Forked Thread: D&D needs to grow up (ala scifi in the mid-20th century?)

[Mercurius]

Forked from: D&D needs to grow up

Ah, I had such high hopes as I was reading this. I have this pet theory, see, that D&D needs to grow up the way science fiction did in the middle part of the 20th century, when people like Heinlein, Asimov, and Bradbury brought scifi out of the "literary ghetto" and into the realm of world-class letters. But I see that's not what you meant, so, alas, enough of that for now.

This is an intriguing idea. Care to go further with this? (I also noticed that Dragon Snack felt the same way, or if anyone else wants to chime in).

I assume that you at least partially mean that D&D needs to reach out of its ghetto, become socially relevant or at least legitimate in the eyes of the non-gaming public. We all know that even now D&D has a negative connotation to many people as, at best, dorky and childish and thus ignored, or at worst, pathological and even satanic.

But I think you are pointing to something more than just social acceptability, or at least my mind starts thinking in terms of artistic sensibility and, while still connected to D&D's publich persona, its place as a valid form of art, whether we're talking game design, role-playing, campaign creation, or any other aspect of table-top gaming.

In other words, social legitimacy isn't only whether or not D&D and other others RPGs are anathema to non-gamers, but whether it can be part of the larger cultural sphere as a valid art-form that incorporates many different creative elements, from performance to fantastical world design to visual art, and so forth. Maybe as the bulk of gamers continues to age--the "Gamer Boomers" of the early 80s are now in their 30s or older--we may see a new wave of RPGs coming out, designed by adults for adults, and thus, perhaps, more consciously geared towards artistry.

Now we've already seen a lot of that, especially in the post-White Wolf 1990s, but it seems to me that much of that was overly self-conscious, as if designers were trying too hard (to be artsy and) to forge out of the gamer ghetto. In other words, it seems that the White Wolf material and many of its "children" were created more with an "extended adolescence" in mind, rather than an actual adult art form, autonomous from poles of rebellion and conformity. I'm just riffing on this, but my sense is that those early attempts of RPGs-as-art re-fortified the ghetto even more.

So yeah, I am interested in the idea that D&D could "grow up" out of its (adolescent) ghetto, both in terms of social acceptance and artistic legitimacy.

 

[hellbender]

Who cares what people think about D&D? I am a "Gamer Boomer", as you put it, and it was a lot worse before than it is now. Do people still think D&D is satanic? Really?

By now I think that most people accept roleplaying games, much more now than ever before at least. There is no ghetto for D&D to be in; it was built on a solid foundation of literary work that blows the doors off of most of the drek that is put out now. I play rpgs and will until I drop and I could really care less what anyone else thinks about that.

 

[Mercurius]

Who cares what people think about D&D? I am a "Gamer Boomer", as you put it, and it was a lot worse before than it is now. Do people still think D&D is satanic? Really?

By now I think that most people accept roleplaying games, much more now than ever before at least. There is no ghetto for D&D to be in; it was built on a solid foundation of literary work that blows the doors off of most of the drek that is put out now. I play rpgs and will until I drop and I could really care less what anyone else thinks about that.

First of all, the satanic was "at worst" and probably rather rare. But who knows what fundamentalists are thinking these days (probably what they were thinking 20 years ago, which furthers my point ).

On one level I agree with you: Who cares what people think? But I am addressing what I see as the implication of Ycore Rixle's comments: That D&D could "grow up" in a similar sense that scifi and fantasy did in the 50s and 60s.

So as a hobby, I agree with you: Who cares? But as a form of cultural art, which I think RPGs can be, I say: I care. Do we want D&D to be shelved in the annals with scrap-booking and stamp-collecting? Or should it be closer to oil painting and drama? The latter two will survive beyond the current cultural milieu, the former will not. Now I don't think people will be playing D&D a thousand years from now, probably not a hundred; but it is my sense that it may be an early form of an art form that we cannot yet fully imagine. Just a conjecture there.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

It is my personal opinion, but I think some of the settings from 2e were pretty mature and adult. Planescape, for example, really required your players to think beyond the stereotypical fantasy schtick.

 

[Nork]

My take on this is would be that of the recent comic-book movies. These movies are doing well not because people in general have discovered super heros. These movies are doing well because movie studios have finally taken super heros and made movies based on them with non-immature plots. They made movies that adults who have no interest in comic books or super heros can watch and enjoy purely for the plot and character development. Comic book movies grew up.


People wouldn't look at you funny if you told them that you and your friends sit around and write plays and act through them for yourselves. They might not be super interested in it, but they don't give you a funny look. They consider it to be 'legitimate' even if it isn't their cup of tea.

People look at you funny if you tell them that you play D&D. They look at you funny in exactly the same way as if you had just told them that your 20 or 30 years old and that your favorite TV show is the Power Rangers, and that your favorite movie is anything with Hulk Hogan in it.

I think the reason for that has little to nothing to do with it being a role-playing game, and everything to do with the content that goes on in a lot of role-playing games.

People don't accept role-playing games as 'legitimate' adult behavior because there isn't a lot of exposure of the general population to role-playing, and what exposure there is tends to be of the very immature kind.

I think a lot of this is because in all honesty there are a lot of very immature people who game, and the mature gamers tend to often out-right hide the existance of their games because they don't want to deal with munchkins who want to play home-invasion robbery-murder simulator with fart jokes for dialog asking to join. They also hide their games because they don't want non-gamers to think they are playing home-invasion robbery-murder simulator with fart jokes for dialog. If you walk in the front door of a gaming shop and see people playing D&D, 9 times out of 10 your going to hear them making fart jokes and talking about shooting lighting bolts at a monster's behind. 9 out of 10 of all D&D games are not about making fart jokes and shooting lighting bolts at a monster's behind.

Fart jokes and shooting lighting bolts at a monster's behind is content for children. People won't take role-playing games seriously until role-playing games 'grow up' by showing people that they are not about fart jokes any more than all movies are about fart jokes.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

Hi Mercurius, great question.

So I'm here at my desk, reaching around a bunch half-painted plastic minis (and accompanying rubbish) to type this. I mention because here's one aspect of the hobby that (in my experience) gets a bit more respect from the wider community. I'm guessing it's because at the end of the day you have some physical thing to show for your work. Folks usually say something like 'Wow! That's... impressive.' Never 'cool' or 'great artwork.'

Also I suspect it's because minis overlap part of a wider phenomena: modelling. So it's already got an 'in' if you will. Most males played a bit with model kits when they were kids. (Not so many females that I know of but would love to hear from anyone whose experience is different.) It's familiar. But it's a familiarity that is associated with childhood.

I usually explain RPGs as playing dress-ups, without the dressing up. This may not be the best way to encourage people to view the game as being mature. It does explain the concept well enough but from now on I think I shall borrow Nork's description:

Nork Wrote:
you and your friends sit around and write plays and act through them for yourselves.

Sort of skirting the main question. Sorry. But it's a big one. Needs much cogitation (and I have hangover.)

I'll start by saying that I consider there to be a great deal of good art in RPGs. The playing, writing, world creation and visual art. The visual art is probably the most accessible. Well, the good stuff. Much of the stuff that finds its way into RPG books is not so good, a positive turn off much like bad comic book art. But there's plenty of art work that's inspired by RPGS and Fantasy and Sci-fi literature that is good.

Sudden thought: is it perhaps that, not only is the concept of playing dress up associated with childhood but the fact that the most well known RPG deals quite explicitly with things (dragons) considered to be firmly in the realm of childhood doesn't help sell the idea that RPGs are mature art?

To those of us in the know (and it's not just us gamers but people of discernment everywhere) children's art is every bit as valid as adult art. In many cases the children's art is much more sophisticated than the stuff intended for adults. I'm specifically thinking TV here. Much adult fare is shockingly awful. Especially thinking soaps here but not just them. It's candy for the brain, dealing with issues only ever in the most superficial manner. Kids TV is usually much more well thought out and challenging for its intended audience. TV makes a point of giving kids edifying TV. Most countries have laws insisting on it. But kids TV is still written off as being inferior.

Think of a show like Degrassi (sorry but I'm not really up on current kids' shows.) It hit the big issues. Yes, the issues dealt with seem pretty everyday to us adults but for the kids it's new, it's relevent, it's thought provoking, it's pushing boundaries. IN short: it's good art. HArry Potter! There ya go, more or less current and neatly straddles the line of mainstream and fantasy. Old Harry is popular because he is relevent for the intended audience. His issues are the same as the audience's. If Harry didn't have to deal with all the real world issues of being a teen and growing up (and in a context that is familiar enough, being school) he wouldn't have an nth of the popularity that he does.

How to get RPGs relevent to a wider audience? Well we could do a reality TV show in which attractive wanna-be super models have to play it. That'd get public interest for the game. Joke. Kinda. What RPGs need is a platform on which they can be shown as being more mature. This is what Heinlein etc got in Playboy. This most adult of magazines also happened to publish lots of sci-fi. (yes, there are articles!) SCi-fi got maturity by association. Of course if they stuff being published was just the same old Flash Gordon-esque pulp it would never have been taken seriously. (No, I'm not saying sci-fi gained respectability thanks to solely to Playboy, this is merely an example.)

So what is the essence of all this random waffle: RPGs need to tackle issues of interest to wider audiences. And to be seen to do so. Basically that's it. They can still do it from within the fantasy metaphor. Or the sci-fi metaphor or whatever genre you like to play.

What platforms are there that could work:

well the interweb leaps to mind. There's all these MMORPGs out there. Can anyone see a way in which these could be used to help their old ancestor gain a bit of respect (or at least notice?)

Maybe books with titles like: The (visual) Art of Roleplaying. Or The Actor's Guide to RPGs. Even articles written for serious, non-RPG forums (fora?) I'm always going on about world building and the sort of things I put into it and what I like to see. Some of this may actually be of relevance to the wider artisitic community. It would take actual effort on the part of interested parties though. Most serious art and culture magazines aren't going to be interested in articles on RPGs, a writer would have to work hard to sell them.

Like most art I think it will always be niche. Even if it gets respectable.

PS: If art is suffering for it then I'm doing a bit right now as my shoulders cramp from holding my arms above the table and trying to type.

Just some thoughts.

Cheers,
Glen

 

[Tervin]

It is my personal opinion, but I think some of the settings from 2e were pretty mature and adult. Planescape, for example, really required your players to think beyond the stereotypical fantasy schtick.

Totally agree. I also feel that Ravenloft and Dark Sun had more potential for a mature game than the 1E, 3E or 4E settings. Of course people mean so many different things with "mature", not to mention "adult".

 

[Mercurius]

My take on this is would be that of the recent comic-book movies....

Good point and I think D&D might have been hurt by those Movies Not To Be Mentioned that bear the same name. It might behoove Wizards/Hasbro to try again, yet with more control or at least guidance, and in a setting that is more canonical, like the Forgotten Realms or Eberron, or the Dragonlance Chronicles would be good (and not as a cartoon). But the key is, as you say, to do it well, and in a "non-immature" fashion. My wife never read comic books but she loved X-Men and Spiderman (esp. 2 and 1, respectively, which were just flat-out good movies).

 

[Dragon Snack]

I do think D&D (read: RPGs in general) needs to "grow up" in the sense that it needs to get to the point that it's not written off out of hand (as something for kids). Like the SciFi example, where once it was the province of pulp novels or cheap movies and now, while not really mainstream, is accepted at a basic level. RPGs will always be a niche, but when people get to the point that they understand what they are I think we will have come a long way.

I'm not sure exactly how we get there though, which is why I had hopes for the other thread...

I'm not 100% sure movies are the way to go, after all we did have the LotR trilogy and we still aren't "there". SciFi and Comics translate well to movies. Movies, by their one way nature, don't translate the cooperative storytelling aspect of RPGs. I think they are also limited in showing the evolution of a character, although it can be done. But the D&D branded movie(s) certainly didn't help (does direct to DVD even count?).

A TV show? I'm scaring myself with a reality LARP show, I'm pretty sure that's NOT the direction either (I suppose that pirate show was probably too close). Something along the lines of BSG or Firefly? As much as we might like either series, neither makes many waves in the mainstream. Kindred: the Embraced gave it a shot, haven't seen anything since (apparently it was supposed to be renewed before one of the actors died). We would probably want to avoid another cartoon, but then anime seems to be fairing somewhat better than D&D.

Miniatures do have some potential. Historicals have been portrayed better in the media than D&D certainly (although not always). But, as noted, most get a passing "that's nice" and are promptly ignored.

I think some game design has tried to push the envelope, but if it's not gaining traction with the actual players it's going to be a hard sell to "normals".

Fantasy Football/Baseball/etc seems to have gained acceptance by piggybacking on the popularity of sports, perhaps that is a possible direction? Yes, I realize that WizKids Baseball CMG tanked.

Sorry, I started out rambling without a point and the fact that I should be in bed didn't help any...

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Actually, a TV show might work. Imagine Joss Whedon making a series about a group in Eberron...