Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Just a little something I'm finding myself becoming increasingly aware of, and I think would benefit the community as a whole when kept in mind.

To me, there are three sides to this Hobby we play.

1. My Hobby
2. Your Hobby
3. The Hobby.

All three coexist at the same time, and are technically the same thing, but also radically different in some ways. Strikes me that most threads that get locked or cleansed are due to us forgetting this (yes, myself included before anyone accuses hypcoricy). We all have our own take on the Hobby. For me, I play quite a lot, paint a little, convert now and again, and am not too fussed about the outcome of a game as long as I have fun. This is my Hobby. Your Hobby however, is everything that is your bag, be it Tournament Play, seriously competitive play, only painting, never painting, theoryhammer, proxying etc. The Hobby however, is arguably the most set. This covers everything possible under the wide umbrella of Hobby Gaming. Every company, every model, every dice type, every painting technique, they all form part of The Hobby. A bit like a Smorgasbord, where people come up with their plates to load up on the Goodies they enjoy, and leaving the bits they don't really fancy for others.

Sorry if this seems preachy, but just wanted to discuss it if possible (does it even need discussing? IF not, I guess it doesn't even need saying really). Apologies in advance if anyone feels condescended. But yeah. There you go!

"Understanding is a three edged sword: your side, their side, and the truth." - Vorlon saying.

Well said sir!

I wanna watch B5 now. But first, Bath then Starship Troopers!

So now we have the metahobby, another theoretical concept that will get in the way of having fun?

There is the signifier of the hobby, and there is the sign of the hobby...

Not really, it's just something to consider when things get heated in a conversation, particularly on the Interwebs. We can all get quite bombastic (some more than others, myself included) in our views, and that just doesn't help a conversation along at all.

lord_blackfang wrote:So now we have the metahobby, another theoretical concept that will get in the way of having fun?

No, that's just your hobby. My hobby has a bit of philosophy wrapped into it, but not a metahobby. Whether THE hobby has a metahobby, who can truly say?

malfred wrote:There is the signifier of the hobby, and there is the sign of the hobby...

"You got your Derrida in my Hobby!"
"You got your hobby on my Derrida!"

Wargaming and Deconstructionism...two great tastes...

I suppose you could call it a Metahobby. Certainly I often find myself taking a breather before posting when someone has made a sweeping statement (nobody is going to buy these etc). They are speaking from their experience and their opinion, and I'm speaking from mine. Trick is of course to not just decide you are right and all others are wrong, another thing I can be guilty of (and probably more often than I realise)

There is no metahobby. Not a single instance of "hobby" occurs without a particular individual or individuals being involved. You can't separate hobby from human action. And not human action in some abstract or theoretical sense, but real people doing real stuff they enjoy.

frozenwastes wrote:There is no metahobby. Not a single instance of "hobby" occurs without a particular individual or individuals being involved. You can't separate hobby from human action. And not human action in some abstract or theoretical sense, but real people doing real stuff they enjoy.

Or CAN you?

Can we just go back to making fun of casual gamers?

avantgarde wrote:Can we just go back to making fun of casual gamers?

DCGM says no.

Also, that you need to start watching your models backs for even mentioning such.

Pfft...

I'll just say spout some platitude aimed at nobody like:
"You can't play to lose."
Then smugly lean back in my desk chair while hitting ctrl-r.

I'm a casual gamer. No-one really plays 'to lose', but if you place too much emphasis on (and have too much emotional investment in) winning a game of toy soldiers at all costs, then... I won't be too interested in playing you, sorry. I like to have fun. That's the point.


That's my hobby. If only it were everyone's.

Second Albatross. A game without narrative is not my hobby. Or should I say our hobby, Our thing? Cosa Nostra? Bwahahahaha! Here comes the Casual Gamer Mafia!

I play to lose and to fluff.

That's why I challenge every Space Wolves player I can and play Thousand Sons against them.

malfred wrote:

frozenwastes wrote:There is no metahobby. Not a single instance of "hobby" occurs without a particular individual or individuals being involved. You can't separate hobby from human action. And not human action in some abstract or theoretical sense, but real people doing real stuff they enjoy.

Or CAN you?

Try. Start talking about an instance of activity with no active participants. The best we can do is to talk about what past participants have done, or what future participants might do. Or what things have been common to the actions taken by participants.

If by some miracle we manage it, it would be utterly irrelevant as it would be unrelated to people doing things and thus have nothing whatsoever to do with us or our hobby*.

*-- and I can say "our hobby" in reference to the things that are common between what you do as an actual participant and what I do as an actual participant.

I'd like to thank Albatross for taking the bait...

And Syr, why did you have to bring Derrida into this? Gonna have some wierd dreams tonight.

I find that at the end of the day, you're still stuck with whoever shows up at your local gaming venue, no matter what kind of gamer you are.

Thousands sons for the wi.....well maybe if i get lucky...n!!

I guess I should have added that the reason I made the claim that there is no "the hobby" is that I completely disagree with the OP's choice to use the idea of "the hobby" as a term that includes any and all possible interests cobbled together in any way you like.

if "the hobby" exists, it includes the things that actual people do that's common among them. And thus is an exclusive term rather than an inclusive ones because it excludes those who don't do those things. They have their own hobby-- and it's equally as valid.

So, I stand by there being no inclusive "the hobby." There's just common things people do that we can use to identify if something they're doing fits in a certain category or not.

frozen: Sorry, I tried my smug one liner to dismantle the conversation. Your sincere reply
shames me.

Or DOES it?

(It does)

avantgarde wrote:Pfft...

I'll just say spout some platitude aimed at nobody like:
"You can't play to lose."
Then smugly lean back in my desk chair while hitting ctrl-r.

I play.....to play....

Just be selfish and honest about it.

IE there is only my hobby!

Your hobby is a flat and turd like idea.

And The Hobby is Jervis' so hahaha.

I know what 'my hobby' is, I think I know what 'your hobby' is (knowledge varies by individual) but I have no idea what an inclusive 'the hobby' entails beyond its GW corporate speak meaning.

avantgarde wrote:Pfft...

I'll just say spout some platitude aimed at nobody like:
"You can't play to lose."
Then smugly lean back in my desk chair while hitting ctrl-r.

Wow. I need to follow you around for a while, you can troll without even trying.

On topic... what?

malfred wrote:frozen: Sorry, I tried my smug one liner to dismantle the conversation. Your sincere reply
shames me.

Or DOES it?

(It does)

Or DOES it?

I guess I don't really like MDK's inclusive, "everyone is a beautiful snowflake" defintion of "the Hobby."

frozenwastes wrote:I guess I don't really like MDK's inclusive, "everyone is a beautiful snowflake" defintion of "the Hobby."

Me, either. But it's a practical way of shrugging off needlessly contentious argument about a powder keg topic. Meanwhile, the truth is simple:

Shaman wrote:And The Hobby is Jervis' so hahaha.

Manchu wrote:

frozenwastes wrote:I guess I don't really like MDK's inclusive, "everyone is a beautiful snowflake" defintion of "the Hobby."

Me, either. But it's a practical way of shrugging off needlessly contentious argument about a powder keg topic. Meanwhile, the truth is simple:

Shaman wrote:And The Hobby is Jervis' so hahaha.

LOL.

I think we can avoid the powder kegs if we just have my hobby and your hobby and his hobby and her hobby and not try to have "the hobby". If we do, it'll either end up as "The One True Hobby" or become so inclusive that it's meaningless. Or as Insaniak posted elsewhere, will be used as a sales tool.

GW will tell us what "the hobby" is. Corporate interests won't get in the way at all right?

I take issue with insaniak's long-standing "hobby myth" thesis. See my post in the other thread.