Comments | jadasc: [Gaming Esoterica] Canon, Metaplot, and Fandom

jadasc

[Gaming Esoterica] Canon, Metaplot, and Fandom

Jan 26, 2004 11:03

or, I Don't Get Why You Don't Get It

This one's been kicking around my head for a little over three years now. I posted about it a little bit on Pyramid Online around then, when

( Read more... )

Comments 29

(The comment has been removed)

jadasc January 26 2004, 09:37:25 UTC

Thank you.

(And, if you're going to draw on my work for inspiration, you could post a link back to the entry. I'd do the same for you. ;))

(The comment has been removed)

jadasc January 26 2004, 08:46:41 UTC

Oh, certainly. There's a heck of a lot of "smarks" out there in gaming, too, who enjoy the way that the professional game can affect their home games. And this doesn't even touch upon the idea of "gaming fans" who like following their favorite *game companies* as if the struggle to stay in business was one big championship narrative.

I just got tired of people claiming not to understand what the fans are talking about.

archangelbeth January 26 2004, 08:54:20 UTC

I never had understood, myself. Now I do. Hm. Interesting.

Sounds like dodging metaplots might be simpler...... O:>

jadasc January 26 2004, 08:57:14 UTC

Forgive me, but... heh. :) In Nomine is one of those games that lives and breathes on the strength of its fandom, and seems to know that. (Things like "CDaU" declarations actually help the fans maintain consistency -- they know that it's a mystery, not just an oversight.)

Thread 17

learnedax January 26 2004, 10:27:46 UTC

Interesting. You've explained quite well why I don't get the fan perspective here. I understand that people care about metaplot, just as I understand that people care about the Super Bowl. But neither of them effects me (except as secondary factors, e.g. older source books becoming scarce), and I don't really get the attitude. The correlation between fans of WoD et al and fans of professional sports is apt, and since I do not grasp the psyche of the latter, it's no real surprise that I find the former strange. As you say above, there are Players and then there are Fans - I can't see attaching myself to the tribulations of metaplot groups, because as a Player I only care about the system, not the politics.

Does that make sense? Do you get why I don't get it?

jadasc January 26 2004, 10:33:20 UTC

Does that make sense? Do you get why I don't get it?

It's tricky. I can comprehend that there are people who don't enjoy the whole "fandom" mentality, and I can extrapolate to people who don't understand why it persists. But even those two groups have to acknowledge that there are an awful lot of them out there, and that their opinions matter.

Moreover, and more to the point, I really don't need you to get it, except as a sort of approbation. You're not developing an RPG and dealing with an aggrieved fan base. It'd be nice if you could understand what the fans are on about, but it doesn't strike me as a necessary sort of lesson.

Thank you for reading it, though. :)

Hmmm... bluegargantua January 26 2004, 11:30:00 UTC

So...theoretically, you could build a "game" that was really nothing but fan base. There'd be sides to pick and stories to follow, but there wouldn't have to be much of a "game" to play. It could even be a really crappy game as long as it reached in and caught your imagination.

I suppose this sort of thing happens with licensed material all the time. I'm thinking Star Wars, Star Trek and Warcraft are the big ones here, but there are certainly others. It's just a lot harder for things to go the other way from game to licensed stuff (and even Vampire didn't cross-over the way outside stuff comes in).

Still, if you could harness it...it'd be a never-ending stream of revenue. You'd keep making stuff and fans would keep buying it. You could sell pure crap and people would buy it like those sports collectable shows on TV.

"Merchandising!"
Tom

Re: Hmmm... jadasc January 26 2004, 11:38:09 UTC

So...theoretically, you could build a "game" that was really nothing but fan base. There'd be sides to pick and stories to follow, but there wouldn't have to be much of a "game" to play. It could even be a really crappy game as long as it reached in and caught your imagination.

I suppose this sort of thing happens with licensed material all the time. I'm thinking Star Wars, Star Trek and Warcraft are the big ones here, but there are certainly others.

You're not wrong in the least. What you've got in these cases is a situation where "playing the roleplaying game" is one of a number of valid ways toward the goal of "interacting in and claiming identification with the setting." "Watching the t.v. show," "wearing the t-shirt/jewelry," "attending the convention," "buying the graphic novel," "playing the videogame/play-by-post," among others.

It's just a lot harder for things to go the other way from game to licensed stuff (and even Vampire didn't cross-over the way outside stuff comes in). Still, if you could harness it...it'd be a ( ... )

Re: Hmmm... umbran January 26 2004, 20:41:16 UTC

So...theoretically, you could build a "game" that was really nothing but fan base. There'd be sides to pick and stories to follow, but there wouldn't have to be much of a "game" to play...

Too late. It's been done. It's called Science Fiction fandom. :)

And in today's Sci-Fi fandom, you see similar frustrations. Fans of Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time come to mind - had a couple of books that didn't actually give them much new information about the characters and plots, and they've started getting a little cheesed off. Sounds like the same basic phenomenon.

grimraven January 26 2004, 12:37:59 UTC

There is something I have noticed over the years. Players of Roleplaying Games have one base thing in common: they want to feel like they are a part of the world they play in ( ... )