Players then refused to CC in order to see big numbers and "increase speed" and complained when content was too difficult, which saw it nerfed repeatedly over every expansion since.
CC was not broken.
People still played and ENJOYED burning crusade 5man content for the WHOLE EXPANSION.
That has not been true since.
Making groups play strategically gives a sense of accomplishment and satisfaction.

• Attunements are not a bad thing.

Perhaps a little controversial, but attunements don't make people groan, they provide a structure so people know what they should be doing. Now, developers keep making the mistake of making attunements a PUNISHMENT, but they do not need to be.
Wildstar screwed up by making it's attunement so time intensive, and forcing players to play through the same content when they had already done it all because of an arbitrary restriction. (seriously, having to go and repeat scenarios for the 5th or 6th time in order to advance a quest is frustrating. Attunement should direct play, not dictate it)

Burning Crusade was onerous in the extreme.
Having to run dungeons to Revered reputation to get a key to enter heroic... it was a bit much after doing it on your main.
It did however ensure that people were committed and new what to do (generally)
Later in the expansion attunements were relaxed and a perfect medium was reached (imo)
Rep grind and familiarisation on a main character and that unlocks the content for your whole account.
Great!
Scrapping the attunement for the later raids?
Perfect!

Then we hit The Frozen Throne and it is all thrown out of the window and we see the start of the decline of group play.
Developers need to keep in mind two things when planning endgame content.
First, attunements can be used to direct players to the content you built for their exact level of gear. This limits the frustration your playerbase feels at failure and more importantly, having the deal with those unprepared for the content you find yourself in.
Second, it gives a sense of achievement. It advances your character in a very real sense. Think of it more as just another item they can equip; it's the whole point of the game!
Don't use attunement as a stick to beat people. Use it to funnel players to where they are able to play well. Make it about personal accomplishment and skill, not a time sink (or in the case of the long term "legendary quests" Blizzard has been doing, please allow players to catch up when new content is released. It is endlessly frustrating to have people behind and unable to catch up because the content isn't regularly cleared any more)

• Encourage community play.

MMOs live and die on their community.
Give people incentives to play in and be active with a guild (whatever it may be called)
This one is tough, but I think it is entirely possible.
Of course there should be options for solo play (I actually enjoy it, strangely enough) but emphasise group play, especially ad-hoc, if you can manage it. Public Quests were a great idea, and they work very well. Prompting people to join together automatically is a very good concept I wish was used more (even allow people to flag themselves as potential "leaders")

• All content should be endgame content.

The fact that content becomes obsolete is so strange to me.
It does not need to be this way.
In my opinion, the best game to demonstrate what I mean is Eve Online.
You enter the game and despite being able to do very little, everything you do can be used by the most jaded veteran towards their goals.
The most easily obtained crafting material remains relevant to everyone, meaning no content becomes obsolete and new players can engage with whomever they wish and accomplish shared goals.

Another principle to consider is level adjustment.
Allow players of wildly different levels to play the same content.
If you can allow the high level player to receive loot relevant to them, great (Neverwinter does this) but regardless it will serve to bring people together, which again is the core of building a real audience in an MMO.

***

These are just the ramblings of a mad man, but they are the conclusions I arrive to after 15+ years of playing.
"Inclusion" has been poison to MMOs because it demeans everyone. Diversity (of available playing options) will serve the same end, without needed to dumb anything down in an attempt to expand the target audience.
I live in hope we see this in future franchises, and I wait with baited breath for my appetite to be whetted by a truly engaging MMO.

The Holy Trinity (of MMOs) Part One: An introduction to my MMO experiences.

This is my bugbear.
But perhaps an introduction is in order;
I've been playing MMO's since I was 16~ which is around 15 years of experience.
While players come and go, I can usually rely on the same crowd returning to "try out" any new MMO on the market, and some for the latest World of Warcraft expansion.
To say I have wasted countless days of my life playing games that are little more than a pretty skinner box is probably an apt description.

I will say that my addiction to online gaming has almost certainly saved my sanity, if not my life.
It has kept me in touch with my friends and made me many more that I'd never have come across (how many normal people can boast a sofa to sleep on in almost every country in Europe and some places beyond?) It has broadened my horizons, and dispelled many misconceptions of my fellow man.
Perhaps not entirely wasted time.

But there remains a large part of me that is continually disappointed at potential wasted (often squandered) by continual pandering to even wider audiences.
My first days online as a teenager (late to the party, amongst the last of my peers to get a PC) saw me thrown into a roleplay game like no other.
I speak of Ultima Online.
It's still going though I left is long ago.
For those unaware, it is a true MMORPG.
Players are able to build a unique character from a variety of skills to achieve whatever end they wish, mastering some skills completely, leaving others intentionally stunted. You could be a crafter, with no combat skills at all, or a thief (in the old days you really could steal anything not literally nailed down, including from other players houses and inventory)
Perhaps you'd like to tame a Dragon to do your fighting for you?
Of course certain builds were popularised as very effective but in those early days building a character was truly a feat of perseverance, as you slowly navigated a completely open world to discover which challenges you could overcome, and which would end your life.
In this game, there was no trinity. Each player had to be somewhat self sufficient, with cooperative play leading to feats of achievement that still satisfy me today as memories.

That all changed when I was finally enticed to Warcraft scant months before the release of the burning crusade.
Questing was entirely new to me, as was levelling (in an MMO)
Always before I had gone where I was able to kill the toughest monsters I could to train skills and earn money.
WoW was an entirely different beast.
A game on rails, directing your play and segregating it's population based on their advancement.
It has it's merits as well as pitfalls, the major downside being my complete isolation from those that encouraged me to play in the first place.
The role play was sidelined too, replaced by what amounted to participation in a story.
No more did I see roving bands of players posing as Orcs or Undead to kill other players, nor the casual acquaintances of those farming the same spots I preferred (or the enmity of those that would come to kill me)
Then came the Holy Trinity, and it was a revelation.

I had always preferred playing rough and tumble characters, able to take a hit and shrug it off.
Warcraft took that concept a step further with the Tanking role.
My first outing as a tank was amusingly naive.
I knew my job, I'd had a brief go in a dungeon when levelling a friend's mage, I had all the skills and went to it with gusto.
About 3/4 through gnomeregon a member of my party complain that I never taunted when I did lose aggro or we had adds incoming.
My reply.... "that's a cooldown!"
I had misread the tooltip and thought the very concept of taunting was powerful enough to warrant a minutes long cooldown (Shield Wall being the ability in question, the genuinely powerful 40% damage reduction)
Only after the instance did I see my error, and in one of the more annoying 5 man dungeons.
Still, it cemented my adoration for the role. The strategy of planning a pull, the high pressure and constant attention required, the pure sweat and adrenaline and the genuine appreciation shown my groups (when nothing went wrong)
Tanking, for those of you new to the game, is not what it used to be.

Healing remained a mystery to me for a long time, until months into The Burning Crusade I had finally deemed myself ready after rerolling to a Paladin, levelling as protection because I am insane, and started looking for a raiding guild.
The jackpot was struck with an invite to my first Guild (in any game, I am something of a loner and in any case I'd never been logged in for longer than a few minutes without being recruited into a group on my warrior)
Karazan. There is a reason the place remains a fond memory for WoW players, despite its flaws.
The snag? I had to heal.
Now, I'm never one to shy away from a challenge, and I am exactly arrogant enough to believe I can accomplish just about anything. With the spec I'd never played, in the odds and sods items I'd kept for offspec duty.
Raid Frames? What are raid frames?
What do you mean dispel, how do I do that?
Needless to say, my new friends were not impressed, but they were very patient and helpful.
After initial disasters mostly resting on my novice shoulders we managed to clear the place.
I still have fond memories of my first raid team, my first guild (still in touch with a few faces after all this time) and I even stooped to writing fanfic about our epic Gruul run (gathering 25 players for content is a feat a lot of people take for granted all on its own)

To this day I have never played a damage dealer to any high level of play.
While I do enjoy the concept, I am unable to abandon the more essential duties above. I am more than capable of the role though (good old personal arrogance) and being acknowledged is always satisfying.
Sadly, Warcraft, and many MMOs since, seem to have committed to making the last aspect of the holy trinity all about numbers. Even Wildstar, touted as upping the difficulty, doubled down on ending strategic play and control in favour of aRPG elements and cleaving the universe to death.
For those that lived through the various iterations, this is a corruption of the old term, as the last of the trinity was about crowd control and general utility (buffing/debuffing/kiting)
Along the way something very cool and worth investing in was discarded because lazy players did not want to make that effort and so were not given the same precedence in building a team.

So ends the introduction; tune in for Part 2: Diversity over Inclusivity.

Who benefits most from society?

This is a big topic.
Without a doubt, civilisation DOES benefit those living in it.
Now, there are sociological arguments that isolation and barbarism (for want of a better term) are not bad, but I for one enjoy the benefits of the modern world which would be impossible without our sprawling and interconnected cultures.

Many would suggest that the greatest benefits of civil society are enjoyed by the poor through welfare and charity.
These are certainly advantages bought about through our social contracts, and a great argument for our nature as nurturing and empathetic creatures.
I would argue that whatever the advantages enjoyed by the poor and disadvantaged in society, they are dwarfed by the advantages garnered by the wealth classes.

  This shows who is getting the most out of society in a very real & direct way

Two thirds of the wealth is owned by the top 5%

Their tax burden is not 2/3rds of tax revenue.

Take a look at the world and examine the lives of its peoples.
Many argue that greater freedom results in increased wealth and less reliance on state.
Observation should inform people otherwise.
Freedom comes with costs.
Absolute freedom results in chaos, poverty, crime and war.
Every nation without a strong governing body is rife with conflict and poverty, regardless of natural wealth. Even areas within advanced nations without a welcome and positive police presence are more dangerous.
So, when society places restrictions on people (which it must) what we see is often greater personal freedom for the majority.
We can argue where limits should be placed and what constitutes an attack on personal liberty, but I do not believe that anyone supports absolute freedom, as such a position is self defeating.

Tax pays for the structure of society, and we are told that the rich are overburdened because they pay more than the poor. The poor make use of lots of government resources, so the burden to pay for these services should rest on those that use them.
To me, this is fallacious.
Who benefits the most from education?
The individual pupil?
I do not think you would find many that would agree.
No, society as a whole benefits from an educated population, and the wealth classes leverage this population for their endeavours. An educated worker is more useful than an uneducated one. This is irrefutable.
This is not exploitation on either side, when done well, but a partnership.
Without the expenditure by the government through tax, employers would not have skilled people to employ. An illiterate and innumerate population would produce far less value, to say nothing of advanced education.
This thinking extends to everything.
Who benefits from roads?
The individual motorist can get to work, absolutely, but the company he works for relies on the roads for ALL of their staff to arrive. The drivers themselves use the roads, but others indirectly benefit from that infrastructure.

If you look at wealth distribution, you see that the richest people in the world make their money in the markets of societies in which they complain about paying too much tax.
They believe their contributions to society are unfair, despite their wealth being ENTIRELY RELIANT on that society.
To me, this is a simple, self explanatory concept.
They are riding the horse, but refuse to pay for its feed, stable and grooming.
Just because they do not benefit directly from a state handout does not mean they are not utterly reliant on the system they rail against.
Largely that last sentence is untrue anyway, as the burden felt by business and the independently wealthy is often massively alleviated by tax breaks, refunds and subsidies.
The misleading idea that marginal tax rates are the rate of tax an individual or institution pays is responsible for much of the support for lowering taxes.

This shows the effective rates of tax on individuals

It can be applies generally with some caveats

Note how the corporate entities pay significantly less than individuals

As you can see, it is neither rich nor poor individuals that have "no skin in the game"

Compare these two images to the first image on this post.

Think about how you are told that the rich pay "too much" 

We are left in a world where those drawing most benefit from the system complain if asked to pay a fair share back into it; believing the convenient self deception that their wealth is magically produced by their own ingenuity, and not a product of the Nation in which they reside.
This is not to say that those contributing the most to society are unworthy of praise or should be vilified, I have nothing against people working for wealth (I have many things to say against cronyism and wealth, as in capital, having more value than work)
I just believe that they must begin to recognise that they are the most reliant on that society. They have the most to lose. Their contributions to society are essential, but they are not inherently noble or virtuous. They should pay most in because they do in fact get most out. If you earn two thirds of the wealth you should be paying two thirds of the tax bill, not complaining that the poor don't shoulder more of the burden.
You are engaged in a partnership with society, value for value.
Try not to escape the obligation you have to the society that enabled you to succeed.

On Filthy Casuals

The term "casual" is common amongst video gaming communities.
Often it is given a negative connotation, without much thought into how it is being used.
This is sad, as it is a useful way to deliniate what a given player wants from the game and community they are engaged in.
Now, can and is it used as an insult? Absolutely.

So is "noob" or "elitist" or any number of ambiguous terms applied to a player either appropriately or inappropriately with the intention to offend.
Much like "noob" though it is not necessarily an insult, even when said insultingly. It could be the straight up truth.

If you are unfamiliar with the game mechanics, or the abilities of the character you are using, it is entirely appropriate even if it's hurtful. The amount of effort you expend while playing is irrelevant, only your level of competence matters.

With "casual" the delineation is even MORE helpful, as it is a declaration of how you intend to play.
Believe it or not, most people are not literal monsters that want to upset everyone they come across.
Much of the venom spewed in online play is vented frustration, not malice.
If everyone is aware you are a new player, you will often find more help than you find insults.
If everyone is aware that you play casually, you will not be expected to contribute as much as a hardcore player (the downside being you will not be included when such dedication is deemed necessary)

Now, if a player joins a public game, uses a random party tool or solo queue and immediately expects everyone to be intimate with the game, their role and the tactics that are somehow never divulged by this individual; that player is not "hardcore." They are not "elite." They are an idiot, and the every toxic element that causes much of the frustration you will see. (if they ping the map repeatedly when there is no possible way to do anything about it, they are in this category. They want to show you how clever they are by predicting things that have already happened)

If on the other hand a player tries to organise the game through chat, pings the map to give direction or even invites everyone to use voice comms, that player is your BFF as a casual. He might respond poorly if ignored, he might get into a scrap with the idiot of the previous paragraph (making them have to distinguish sometimes) but if you say you're new or aren't sure what to do, you'll most often get a couple of friendly hints and a pep talk.

Don't run from the "casual" or "noobie" labels. They are your shield from an awful lot of frustration, both your own and those that often seem out to get you.
Embrace your attitude to gaming, the fun you bring will often be infectious.
Most gamers, in my experience, delight in being more knowledgeable and being able to show people the ropes.

Thoughts on Liberalism.

Liberalism.
Much maligned and often misrepresented (even by it's staunch proponents) it is without doubt one of the most important political ideologies in human history.

First, to nail down my definition.
A liberal portion is generous, a liberal attitude is tolerant or moderate.
As a political principle liberalism has always placed personal liberty, freedom of expression and secular society highly.
If you believe in freedom of speech (no matter how offensive), the free market and freedom of (or from) religion, you are practising Liberal attitudes. (note: Liberalism as a movement or ideology does not have a monopoly on these things, but the point remains)

In the UK, Liberalism has maintained it's definition.
It is the middle ground between conservatives and socialists.
Now, in some ways this is immensely positive as all mainstream parties have adopted some measure of liberalism, as have the core political ideologies behind them.
In others it has come to reflect a lack of conviction, fence sitting indecision and conflicting policies.
Small L liberalism has won throughout the Western world, and no amount of pretending the word is a curse word will change that reality.

Sadly, American Liberalism (and the political left internationally) has been somewhat coopted by groups and individuals that are not liberal at all.

Anything that undermines individual freedom is against liberalism.
This is a hard line, but difficult to describe.
Personal liberty must have some limit, or I could just walk into your house and take your shit.
I think it's fairly obvious when we are limited so that others may be extended their rights, but there is plenty of ambiguity to argue over the specifics.
Anyone suggesting that individual rights are somehow subordinate to the needs of society is not a liberal.

Free Markets.
Liberalism does not promote state capitalism or socialism.
One of the core tenets of liberalism are property rights, which are the basis of capitalist economies; flawed though I find our modern standards they're a damn sight better than history can provide. Capitalism is not perfect. Anyone saying it is needs to be taken into a padded room, but much like democracy itself; it's an horrendous way of doing things, the only virtue being that it's superior to all alternatives.
Anyone opposing capitalism (even as much as I do, which is to focus on the criticisms) is not a liberal.

Secular society.
Religious tolerance is the cornerstone of liberalism.
Sadly, this is often taken to ridiculous extremes lately with much "progressive" media desperate to defend intolerable religious practices and preach moral relativism.
This can only end in division and intolerance reciprocated from both sides of the divide created.
Anybody suggesting that the religious rights of one person or ideology should be afforded extra protection or reverence is not a liberal.

Now "Social Liberalism" as an ideology complicates matters, but honestly I see it as entirely unrelated to liberalism as an economic or political philosophy.
This laudable set of values grew from classical liberalism, but is such a diverse and divisive concept that it should be placed firmly in it's own category.
For one, I believe that almost the entire Western world is socially liberal.
The trouble comes when zealous ideologues use people's altruistic desires for a tolerant and inclusive culture to promote attitudes of intolerance, bigotry and blame.
This has been a growing problem amongst liberals and the political left, as "call out culture" reaches new heights, all in the name of "inclusion"
The dichotomy and hypocrisy of the practice disturbs me more because so many people refuse to condemn it.

Liberalism might have sown the seeds of social liberalism, and the ubiquity of social liberalism might have allowed the authoritarian "progressives" we should rightly and ironically label "social justice warriors" to flourish, but they are none of them synonymous.
I for one hope that Libertarians will reach a moderate consensus and appreciate just how much they share with Liberals they so often vilify.
Only by unifying reasonable people across political divides can we hope to combat the identity politics endemic on the extreme ends of all ideologies.
Iidentity politics are as inimical to liberalism as they are to libertarians.

PUA, don't hate the player, hate the Game.

Pick up Artists have a bad reputation.
Exploiting women for sex, teaching men to lie and manipulate to get what they want.
Sounds bad.
Some extreme ideologues want it categorised as rape (only when men do it, obviously, despite the protestations it would apply equally to all from law makers)

Now, I am not a PUA.
The very ideas behind the Game are against my personal philosophy.
I'd rather be lonely than have sex with a virtual stranger I need to lie to or manipulate.
That said, I will not judge other people for needing the crutch.
Because that is what it is, a crutch.
Not an evil and nefarious plan by men to rape unsuspecting willing women.

Many "beta nerds" (much like myself) are rather terrified by the prospect of dating and women in general.
This is not because they're stupid or unlikeable, it is because women hold all of the power and society is not afraid to shame men repeatedly since childhood to enforce a standard of behaviour.
We have a system whereby women will declare their independence and equality with one breath, but announce they still want a potential boyfriend to pay for everything when dating.
Simply put, the rules for modern courtship are a mess. We as men are told all sorts of things that we should and should not do. A lot of the "advice" contradicts itself.
Men's feelings on this are ignored or mocked, by men and women alike.
If you feel this way, you are defective. You are bad. You just need to be better.

PUA offers an alternative.
It tells vulnerable men exactly what to do to sleep with women and thereby have value as a man.
It does not shy away from truths, it does not attempt to make things equitable.
Most of the men that seek to learn "the game" do not WANT casual and meaningless sex, as strange as that sounds. It might be a bonus, but that's not what they are there for.
What they want is a way to meet women where they feel equal, where they feel capable, where they have some control.
I'd also suggest men want to feel desired, PUA offers this.

Now, some of this is exploitation of men's self consciousness.
Vulnerable men are taught to exploit women and derive self worth from this.
I'd suggest if you look deeper this is almost never the case.
When you get past the bravado, this is simply men boosting the confidence of other men. To make money or to do "good" is irrelevant. It's no different than makeup tutorials or fashion advice. It's no different than the plot of an enormous amount of romcoms. It is not dangerous or evil.
I'm sure a direct comparison between "the Game" and women's/teen magazines would show one is MUCH worse for dehumanising a gender and teaching to manipulate and lie, and that is the socially acceptable one.

While I dislike PUA as a lifestyle choice, it is not mine nor anyone else's place to judge.
I will extend my empathy to those men that feel they have no other choice, and hope it leads them to happiness and a woman (or women, I'm no tradcon) that will love them for themselves.
I hope everyone can learn that PUA is just an imperfect solution to a real problem, a problem that is not going away as men continue to be demonised to the point that only complete bastards can function properly (really ladies; the only people hurt by the campaigns to "improve" men are already good men. Bad people don't feel bad when you point out how shitty they are)

For all the gay men out there; "the Game" for men is easy mode.
Men are dawgs!
Try to feel some pity for your straight brothers!

Why nerds love Dungeons and Dragons

To normal people, the popularity and outright fanaticism towards Dungeions and Dragons is confusing.
It's just playing pretend, right?
Well, I hope to explain why DND (and table top gaming in general) has captured the imagination of generations and inspired much obsession within nerd hearts and minds.

• Gambling

This is the thing most people miss when discussing tabletop gaming.
It is a form of gambling.
Instead of money, you are betting on the outcome of an action. To influence the outcome you build a character that is good at some things and bad at others, so you are able to "bet" in a smart way to accomplish a "win"
The rush you get from winning is very real, and made more satisfying as you are able to decide both the form of the bet AND influence the outcome in your favour.
Simply put, when you succeed you feel like a mad genius, when you fail everyone gets to laugh at your expense.

• Be the Hero you want to see.

Power fantasies are addictive.
DnD not only provides a venue to express these fantasies, but a sense of accomplishment when doing so.
You do not simply pretend and recieve.
You work towards a goal over time.
You have set backs.
You fail.
You persevere.
You may never reach your goal, but when you do, the glory is real.

Some players choose to play a role, to put themselves in the skin of another, imaginary, person. Others use the character as a pawn to play through.
Neither is correct nor incorrect.

• An interactive story

Each person in a game contributes to the story being told.
Yes, the Dungeon Master acts as a director, leading the players through a plot, but everyone decides how things will happen.
With a skilled DM, the stories that unfold can be exceptionally complicated, nuanced and very human. The adventures can be spectacular or mundane, but sharing them with friends gives you all the fun of discussing the shows you love, or the game you caught last night, but you participated in it.

While there are many places that post campaigns publicly to share the stories told, I'll direct everyone wanting to take a quick glance to Penny Arcade playing a Dark Sun adventure one of the players (Kris Straub) is a beginner and it's a 7 episode "one off" so not much of a commitment to listen to at work.
Even if you hate the game, you *will* laugh at the antics of the players.
I promise.
If you love it, the crew (minus Straub, sadly) do a regular game called Acquisitions Inc.

• Team work

Human beings are social animals.
As much as individual accomplishment feels great, being part of a successful team is always better.
To play DnD you must work with others, the game is built with this in mind. No character can do everything and those that try to be the jack of all trades are the master of none (and often miss out on the coolest stuff)
When you look at the packed stands in a sporting venue and see cheering crowds, you are seeing this very real drive in action on a massive scale.
DnD exploits this to bring players together.

• Social interaction without the small talk

Many nerds are socially awkward.
Making small talk about nothing feels weird, and we'd all much rather avoid it.
DnD provides a LOT of nonsense to talk about, often including abstract thinking and problem solving. Which we find fun.
The comfort of a shared interest means that nerds can get to know one another without the pretence of social competence.
Not all nerds need this, but I'm confident to say that all nerds ENJOY it.

• The love of learning

Learning is something many people think they don't like.
They are mistaken, because they associate learning with school, and school with boring crap.
If you really love football, and can recite the team roster of every team in the league, their win record and top scorers... you just proved you loved learning. You're a football nerd. Deal with it.
If you love to cook, and want to try new things all the time; you love learning. You're a food nerd. Deal with it.
It's no different for real nerds. Collectively, we enjoy learning how systems work, how to accomplish things given a certain set of restrictions (also known as "games")
The joy in knowing how to accomplish things is what drives nerds, and DnD provides that in spades.

***

I hope this dispels "sad losers pretending" from people's minds when thinking of tabletop gaming.
The things nerds enjoy are fun for a reason, and I'll hope people give them a go before judging them too harshly.