"The Tao of Gaming"
So, brief context: There's this thread over at RPGnet where some frothing blogger had posted a screed about how you're All Doing It Wrong if you're not playing greedy sociopaths. Now, that's not exactly news: some people really dislike a variety of play styles, in part because that might mean people might choose to play in a game other than the one you like best. The kicker was that the post was called "The Tao of D&D."
Now, I would have read something about the Tao of D&D. Hell, forget D&D: I'm interested in seeing what the Tao of Gaming might be. Not in the sense some people use "the Tao," which is to say they have their own definitions of what "the (implied 'true') Way)" would be. But in the sense of what the Tao would actually look like in the context of games. Part of me wants to say "let the dice fall where they may is the true spirit of the Tao," but I think that's probably a little simplistic and dismissive. It might look good on a T-shirt, but it's not really informative, you know?
First of all, though, I have to wonder if the Tao is really compatible with the player's perspective. Most games are about railing against your fate in a decidedly non-Taoist fashion. They're about conflict, and the Tao is about minimizing and accepting potential sources of conflict. (As best I understand it, that is. An "I am not a philosophy major" disclaimer should probably go somewhere in this post, let's say right here.) Some gamers take this a step further, acting on frustrations in-game in ways that they can't do in real life - the whole "evil party" often comes from this approach. Everything is there to be opposed, and if you aren't expected to oppose it, maybe you will anyway. I hear there are a bunch of webcomics and things about gamers like this. But even gamers who like the NPCs and don't want to wreck stuff and engage in vicarious catharsis, usually they have something they want to oppose or overcome. For the most part, that is: I suppose that LARPs with a more social focus may well have a different dynamic.
On the other hand - you know, I bet the Tao is the optimal path of the one running the game. The Storyteller is the one who benefits most from the exhortations to go with the flow. You don't fight against the players, you roll with their actions and nudge appropriately. In a sense, it's advice on being fair and unbiased. You can still be "cruel," so to speak, as you come up with ways to throw adversity at your players. But when the adversity hits the players you don't fight as hard as you can to push that adversity on them: you see what happens, and you adjudicate accordingly. It seems to jive well with the "say yes" philosophy of game mastery, the one that encourages you to let your players try stuff and contribute narrative events. And if you're doing it right, it would certainly lead to being more relaxed about running a game, instead of stressed out all to hell. That's a worthy goal by any metric.
I'm not sure I'm doing Taoism right here, mind. I should probably talk to my brother about it; he's the philosophy major. And he loves to talk philosophy, a bit too much - but hey, if it's Taoism he can't get too worked up and preachy like he sometimes does, or he's doing it wrong.
Now, I would have read something about the Tao of D&D. Hell, forget D&D: I'm interested in seeing what the Tao of Gaming might be. Not in the sense some people use "the Tao," which is to say they have their own definitions of what "the (implied 'true') Way)" would be. But in the sense of what the Tao would actually look like in the context of games. Part of me wants to say "let the dice fall where they may is the true spirit of the Tao," but I think that's probably a little simplistic and dismissive. It might look good on a T-shirt, but it's not really informative, you know?
First of all, though, I have to wonder if the Tao is really compatible with the player's perspective. Most games are about railing against your fate in a decidedly non-Taoist fashion. They're about conflict, and the Tao is about minimizing and accepting potential sources of conflict. (As best I understand it, that is. An "I am not a philosophy major" disclaimer should probably go somewhere in this post, let's say right here.) Some gamers take this a step further, acting on frustrations in-game in ways that they can't do in real life - the whole "evil party" often comes from this approach. Everything is there to be opposed, and if you aren't expected to oppose it, maybe you will anyway. I hear there are a bunch of webcomics and things about gamers like this. But even gamers who like the NPCs and don't want to wreck stuff and engage in vicarious catharsis, usually they have something they want to oppose or overcome. For the most part, that is: I suppose that LARPs with a more social focus may well have a different dynamic.
On the other hand - you know, I bet the Tao is the optimal path of the one running the game. The Storyteller is the one who benefits most from the exhortations to go with the flow. You don't fight against the players, you roll with their actions and nudge appropriately. In a sense, it's advice on being fair and unbiased. You can still be "cruel," so to speak, as you come up with ways to throw adversity at your players. But when the adversity hits the players you don't fight as hard as you can to push that adversity on them: you see what happens, and you adjudicate accordingly. It seems to jive well with the "say yes" philosophy of game mastery, the one that encourages you to let your players try stuff and contribute narrative events. And if you're doing it right, it would certainly lead to being more relaxed about running a game, instead of stressed out all to hell. That's a worthy goal by any metric.
I'm not sure I'm doing Taoism right here, mind. I should probably talk to my brother about it; he's the philosophy major. And he loves to talk philosophy, a bit too much - but hey, if it's Taoism he can't get too worked up and preachy like he sometimes does, or he's doing it wrong.