Academic D&D ?

[questing gm]

Has anyone come together for a D&D session just to engage in philosophical or academic debate through D&D as a tool of narrative, social activity and deep immersion 'roleplaying' ? I mean this can be similar like when people are watching a film and they start discussing about its meanings and issues. So, D&D as a game (social activity) that is analogous to film and literature becomes a platform for moral, politcal and social debates ?

I mean sure, it ruins the essential concept of a RPG and the important thing is to have fun but can D&D be used academically ? Do DMs somehow put in real-life elements (which sometimes or rather most of the time inspire them) into their campaigns that he would like his/her players to talk about on the gaming table ? A more fun and interactive debate session minus all the seriousness and plus the fun of rolling dice together ?

I have heard that D&D has been used before as teaching tools for maybe elementary schools to teach about certain subjects but what about at university levels where almost everything becomes a debate ?

 

[Yair]

Don't see how that would work. It reminds me of stories where the author coerces the plot and world to conform to his mad social theories. Like Ayn Rand.

I've often had "academic" debate at the sidelines of an ognoing game, where the players would debate after/before the game. But not in-game, and certainly not using plot and characters to express ideas that are far better conisdered in more traditional methods of argument. Like actually arguing for their position.

Yair

 

[Umbran]

Certainly, the game can be built around scenarios that encourage the exploration of certai philosophical topics, and after the session analysis can be done just as they can for film and literature.

I would even say, in some instances, that certain philosophical ideas can become a matter of debate among characters. But it is difficult to make these things happen without spoiling the narrative - you very much risk turning your game into a sort of "after school special", where the issues are dealt with ham-handedly, presuming a particular conclusion to the point where the character don't behave particularly natrually.

 

[XCorvis]

I had a friend who used racism (speciesism, really) as a major theme in her game, but I'm not really sure how it turned out...

I think it might be possible to set up a game in that manner as a one-shot, with pre-generated characters who have personalities that are already determined. It would take very dedicated players. It might actually be better for discussion by people observing the game, rather than people playing in it, in which case I'd recommend using something a lot simpler, like Fudge.

 

[the Jester]

Well, we had a session a while back that was the most powerful spellcasters in the world getting together to form a loose association and debating "rules of magic". That was an interesting one- a lot of issues came up that were surprisingly deep, such as whether free-willed constructs or simulacra are responsible for their own actions or whether their creator was, and whether to treat them as living things vs. spells or tools for instance.

 

[DrNilesCrane]

Do DMs somehow put in real-life elements (which sometimes or rather most of the time inspire them) into their campaigns that he would like his/her players to talk about on the gaming table ? A more fun and interactive debate session minus all the seriousness and plus the fun of rolling dice together ?

I'm not sure if this answers the question, but I include themes in some adventures/campaigns that parallel or draw upon real world issues. These occasionally kick off philosophical debates between the player characters although the debates themselves aren't a part of the adventure: not "OK guys, spend an hour discussing religion in character!" but more of a spontaneous discussion usually relating to what the party is going to do.

For example, a few adventures ago the party had a long (about half the evening) in character discussion on slavery (which is a major theme in the current campaign) and the nature of freedom. It's an issue that the players would have easily come to an agreement on, but kicked off an interesting discussion among the characters, who in many cases have very different views based on their backgrounds, campaign world, etc.

 

[Brimshack]

Sometimes, you just need a soft touch. I wouldn't be too deliberate about such a thign, but one can certainly explore themes and ideas through the game. If folks want to debate the matter on the side, cool. I think as an academic tool, the best you could really hope for is to use a game to stimulate interest. Much more than that, and I suspect things would get pretty silly.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I mean sure, it ruins the essential concept of a RPG

I think you need to establish what that is before you accuse people of ruining anything.

 

[haakon1]

Let it just happen

Sometimes, you just need a soft touch. I wouldn't be too deliberate about such a thign, but one can certainly explore themes and ideas through the game. If folks want to debate the matter on the side, cool. I think as an academic tool, the best you could really hope for is to use a game to stimulate interest. Much more than that, and I suspect things would get pretty silly.

I agree that forcing it would be odd.

But it happens naturally sometimes with one of the groups I've run. It happens because most of us have known each other in real life context (went to college together) for about 15 years, because we're used to that sort of discussion in real life (liberal arts college), and because I run a campaign that takes the NPC's seriously -- not just background for the main story, but "real" people who "count" morally.

For example, the latest chapter I've been calling "Nation Building". It's in a certain WOTC adventure (vague spoiler alert), where they ended up slaying/driving off the rulers of an isolated village, who left behind a bunch of 1st level Commoners (and a few Experts and Warriors) who are, due to magic, essentially "blank slates" in terms of skills.

The PC's were worried because:
- the main bad guy got away
- the villages crops were destroyed, and they don't know how to farm anymore. They needed somebody to show them how, and magically provide food in the meantime. The PCs need to decide what other skills to train on, and how to put in charge of the militia, who to make the ruler, what religion to establish, etc.
- they captured two of the baddies, who are far more powerful than the other villagers (more like 8th-10th level). One seems to have turned coat and want to serve the new rulers. The other thinks the old rulers were OK, but is not actively opposing the new regime. The village needs her skills, but the adventurers don't trust her.

So, yes, there are certain similarities to Iraq in April 2003 (or Germany and Japan in August 1945). Do you fire or execute the old regime, or keep them because they have needed skills? How quickly can you train the new people and get out? Who do you choose as the new rulers? What if the bad guy comes back? How do you get the village strong enough to defend itself, without making it too strong if the enemy gets ahold of it again?

It's not exactly a philosophical debating society, but is interesting to deal with a real world-type problem.

 

[questing gm]

I think you need to establish what that is before you accuse people of ruining anything.

Oh, i certainly didn't intend that as an accusation, don't get me wrong but is just that i think most of us wouldn't 'normally' make a connection between a game and a academic debate...(e.g, 'it's just a game, let academical discussions stay out of it !' sorta arguments)

DrNilesCrane and haakon1 have posted an interesting description for what i was try to get at. With characters as representation of different ideas, principles and values (through class, alignmnent and religion etc...), being put into a situation by the DM (based on a political, social, philosphical or ideological issue) and see how the players (as their characters) react with the DM (as an observer and mediator of what happens after their action).

I mean has anyone done this deliberately ? Or it naturally creeps into the game whether knowingly or not and how did it happen and what did players felt about it in the end...?