Which RPG should I introduce my son to?

[Kaivokz]

Excuse me, but are you telling me that you never stayed up late to read one more chapter? Are you even literate?

I’ve stayed up longer than I should have more often because of books than video games—but that’s my point. People are negatively impacted by unhealthy obsessions with anything. What’s the practical difference between someone who doesn’t form relationships with real people because all they want to do is shut themselves away and read versus shut themselves away and play a video game? That society tells you “reading good, video games bad”?

Not sure if you’ve ever looked at the overall corpus of written works, but most of it is shit, and someone who spends all their time reading mindrotting shit is not “better off” than someone whose only hobby is playing call of duty and shouting at other nerds online.

edit- for context, I used to work at a public library, and the books that trafficked most among adults/teens were romances, whatever was popular (like ‘the fault in our stars’ or ‘twilight’), and pop-political books with different titles that all say the same thing. Fantasy and scifi were one of the least trafficked, and any kind of interesting non-fiction (history, science, philosophy) even less.

 

[Devastator]

I’ve stayed up longer than I should have more often because of books than video games

So you stayed up late because of both. I think you are human

People are negatively impacted by unhealthy obsessions with anything

True, but society will usually consider an obsession bad only if the person is not successful.

trafficked most among adults/teens were romances, whatever was popular (like ‘the fault in our stars’ or ‘twilight’), and pop-political books with different titles that all say the same thing

Imagine choosing that over philosophy. It's good thing you did not become an alcoholic as a coping mechanism.

 

[Kaivokz]

True, but society will usually consider an obsession bad only if the person is not successful.

I am much more interested in what Aristotle called eudaimonia than in how my society judges my success. :D

There is a good that is worth pursuing for its own sake (that is, not as a means to achieve some other end), and that good is eudaimonia or human excellence.

 

[Johnny Biggums]

Don't trust anyone who plays video games and doesn't also think that playing video games is a worthless hobby for losers and retards.

 

[HeroMarine]

Fallout

 

[Thac0]

Kaivokz don't underestimate the advantages of being a heavy reader. If you read much, even if it is literal garbage, you will have at least three things:

1. A high reading speed with similarily high comprehension
this alone trivialises school when you are young and puts you at a strong advantage in university when you want to become an academic, even for natural sciences

2. A larger than average word pool
This is more of a neat gimmick as your word pool won't be much bigger if you just read trash, but at least you will know how to spell common words properly

3. Above average concentration
In order to read properly you need to shut out the world, and invest mental effort into a task than can be dry at chapters. This is the most valuable of the gifts that books give you, as having a good concentration and willpower is paramount in this world of cheap distractions

Your figure of a person for whom reading is an unhealthy obsession is a pure hypothetical, I have never ever met someone like that or even heard of one. So I argue yes, even someone reading Twilight and Hakan Nesser all day is much better off than someone who is addicted to WoW or whatever.

 

[Maxwell's Demon]

Kaivokz don't underestimate the advantages of being a heavy reader. If you read much, even if it is literal garbage, you will have at least three things:

1. A high reading speed with similarily high comprehension
this alone trivialises school when you are young and puts you at a strong advantage in university when you want to become an academic, even for natural sciences

2. A larger than average word pool
This is more of a neat gimmick as your word pool won't be much bigger if you just read trash, but at least you will know how to spell common words properly

3. Above average concentration
In order to read properly you need to shut out the world, and invest mental effort into a task than can be dry at chapters. This is the most valuable of the gifts that books give you, as having a good concentration and willpower is paramount in this world of cheap distractions

Your figure of a person for whom reading is an unhealthy obsession is a pure hypothetical, I have never ever met someone like that or even heard of one. So I argue yes, even someone reading Twilight and Hakan Nesser all day is much better off than someone who is addicted to WoW or whatever.

Reading is only unhealthy in the sense that it can reveal platitudes for what they are. That can have a serious, negative impact on one's mental health. That said, anyone who's enough of a nerd to read books is probably dealing with that already.

 

[Pink Eye]

Thac0 I can't spell...

Let's go back to vidoe games. When I used to attend college. I heard many stories from my professor about his students who dropped out because they were addicted to World of Warcaft. There was one bright student of his who was on track to finishing early, but dropped out because, and I quote: "His Guild Needed Him For Raids". He chose WoW over school. Addiction is very real.

 

[Kem0sabe]

Don't be autistic and turn things that are only harmful in excess like video games or alcohol into forbidden fruit. Your kids will resent you and go crazy the moment they leave for college/work. They will end up as drug addicts, feminists, or other societal rejects out of spite.

Here's a better hypothesis: People who are nearsighted don't want to spend time outside, because they can't see things that are far away. This is almost as bad as that paper on "5G causes COVID-19".

Introducing young children to computers, smartphones, tablets and other electronic devices is very bad for their development. They need to go outside, play with friends, socialize, while also being able to deal with boredom and time to themselves.

Reading is a good thing to get them hooked when they are without activities to do, develops their reading, vocabulary, imagination, creativity and Intelligence.

Games and YouTube are just a pleasure loop for their brains, constantly needing to be fed.

 

[Kaivokz]

Your figure of a person for whom reading is an unhealthy obsession is a pure hypothetical, I have never ever met someone like that or even heard of one. So I argue yes, even someone reading Twilight and Hakan Nesser all day is much better off than someone who is addicted to WoW or whatever.

Hm, I wonder why you’ve met and heard of more people addicted to your hobby than you have crazy old cat ladies and reclusive non-gaming autists.

Different things can be more or less addictive—sex is likely more physically addictive than (most) video games or reading, but surely you would not say, by that merit, we ought to never have sex for risk of addiction, or because if we had rather read a book we’d maybe learn a new word.

Just as an aside, I have not claimed a young kid should be given access to e.g. gambling games or MMOs.

Thac0 / Kem0sabe Your examples for reading benefits vs gaming negatives are all cherry picked. I bet half the non-native English speakers here were assisted in learning to read English and had their vocabularies enhanced by RPGs, and the same can go for kids. As for concentration—you’re supposing the book requires focus, while the game is something mindless, but why not assume the book is mindless brain candy while the game is challenging for the individual and requires focus to beat? Besides, if these sort of things are your metrics, then making your kid read a dictionary would be better in many ways; you have to focus to stay engaged with a dictionary, you will learn new words and how to spell them.

 

[Faarbaute]

This thread is supposedly about a child who is 2 years old, but do carry on about

Different things can be more or less addictive—sex is likely more physically addictive than (most) video games or reading, but surely you would not say, by that merit, we ought to never have sex for risk of addiction

It shows you have great perspective on things.

 

[Johnny Biggums]

My younger cousin actually dropped out of his programming course because he couldnt stop reading books. Now he's neeting at his mom's house and everyone is at their wit's end with him, kid just reads books 24/7, only emerging blearily from his room every few hours to microwave some hotpockets before shambling back to his extensive bookshelf.

 

[Pink Eye]

I fear the neet who reads...

 

[Carpincho Pampeano]

LMAO these boomer don't know that their games were shit lmao they don't even have trophies SMH FR NO CAP.

 

[perfectslumbers]

Thac0 / Kem0sabe Your examples for reading benefits vs gaming negatives are all cherry picked. I bet half the non-native English speakers here were assisted in learning to read English and had their vocabularies enhanced by RPGs, and the same can go for kids. As for concentration—you’re supposing the book requires focus, while the game is something mindless, but why not assume the book is mindless brain candy while the game is challenging for the individual and requires focus to beat?

There are games that require thought, but none of them require "focus," imo. I've had a lot of trouble with concentration in my life and reading books, whether it was advanced literature or simple fantasy novels was both challenging and enriching as my executive function improved massively the more I read. The only games that have ever required "focus," are the worst games I've ever played, since they're so damn boring. Gaming is inherently an activity that grabs your attention. And imo it's nonsense to say that rpgs can increase your reading skills as much as books. The only way that would be the case is if the only rpg you play is Planescape.

I do agree that books can be addictive though. I'd skip meals to read as a child often.

 

[Kaivokz]

perfectslumbers For vocabulary, it depends on the book and game—but, absolutely when it comes to the best books vs the best games, the best books will have better writing and more vocabulary. I’m currently reading ‘History in English Words’ by Owen Barfield and books like this have no parallel in games; games, in fact, aren’t the right medium for that kind of intellectual transfer of ideas. But I believe the same is true for the best stories and fictional worlds.

I’m only opposed to this fatalistic stance that all video games are bad and that it’s always more valuable to do something else. “Fun” is an important part of life—and I don’t see how personally building a party, overcoming challenges, solving puzzles and eventually beating a game (Wizardry, Gold Box SSI games, Legend of Grimrock, Battle Brothers, rogue, Jupiter Hell, etc.) is equivalent to reading about the same thing as a passive observer. Just like you don’t become great at chess by only reading about strategies, but by also playing against tough opponents—there are skills you develop by doing. Just to be clear, I also think kids should get exercise (as should adults), build social skills, explore nature, have spiritual experiences, have quiet time, and as I said before have an overall balanced life without excess.

 

[perfectslumbers]

I’m only opposed to this fatalistic stance that all video games are bad and that it’s always more valuable to do something else. “Fun” is an important part of life—and I don’t see how personally building a party, overcoming challenges, solving puzzles and eventually beating a game (Wizardry, Gold Box SSI games, Legend of Grimrock, Battle Brothers, rogue, Jupiter Hell, etc.) is equivalent to reading about the same thing as a passive observer.

I can agree with that. There's been studies that suggest StarCraft for example increases neuroplasticity. And of course if all someone ever reads is crappy YA books they won't get much of anything from reading.

 

[Bastardchops]

Don't be autistic and turn things that are only harmful in excess like video games or alcohol into forbidden fruit. Your kids will resent you and go crazy the moment they leave for college/work. They will end up as drug addicts, feminists, or other societal rejects out of spite.

Here's a better hypothesis: People who are nearsighted don't want to spend time outside, because they can't see things that are far away. This is almost as bad as that paper on "5G causes COVID-19".

Even if it didn't prove causation directly, it's hardly an unreasonable hypothesis that having less UV exposure while the eye develops could contribute to short-sightedness. I'm not sure why you think your hypothesis is better.

 

[Maxwell's Demon]

Introducing young children to computers, smartphones, tablets and other electronic devices is very bad for their development. They need to go outside, play with friends, socialize, while also being able to deal with boredom and time to themselves.

Reading is a good thing to get them hooked when they are without activities to do, develops their reading, vocabulary, imagination, creativity and Intelligence.

Games and YouTube are just a pleasure loop for their brains, constantly needing to be fed.

I hate to break this to you, but everything you do besides suffering is a pleasure loop for your brain.

Even if it didn't prove causation directly, it's hardly an unreasonable hypothesis that having less UV exposure while the eye develops could contribute to short-sightedness. I'm not sure why you think your hypothesis is better.

Here's a proven hypothesis for you as opposed to baseless speculation: Exposure to ionizing radiation causes a dose-dependent relationship with cancer and immunosuppression. Yes, that includes UV-B.

Can you guess which side of this trucker's face was exposed to sunlight through his window?

 

[Bastardchops]

Here's a proven hypothesis for you as opposed to baseless speculation: Exposure to ionizing radiation causes a dose-dependent relationship with cancer and immunosuppression. Yes, that includes UV-B.

So studies finding a strong correlation between UV exposure in youth and Myopia are in your view baseless speculation? See according to your logic, prior to it being proven that exposure to ionizing radiation causing a dose-dependent relationship with cancer and immunosuppression; someone who observed the correlation between those two things would have been engaging in baseless speculation if they hypothesized that the former was causing the latter.

By that standard your hypothesis about people with short-sightedness not wanting to go outdoors is just baseless speculation.

 

[perfectslumbers]

Here's a proven hypothesis for you as opposed to baseless speculation: Exposure to ionizing radiation causes a dose-dependent relationship with cancer and immunosuppression. Yes, that includes UV-B.

Low exposure to sunlight, and spending lots of time looking at things near to you are both causes of myopia that are commonly found in scientific studies, which of course are both caused by spending more time indoors. It's laughable that you're acting so arrogant about a topic you're so clueless about. These are such commonly cited causes of myopia that they're even on the fucking wikipedia page.

Science is fake and gay but here's some studies for you. I hope 8 is enough for a causal relationship:

https://www.aao.org/editors-choice/sunlight-exposure-reduces-myopia-in-children
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11818374/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2871403/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18294691/
https://www.aaojournal.org/article/S0161-6420(12)01040-8/fulltext
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0014483513000432?via=ihub
https://primaryeyecare.net/wp-conte...trol Studies/outdoor_activity_myopia_Rose.pdf
https://tvst.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2738326

"Light intervention reduced both myopic shift (0.35 D vs. 0.47 D; P=0.002) and axial elongation (0.28 mm vs. 0.33 mm; P=0.003). Risk of rapid myopia progression was also 54% lower in the intervention cohort compared with controls. Effects were significant in both nonmyopic and myopic children.

Investigators noted that longer exposure to moderate sunlight intensity (i.e., hallways, under trees) was as effective as short exposure to high sunlight intensity for preventing myopia."

This is a direct causal relationship between sunlight exposure and prevention of myopia.

"Children aged 7 to 9 years with a greater current reading exposure were more likely to be myopic. This association of reading and myopia in a young age cohort was greater than the strength of the reading association generally found in older myopic subjects. Whether these results identify an association of early-onset myopia with nearwork activity or other potentially confounding factors is discussed."

"Highlights: > The protective effect of high ambient illuminance against myopia which is likely to be mediated by retinal dopamine."

"Higher levels of total time spent outdoors, rather than sport per se, were associated with less myopia and a more hyperopic mean refraction, after adjusting for near work, parental myopia, and ethnicity."

"Children should be encouraged to spend more time outdoors while using sun-protection measures to prevent myopia."

 

[Maxwell's Demon]

So studies finding a strong correlation between UV exposure in youth and Myopia are in your view baseless speculation? See according to your logic, prior to it being proven that exposure to ionizing radiation causing a dose-dependent relationship with cancer and immunosuppression; someone who observed the correlation between those two things would have been engaging in baseless speculation if they hypothesized that the former was causing the latter.

Yes. They would be without setting up some kind of experiment. This was one of the problems in the early days of radioactivity research that slowed the discovery that radiation was itself harmful, because there were a number of "obvious" correlations, such as heavy metals to which researchers were exposed that cause the same health problems that low-level radiation exposure did.

By that standard your hypothesis about people with short-sightedness not wanting to go outdoors is just baseless speculation.

Yes! That's the point! You can pull any explanation you want out of your ass from mere correlation. You can even blame the link on toxic masculinity or 5G.

https://www.aao.org/editors-choice/sunlight-exposure-reduces-myopia-in-children

Researchers recruited grade 1 school children from 16 different Taiwanese schools. Of the 693 students included, 276 were encouraged to spend 11 hours/week outdoors through a school-based program. The remainder of children were in the control group and continued regular activities.

There are serious problems with this study. First, the study needs to be blinded (that means the subjects and, if possible, the experimenter can't know whether they are getting an intervention or not, because of the placebo effect). You need about five hundred participants to draw significant conclusions and a control group outside of that. The participants also need to be randomly selected from the population to prevent cherry picking, a problem this study openly admits. It also helps to not rely on self-reporting because people have bad memories and lie to make themselves look like better parents.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11818374/

In addition to socioeconomic factors, several nearwork indices were associated with myopia in these young children. The multivariate adjusted odds ratio of higher myopia (at least -3.0 D) for children who read more than two books per week was 3.05 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.80-5.18). However, the odds ratios of higher myopia for children who read more than 2 hours per day or with more than 8 diopter hours (1.50; 95% CI, 0.87-2.55 and 1.04; 95% CI, 0.61-1.78, respectively) were not significant, after controlling for several factors.

This is also not experimental.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2871403/

Of the 514 children eligible for this analysis, 111 (21.6%) became myopic. Differences in the third grade between eventual myopes and nonmyopes were seen for the number of myopic parents (P < 0.001) and for the number of sports and outdoor activity hours per week (11.65 ± 6.97 hours for nonmyopes vs. 7.98 ± 6.54 hours for future myopes, P < 0.001). Analysis of the areas under the ROC curves showed three variables with a predictive value better than chance: the number of myopic parents, the number of sports and outdoor activity hours per week, and the number of reading hours per week. After controlling for sports and outdoor hours per week and parental myopia history, reading hours per week was no longer a statistically significant factor. The area under the curve for the parental myopia history and sports and outdoor activities model was 0.73. A significant interaction in the logistic model showed a differential effect of sport and outdoor activity hours per week based on a child’s number of myopic parents.

This is not an experimental study, so it can't show causation.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18294691/

Another non-experimental study.

https://www.aaojournal.org/article/S0161-6420(12)01040-8/fulltext

Not experimental, also the study participants are low.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0014483513000432?via=ihub

This is a study on animals. The "deprivation myopia" studied in this animal model is only one among several competing explanations for human myopia.

https://primaryeyecare.net/wp-content/uploads/Myopia Control Studies/outdoor_activity_myopia_Rose.pdf

Again, this is not an experimental study.

https://tvst.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2738326

This is a study measuring the intensity of light with a meter, and is not related to the question at all.

 

[Haba]

Really it is a question of what kind of a deviant you want him to turn into. Choose wisely.

 

[Mexi]

When I was a kid, my best friend's dad had some badass computer games. I played Age of Empires: 2 at his house, and holy shit, I got obsessed with it. I didn't like Command and Conquer like he did, though. Anyways, his dad wasn't a gamer as I never seen him play games, but he was a soldier, so I'm assuming he played video games once in a blue moon since my friend only had computer "privileges" when his dad was deployed, which was almost all the fucking time.

My friend used to harp on about Baldur's Gate. We were both into Lord of the Rings, and he talked about that game all the time, but I didn't play it until long after. Anyways, that's probably a good game for a kid, but my best friend was kind of mature as a kid. He used to read books like those Dragon Lance series and Harry Potter. He liked video games, but I wouldn't say he was an avid gamer.

Besides that, "introducing" video games to your son sounds like you are a coomer faggot that still plays video games even though you have to be in your mid-to-late 30's. You should honestly be ashamed of yourself. I would just buy your son that game, and if he plays it, he plays it. If he doesn't play it, it shouldn't be a big deal.

 

[Skdursh]

ELEX IS THE ONLY CHOICE. ELEX IS ALL.