Do you guys believe in gateway games?

What you've described above is pretty much the concept of "gateway" in its common usage in English.

I know that! The most common usage of phrases like "to beg the question," and "hoi poloi," are wrong. Being common doesn't change the fact that they're being used to mean opposite of what they were intended.

In fact it's an exceptionally good metaphor of its usage in the narcotics debate, and precisely how it is used in the boardgaming industry. That is, your statements to date have been directly contradictory to your use of the term.

The gateway theory was never anything more than an attempt to explain the fact that, statistically speaking, a teen-ager is a hell of a lot more likely to use "hard" drugs if they do use marijuana than they are if they don't (which they are), and that the likelihood increases the more they use (it does).

I'm sorry, that's a simple fact. That it's been made to look more, or less, significant than it is by people with an agenda in the debate is not my fault. The word "getway" implies a point of entry, that's it. It does not necessarily imply a wide gateway that everyone passes through.

I don't believe in the Gateway Theory for drugs or for games. The theory depends upon establishing sequencing, association and causation. You may be able to establish sequencing and association through statistical and/or empirical evidence, but you can not establish causation.

The sequencing has pretty much been established. Establishing correlation is unlikely, and establishing causation is impossible. So, no, the theory does not adequately explain the data. Yes, environmental, economic, genetic, and psychological factors are much more likely to be the cause of hard drug use than marijuana use is.

What about that means we can't, or shouldn't, simply recognize the increased risk?

Therefore a Gateway Game would be a game that leads to the playing a "harder" game (deeper, more complex game). All these other definitions people are using are a misappropriation of the term. You all are talking about accessible games, not gateway games. As in "Are there games that are more accessible than other games, which casual gamers will like and play?"

I don't know if you caught it, Uba, but I've been trying to make that distinction the whole time. The only games for which I would use the "gateway" label are games like 40k, M:tG, D&D, A&A, SoC, etc. etc. etc. I'm talking specifically about games which can easily be indentified as hobby games, but have much wider availability, and at least some name recognition. Very much like cheaper and more accessible drugs are most hard drug users' first drugs for whatever reason.

They are very common points of entry, that's all.

ubarose wrote:

Actually, BOTH sequencing AND association have been statistically established. I still don't buy that marijuana is a Gateway Drug in the strict definition of the term. Rather I believe that there is a correlation between the critical risk factors for marijuana use and for hard drug use.

This is the exact point that my addict friends make and the heart and soul of my prior post. They simply state that they tried marijuana first because it was readily available. Addiction is a part of their nature and marijuana simply presented itself first. Their essential point is that alcohol has always come prior to that because it's even more accessible than pot, that only those on the outside of addiction discuss anything about gateway, and that invariably it is used as an argument to keep pot illegal. THAT is the agenda of "gateway." The concept of alcohol as a gateway drug simply does not compute to proponents of the theory for the reason listed in the response above -- something can only be a gateway drug if you wouldn't pull it out in front of a police officer. If someone goes from severe alcohol abuse to cocaine, that's just a tough break. One stick of marijuana in between? Aha! Causality! THAT's what went wrong. No data, just concept.

It's a circular argument. Anything deemed illegal is a candidate for gateway-hood, anything legal is not. Gateways should remain illegal. Gin & Tonics at the club remain on the safe side of the line.

Addicts fully understand the hypocrisy of the argument and enjoy it as an inside joke. Most will smile at the word if you use it, and tease you if they think you might be using it seriously. That's why they'll reply with something like "oxygen" or "Juicy Fruit Gum" or "Coca Cola," because it points up the absurdity of the concept. Most concede (this is folks in recovery -- I don't have significant exposure to those still on the way down so I can't speak to their side of the issue) that addiction is simply part of their nature and that the drug of choice is largely independent of any outside factors. Heroin addicts generally believe that they would have ended up on the needle regardless of the path they took to get there, and the analogous concept applies for other drugs as well.

So back to games. We're the addicts this time. Gateway as used in the gaming sphere of influence is an indication of the suitability for a game to get someone who doesn't care for the hobby into it, a path to addiction. "If only the muggles understood how much fun gaming is, they'd give up golf and play Agricola instead." The problem is that someone that by nature is interested in gaming is perfectly comfortable going to Fury of Dracula first, and someone that isn't interested is just playing Ticket to Ride to shut you up. That's what I wrote on a year back, and I don't think my opinion of the topic has changed significantly if at all.

Gateway is bullshit. If you want to describe another concept ("accessible" or "friendly" or "mainstream") and say it exists, that's fine. But give it a different name. Using a term that isn't even respected in its original context is just stupid, unless you mean it as comedy. I did that last week -- I sniffed over a copy of Timber Tom and said, "I smell gateway!" Everyone at the table smiled and laughed. That's because they're in on the joke.

Sag.

This is the exact point that my addict friends make and the heart and soul of my prior post. They simply state that they tried marijuana first because it was readily available. Addiction is a part of their nature and marijuana simply presented itself first. Their essential point is that alcohol has always come prior to that because it's even more accessible than pot,

YES! And what the hell is so wrong with using the word "gateway" simply to describe this? It's a perfectly descriptive term.

mjl1783 wrote:

This is the exact point that my addict friends make and the heart and soul of my prior post. They simply state that they tried marijuana first because it was readily available. Addiction is a part of their nature and marijuana simply presented itself first. Their essential point is that alcohol has always come prior to that because it's even more accessible than pot,

YES! And what the hell is so wrong with using the word "gateway" simply to describe this? It's a perfectly descriptive term.

Because it's inaccurate and wrong and other people think it means something else? Worth considering?

I'll tell you what -- let's call the concept you're talking about burrito from now on. "Ticket to Ride? That's a GOOD burrito. Your girlfriend will like Ticket to Ride." At that point you can establish a context for the phrase any way you choose without linking it to a thoroughly debunked concept from another part of the culture. Likely you'll raise far less of an argument.

Sag.

I'll tell you what -- let's call the concept you're talking about burrito from now on. "Ticket to Ride? That's a GOOD burrito. Your girlfriend will like Ticket to Ride."

This wasn't terribly funny the first time, even less so the second.

Because it's inaccurate and wrong? Worth considering?

Fine, Sag. Which word would you prefer?

Many view gamers as having a 'gaming gene' (born as gamers)

What is the definition of a gamer?

Are people who only play Apples to Apples when they visit friends gamers?

Someone's grandparents that only play euchre on Sundays, are they gamers?

Or do people have to play multiple games to be considered gamers?

Welcome, Nate! Good to have you here.

Many view gamers as having a 'gaming gene' (born as gamers)

I wouldn't say you're born that way. Most people enjoy some type of game, even if it's just killing time playing solitaire on their computer at work. When it comes to niche board/card/tabletop games, I think it has more to do with your other interests. If you like comic books, for example, odds are you're going to be spending time in stores that sell that kind of game, hanging out with people that play them, etc. Maybe you're into military history, in which case, you're likely to find yourself hanging out with a wargamer or two. That kind of thing.

What is the definition of a gamer?

Are people who only play Apples to Apples when they visit friends gamers?

Someone's grandparents that only play euchre on Sundays, are they gamers?

Or do people have to play multiple games to be considered gamers?

I think it's one of those cases where if you are one, you'll know it, and describe yourself as such. If someone who only plays Apples to Apples would self-apply the term, I'm cool with that. I doubt they would, though.

Yes, but that's not all that useful a descriptor. I suppose it is if you don't think there's a significant difference between Candy Land and Fortress: America. I do.

Candy Land happens to be a hell of a lot of people's first board game. I don't think anyone can say with a straight face that it was Candy Land that sparked their interest in nerd board games. Monopoly is a family game, it's not what we'd consider a hobby game, and I don't see why we have to lump something like 40k in with it in deference to this pedantry that's risen in response to a term which no thinking person could see as anything other than tongue-in-cheek.

The only definition of "gateway" I have encountered is the one used to identify a catalyst that transforms a non-gamer into a gamer. It seems to involve too the presumption that a 'non-gamer' is someone who wouldn't make anything but a fleeting commitment to gaming (i.e., someone who wouldn't own games or think of gaming as a first choice leisure activity, someone who wouldn't be willing to labour through difficult rules or complex strategies or strange themes for fun). The word "gateway" makes me think of a kind of rabbit hole or portal -- a distinct boundary between "us" and "them", where the "us" are always brainier than the "them" who don't take gaming seriously.

I don't like the idea of a 'gateway' game because for me the associations are elitist and gamer elitism means fun-murdering boredom for me. Gaming should be about hospitality and welcome. The very idea of entering into a contest with others suggests an openness and mutual respect that to me seems inconsistent with the exclusionary culture I described above and that too many people find natural.

The strange thing is that the term 'gateway game' is often used in a way that suggests that such games can never be really valid and deserving of serious attention and time. The subtext is that the test of a 'real' gamer is his or her willingness to be done with 'gateway' games and join the ranks of gamer commandos who play obtuse and puzzly 'real' games, not the toys made to 'amuse' the dumb masses. It seems to be mostly those who see themselves as gamer commandos talking to their own kind who use the term 'gateway game'.

Anyway, that's my experience with this word.

This conversation is all over the place and I am having trouble stringing together exactly what you are trying to communicate. I suspect that we are actually agreeing on many things, we are just having trouble defining our terms so that we can communicate effectively.

That's exactly right. The gateway concept, as apparently most people understand it, is pretty dumb on both fronts. Most people are just never going to spend much time playing board games, and there is no game out there that will change that fact. Similarly, most people will never use crack, smack, crank, or whatever no matter how much they drink or get stoned. Yes, I agree with both of those points.

I will say, however, that there are certain games which are not necessarily kids games, or family games, that tend_to_be the "this is cool, give me more" game for a lot of people. And, as I've said repeatedly, those games are usually the more mainstream hobby games like the Gamemaster games, M:tG, D&D, etc. On the Euro side, it does tend to be simpler games like TtR and Carcassonne.

Now, there's no reason to suspect that someone who plays M:tG, and then tries FoD later on wouldn't, or couldn't just go staight FoD. Maybe they would, except that the odds are very good they didn't know about FoD at all before they started hanging out in their local comic shop playing Magic, which you can get anywhere. That exposure might lead to (notice I said "might lead to," not "will directly cause") that person to meet someone who does play FoD, or pop on the internet and start looking at more gaming websites, or whatever.

Back in the day, when you could walk into Waldenbooks and pick up a copy of Cosmic Encounter, or go to Toys R Us and find Magic Realm in the game section, the gateway concept would have absolutely no relevance. It's not quite the same situation now. Unless you have a friend that plays one of those games, you're probably not ever going to know they exist. Now, there's only a small handfull of hobby games which are reaching that many consumers. So, yes, it's very likely that your first exposure to hobby gaming came through these games simply because they're the ones you saw first.

The concept is just as applicable on the drug side. No, smoking pot will not make you a junkie. But, if you do use (notice I said "use," not "are addicted to") more "serious" illicit drugs, smoking pot, or drinking, or using tobacco is more than likely a contributing factor. Maybe not the most significant contributing factor, but a factor nontheless. The concept itself is not just bullshit, it's been made out to be something it's not by people who, for whatever reason, just don't like it.

He was showing me a card with two purple squares on it, and moving my dude to show me how the double purple card worked, and the entire concept of abstract representation, sequencing, point to point movement and game objective suddenly slammed into my brain. My little mind aslpoded in a moment of blinding epiphany, and I was all like, "Whoa! Awesome. I love you double purple card. I love you little gingerbread dude. I love you Daddy." Except, I didn't say any of that, because I didn't know that many words yet.

Well, that is pretty awesome.