My Five Prejudices About Roleplaying Games
So today I finally posted my oft-threatened "five secret prejudices" to the Yaplet discussion at Story-Games. This is an edited transcript of what I think is the most interesting stuff. Proceed with caution. It's probably offensive to some, which is why they've been secret.
"Paul B" is me of course. Other participants should be recognizeable by their SG handles.
Paul B: suspicion #1: a lot of gamers use RPGs in lieu of proper, healthy emotional development. the most recent push into emo-porn territory is an extension of this, and it's not good for you.
Paul B: suspicion #2: RPGs may be an enormous waste of time that could have been better spent in pursuit of better creative goals. suspicion #2 may be a Paul-specific issue, though, as I fear I've used RPGs as an instant-gratification outlet for energies I might have otherwise put into novels.
Paul B: suspicion #3: long-term focus on shared empowerment fantasies stunts both intellectual and emotional growth.
Paul B: suspicion #4: RPGs will never grow beyond their current state if they continue to be derivative by-products of novels and movies. i think there's been some interesting movement on the #4 front lately, and as much as I'm loathe to admit it, it may be in jeepform.
Paul B: suspicion #5: it's vitally important to the hobby that RPing remain an outcast activity. if it ever got mainstreamed it would immediately lose its appeal.
Paul B: i'm the first to admit that I'm going to hell for thinking this stuff.
Norther: well I can give you my opinion on 2 and 3. and I just cant see #4. how are rpgs byproducts of movies and novels?
nick: 1 and 3 depend way to much on the people playing the games in question. and what exactly do you mean by 4 ?
Marhault: #2 is Ron's 'hard question' for Narrativists all over again.
Norther: maybe we should do them in order. any comments on #1?
Paul B: #4: a typical goal of games and gamers is to create a story that's "just like" a movie or a book. or, in describing "this is what a roleplaying game is," you get stuff like "an RPG is like reading a book, except you get to play one of the parts!" as long as we're focused on telling stories "like in books and movies", that makes RPGs a derivative byproduct of books and movies. meanwhile, in the real world, you can tell stories in all kinds of ways.
Bret: I'll stay out of this one, but it's really interesting.
Paul B: the oral storytelling tradition goes back to the birth of language, and has a long history of interaction. i think RPGs could be another "art" form, like novels, acting, etc. but right now, 99% of the energy being output is in making your game feel like you're watching LOTR or whatever.
Norther: where do you see it not being that though?
Paul B: or that it's just like reading.
Marhault: I think that the "like in books and movies" is largely a matter of convenience. That is, that it's a convenient phrase used to describe the act of telling a story.
Paul B: well, the fundamentals of roleplaying are unlike books and movies. it's convenient but it's also fucked up. and it's holding back the potential of RPG development.
Marhault: Although, there is at least _some_ truth to the idea that many games attempt to model some kind of source fiction.
nick: but people in general like replicating an experience as they think it should be
Paul B: but I think that line of development has reached an end.
Norther: could you give an example?
Paul B: george: "like storytelling" is also fucked up.
Norther: how is it fucked up?
Paul B: storytelling = a storyteller sits in the middle of the room, listeners all around. the storyteller engages the audience but the audience doesn't have any say in the direction of the fiction. the emotional engagement is important, but that's just theatrics. the audience doesn't have to be present. while in an RPG, the audience = the authors.
Norther: my definition is ''like storytelling BUT more''
Paul B: see...saying RPGs are "like storytelling but more" is like saying an opera is "like a play with music". or that a movie is "like a play that's been filmed". or that a novel is "like a movie script"
Norther: it's an easy definition. I could call an opera a play with music
Paul B: easy is never the best. of course you could, george, but then you'd be missing the point of opera. this is why operas are not musicals.
Norther: true
Paul B: easy is just easy. so fuck easy.
Marhault: Which is just how those things started out, until the art forms took on enough mindshare and understanding in the populus to be its own thing. So - Paul. Truth. There's much truth.
Paul B: movies aren't just plays that have been filmed. there ARE plays that have been filmed, but they're not using the medium very well. like...Dogtown, that Lars von Trier thing. it's basically a single-camera filmed stage production, not a "movie"
Norther: I see what you're saying
Marhault: Yes, totally.
Norther: but then again, why explain rpgs in that way? rpgs are rpgs, like opera is opera
Paul B: george: that's exactly it.
Marhault: Are we not already beginning to move beyond this issue though?
Paul B: the money is keeping it from moving out of that. the buying public demands that RPGs continue to be derivative byproducts of books and movies.
Marhault: (really, we're simultaneously moving out of it and _perfecting_ it. early rpgs really had dick all to do with books/movies structurewise)
Norther: #1 then. I agree with #1. I dont do it, personally, but I can definitely see it. and a guy in my group definitely does it.
Bret: Here's an anecdote thing about #1. the people i've know who were emotionally stunted hated emo porn. Example: TheRPGSite mutants.
Paul B: i think there's a reason the stereotype exists.
Bret: And it's the emo porn (though we may be thinking of different games entirely) that have been the ones that have pulled in pretty normal, healthy people to my gaming table.
Paul B: and while the SG scene is all "look at us, we wear shirts with buttons and maintain a healthy body weight," they're right there doing the same thing.
chark: my responses: #1 - you're probably right. however i'm not sure it's harmful, so much as not as helpful as dealing with things in other ways. #2 - that's why they're called /games/ silly #3 - how so? #4 - where would they grow to? why is growth necessary if the way they are is fun already? #5 - fuck the norms! I get to exclude THEM for once.
Paul B: #2a, in response to char: I fear an entire generation of talented creators went down the drain when they discovered they can get instant gratification for the same work it would have taken years to complete in another medium.
Norther: I think it depends on the person Paul. I knew this guy that took these ideas and wrote 600 word stories with them. just churning them out. so he can post them in a forum, for his instant gratification.
Paul B: george: who was his intended audience?
Bret: That's making value judgments about creativity with or without end products that I'm not sure I agree with philosophically, but if you come from the perspective that end product > no end product, then there's no disagreeing with you.
Paul B: bret: yeah, you're right of course. i have built in a value judgment. i will even include "the evening we enjoyed together" as a suitable end product. that said, i think there's a big unspoken rift between the folks who engage in an RPG to produce "the evening we enjoyed together" and the folks who engage because writing a novel is too much work. and so you get the railroaders and "Master Storytellers" and all that bullshit.
Bret: That's an interesting idea. Social gamer vs. frustrated novelist gamer. Yeah, I can see that.
Norther: to be honest though, novel writing and rpging is 2 different things. we just said that.
Paul B: and just to exacerbate it, the Master Storytellers often find a ready audience in folks who want to be entertained.
Paul B: george: now you're seeing how my prejudices interlock.
Norther: so if a guy writes fiction, would you say he could be writing scripts instead?
Paul B: no.
chark: i dunno, there's tons of novels in the world already
Norther: or operas?
Paul B: george: not at all. they're different media.
chark: and frankly not everyone's got the skill to produce a really good, popular novel. so i'd rather have them playing games. i'd take 'some fun evenings together' over 'a shitty novel' any day
Norther: so is rpgs and fiction though. so like chark is saying, maybe these guys shouldnt be writing novels. because they suck (to put it bluntly)
Paul B: RIGHT. i agree with all this. which is why i propose that the highest and best end product of an RPG is "a fun evening together." full stop.
Norther: agreed
Paul B: pretentions to create High Art is just shackling RPGs to forever being novel/movie byproducts. hoping to ride the coattails of their legitimacy as "art". now, I do think there's a lot of room for what "fun" might entail for a group. but for me, the important half of that statement is "together"
chark: hmm i haven't really had people trying to create novels in RPG playing. emulating genres, yeah
Norther: I agree actually
Paul B: char: same diff imo. emulation = derivation
Marhault: "Paul B: pretentions to create High Art is just shackling RPGs to forever being novel/movie byproducts. hoping to ride the coattails of their legitimacy as "art"" = bullshit!
Paul B: jamey: awesome. bring it.
Marhault: films are their own thing, but they're still art. So are a lot of other things.
Paul B: jamey: i agree! films are an art form. novels are an art form.
Marhault: I'll agree with you that there's goodness to be said by going outside that comparison, but the above is a drastic overstatement.
Paul B: RPGs could be an art form, but not as long as they're trying to be "just like" movies and novels. The medium has its own specific strengths and weaknesses.
Bret: Oh, and because the tendency is to find argument rather than agreement, I want to say that I agree with #3 completely.
Paul B: huh. that one's the most untenable to me right now. i'd have to really unpack why i feel that way.
Norther: what's 3 again?
Paul B: shared empowerment fantasies are bad for you.
Bret: Well, I agree with it with the caveat that correlation is not causation. Oh, wait. Maybe I'm misreading empowerment as wish-fulfillment.
Paul B: let's say they're the same for now.
Norther: I really dont know about that. are you saying that rpgs are bad for you?
Paul B: george: I'm saying using the RPG medium to engage in shared wish-fulfillment is bad for you.
Bret: I do know that the people I know who consistently engage in wish-fulfillment play also tend to have anger and frustration problems, difficulty expressing caring for other people, an unhealthy amount of value investment in hobbies, and so on. But it might go the other way, like people with those problems tend to pursue wish-fulfillment play.
Paul B: bret: i see that here, too. so you're right about correlation and causation.
Norther: isnt this similar to #1?
Paul B: george: it's linked. they're all linked.
Bret: I don't think "emo porn" is wish fulfillment.
Paul B: bret: also agreed.
Norther: ah
Paul B: but it IS empowerment. which is why empowerment =/= wish fulfillment. Thank you for clarifying that in my own head. i think you've got gamers who feel empowered to "explore" emo territory in RPing. and I think RPing is probably the worst way to explore your interior emotional landscape.
reaction: ...wait, are we talking about the same emo porn?
Bret: Okay, I think I see. So instead exploring certain emotions in real life situations, they're exploring them in play?
Paul B: mostly because you're relying on your fellow players to engage in that exploration in good faith. no real consequences, therefore no real development.
Bret: Okay, I think I get it now. I'm just trying to map it onto my own experiences.
Paul B: and i'm unpacking as i go, so thank you.
Norther: kinda like playing the video game Sims then?
Paul B: george: if you learned how to date via the Sims, don't you think you'd get a totally fucked-up view on how dating works?
Norther: yeah. no I get what you're saying. and I agree
Paul B: gaming is SAFE.
Marhault: Teehee! This is Narrativist _Brain_Damage_!
Paul B: jamey: yes YES FUCK YES.
Dave Cleaver: question: do we learn anything about ourselves when we read books?
Paul B: dave: I think we do. but i'm not sure what the process is.
Dave Cleaver: corrollary: is learning about ourselves growth
Paul B: dave: let's say yes.
chark: i think emo porn is like training wheels
Dave Cleaver: maybe i'm not talking emo porn
chark: if you go out into the big bad world and you think they're going to save you from the mountain, you're wrong
Dave Cleaver: I've never been clear what emo porn actually was
Bret: Generally, my emo porn play is an extension of things I am currently going through.
Paul B: the difference is, "reading books" =/= "engaging in an RPG"
chark: but they can help you learn how to go.
Dave Cleaver: true. but I've learned things about myself playing an RPG
Paul B: there's a huge leap of faith that the folks you're RPing with are on the same page, aesthetically and creatively.
Dave Cleaver: it may not be the same process
Bret: Yeah, I think I know what emo porn is but I might be operating with a different definition. But I'm thinking when I played Grey Ranks and played a young Polish girl who was executed by the Nazis and it was this big angsty thing, that was emo porn.
Paul B: bret: grey ranks was my example as well.
Bret: Okay, so I think we do have the same definition.
Paul B: that said, i'm not sure it's the game that's producing the emo-porn effect. i think it's the player who revels in the suffering, when in fact they're making a best guess at the suffering and they're doing it in a totally safe way.
Bret: Well we could say that it's me producing the emo porn effect, and I do this in a lot of the games I play. So then doing this in lieu of healthy emotional development.
Dave Cleaver: maybe I don't play emo porn then
Paul B: bret: that's what i'm getting at in #1.
Dave Cleaver: I have heavy emotional games with bad shit going down. but I don't revel in the bad shit going down necessarily
Paul B: we do too. but it's like...theatrically bad shit.
Dave Cleaver: I'm so confused
Paul B: theatrically bad shit = the fundamental conflicts that let us reveal things about the characters and affect transformation. they're...props, maybe. whereas in emo-porn gaming, the bad shit is the whole point. it's not a prop, it's the end goal. make me suffer! i want to cry! is that a totally weird explanation?
Dave Cleaver: ah. does that kind of gaming actually exist? or is it just the way people talk about it
Paul B: that's a good question. IME i've seen LARPers go the emo-porn route.
Bret: Yeah, I mean I think that's kind of... hm... an inaccurate way of describing the goal of that style play.
Dave Cleaver: because there is an end goal that they achieved, but don't know how to talk about....
Bret: Or if so, the "make me cry" style of play is a subset of an emotional catharsis goal.
Paul B: right. so there's this very specific thing in RPing that's different than other media. and that's the fact that each participant is responsible for the actions of a particular character (assuming totally trad setup). so each participant is allegedly invested in the well-being of "their" character. but the requirements of "good story" mean that the characters must face conflicts and be changed by them.
Dave Cleaver: well wait. I'm not invested in the well-being of my character. I invest in my character as a means to story. some people are invested in the well-being of their character, and I don't think those people play anything remotely emo-porn
Paul B: hence "allegedly" in my statement. What I’m getting at is, in most traditional roleplaying, the player = the character.
Marhault: Aren't your ideas about a "good story" inflicted on you by the brain damage caused by such other art forms as novels and movies? Isn't it time we moved past those requirements for our enjoyable gaming?
Paul B: jamey: I think there are fundamental truths about "story" that transcend media. not all art is about creating "story". so if RPG = art medium, it might or might not have "story" involved. i suspect it does, insofar as strings of scenes with no connective tissue don't make much sense when you're actually gaming.
Marhault: I suspect... that I would look upon any artistic roleplaying that doesn't even attempt something resembling a story to be extraordinarily pretentious wankery. But I could be wrong. It'd be like... performance art.: ick::
Paul B: i think you're right. the division for me -- the reason for my secret prejudice in the first place -- is that you can have "story" without "story like in a novel" or "story like in a movie". "story like in a novel" relies on the author's POV and guiding hand. "story like in a movie" relies on the camera's POV, acting performance, soundtrack, yadda yadda. and then you have "story like we made up together," and that's the hotsauce waiting to be explored. it's the constant striving toward "like a novel" and "like a movie" that's fucking things up. that, and cramming competitive-style game into the process. although there's probably useful creative tension you get by tapping into competitive urges. anyway, that's my #4.