After reading the Vile thread I couldn't resist posting this article, which British RPG guru Andrew Rilstone posted to Usenet in 1998.
He has more good stuff on his website (link at end).
What do you think of this? Andrew's definition of 'mature' is the kind of stuff I might actually buy - I wonder if WotC or other publishers are interested in producing such content?
From: Andrew Rilstone <andrew@aslan.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: uk.games.roleplay
Subject: "Mature Themes"
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 00
05 +0100
Can Role-playing games deal with Mature Themes
by Andrew "definitely not a columnist" Rilstone
Some things are liked by children but not by adults. Some things are
liked by adults but not by children. An awful lot of thing are liked by
both children and adults.
"The Care Bears Movie" is in the first category; "Mrs Dalloway" is in
the second category and "Star Wars" is in the third category. (It isn't
true that all children like "The Care Bears", but it is, I think, true
that all people who like "The Care Bears" are children..) We could
therefore say that "The Care Bears" is immature and "Mrs Dalloway" is
mature: but what would we say about "Star Wars"?
I agree that "immature" is not a particularly useful term in this
discussion.
What characterises the for-the-sake-of-the-argument "immature" stuff?
Answer: it can be enjoyed at a very immediate level, with little effort.
It is, to use the technical term, in-yer-face.
Adventures stories, cartoons, super-hero comics, action movies, slap-
stick comedy, shoot-em-up computer games, "pop" music, dungeon bashing
RPGs: they all involve primary colours, loud noises, relatively
straightforward morality, instantly memorable melody or beat; simple
jokes that generate immediate belly laughs; violent confrontations with
clear resolutions fairly simple language; lots of exclamation marks.
Kids can enjoy, understand and consume this sort of stuff easily and
uncritically. And--here comes the point--most adults enjoy it as well.
Further more, most of the for-the-sake-of-the-argument mature stuff has
many of the same characteristics. It's okay for classical music to have
memorable tunes, it's okay for "serious literature" to have thrilling
stories with chases, escapes and explosions, it's okay for sophisticated
satirical comedy to make you laugh.
"Mature" art, then, doesn't necessarily delete the in-yer-face pleasure
of childish stuff, but it adds something else as well: more subtlety of
characterisation, say, or social commentary, or stylistic brilliance.
The instant-hit we get out of an "immature" story may be delayed,
watered down or even removed altogether; to the extent that the
book/film/symphony may be "difficult", hard to read, not much fun on the
first attempt. However, the "deeper" pleasures of the "difficult" work
are such that we press on with it. The book improves with each reading,
we end up saying "it changed my life" or "it really opened my eyes" or
"those characters are always in my mind, as real to me as my own
family".
Maturity implies growth: it would be foolish (childish, even) to say
"So-and-so is immature because he likes "Bugs Bunny" movies." It would
be reasonable to say "So-and-so is immature because at 35 he *only* like
"Bugs Bunny" movies; his tastes have not progressed since he was
eleven."
Those with "mature" taste, can, on the whole, still enjoy and appreciate
"immature" things; but those with "immature" tastes often find "mature"
taste inconceivable. They are very likely to say "No-one really enjoys
Salman Rushdie/Ingmar Bergman/Virginia Woolf. They are just pseuds,
PRETENDING to like them because it makes them feel clever. They would
really rather be watching Terminator II."
Many RPGs are in-yer-face; provide instant thrills and excitement,
simple morality, violence, explosions and lots of exclamation marks.
There is nothing wrong with this. However, very few RPGs deal with
social comment, realistic characterisation, human relationships and so
on.
We have games based on martial arts movies, where the fun comes from
thinking up ludicrous stunts and smashing large numbers of bad guys. We
have games based on space opera movies, where the fun comes from, er,
thinking up ludicrous stunts and smashing large numbers of bad guys. We
have horror story games, where the fun comes from the adrenaline-thrill
of going into darkened rooms where there might be terrifying monsters--
horror comics, almost fairground ghost-trains. We have many, many,
macho-military games, where the fun comes from tooling up with an
enormous weapon and pretending to rush headlong into battle against the
enemy, and, er, smashing large numbers of bad guys. Games are usually
predicated on an escape from danger, a conflict with a baddy, the
solution to a puzzle or a combination of all three: rarely with
resolving a relationship, changing a social situation, gaining in self
knowledge. Arguably, the "cybergoth" tendency has introduced the theme
of growing up or coming of age, but it does it through an adventure
story medium.
Quoth Michael Moorcock:
"Very few adult characters exist in pure swords-and-sorcery stories.
They are either permenant adolescents like Conan, actual children like
Ged in "Wizard of Earthsea", youths like Airar Alvarsan in "The Well of
the Unicorn" or quasi-children like the hobbits in "Lord of the
Rings."....Innocent, sensitive, intensely loyal and enthusiastic, given
to sudden tantrums and terrors, impressionable, sentimental and
sometimes ruthless, these characters very rarely show mature human
responses to their environment, their fellow creatures or the problems
they face."
Remind you of any PCs you know?
Perhaps, in this sense, we could say that the role-playing hobby is
"immature": it deals with a narrow range of easily accessible story-
types, and has not grown or progressed (in this respect) significantly
since its inception.
Is role-playing capable of dealing with the more "mature" subject
matter, or is it by its nature limited to dealing with adventure
stories?
Role-playing is, by its nature, a dramatic medium. At its core is a
verbal exchange between player and referee: the referee says "What do
you do", the player says "I do such and such" the referee says "Such and
such happens, what do you do now" and so on, for as long as people's
attention holds out. Therefore, things have to be happening all the
time. A character can't just sit at home hating the evil Octoplonks,
being consumed by his hatred, but not doing anything about it. That
would be perfectly acceptable in a novel, if the writer's wit and
understanding of human nature was sufficient to keep you interested, but
it can't happen in a movie, a play--or, I would contend, an RPG.
In a play, one of the "things which happens" can be a long conversation.
People can and do run RPGs in which players and NPCs sit around and talk
to each other. But in both cases, the conversation has to have a point
to be of interest: something has to happen in it. Fred the Fighter and
Wally the Wizard sitting around in the bar saying "Nice day at the
battle?" "So so-can't complain. Another ale." "Thanks. Did you cast your
spell okay." "In the end. We had some hassle due to staff shortages"
would be boring as hell. Fred the Fighter confronting Wally the Wizard
and demanding to know why he (apparently) betrayed them the evil
Octoplonks could be extremely interesting and dramatic. Does it follow
from this that when role-playing games try to stop being adventure
stories, they simply become melodramas instead?
I am not convinced that it is harder for players to think of interesting
and dramatic dialogue ("You fiend; you betrayed us, Eric the Cleric died
because of you") than it is for them to think up interesting and
dramatic stunts, tactics, or fight manoeuvres. Phil Masters argued that
a game which was purely predicated on characters "talking about their
problems", while theoretically possible, would in practice not be
feasible because of the demands that it made on the players. To make an
Ingmar Bergman RPG, you have to be as good at writing and acting as
Ingmar Bergman. I think that this is a fallacy; you might as well say
that in order to play "Feng Shui" you have to be as good at
choreographing fights as Jackie Chan. All RPGs are, considered as drama,
hideously inadequate and inferior to the literature or movies they are
based on that doesn't stop us from playing them.
There is a great wodge of "serious" literature which can't possibly be
imitated in RPGs. I would suggest:
All psychological studies
All "slice-of-life" drama
Nearly all travelogue
Most fatalistic tragedy
All literature in which ordinary, dull events are made interesting by
the wit or stylistic flair with which they are described.
This leaves a large range of literature which is dramatic (things
happen) but which is also mature (the gratification is not instant; the
themes discussed are sophisticated) which RPGs could perfectly well
emulate. The entire cannon of Shakespeare comes to mind. I've often
thought that the Prince Hal trilogy would make a damn fine RPG.
I would suggest the following strategies:
1: Continue to run action-adventure, but regard the derring-do as the
matrix within in which the real plot--the story of how the characters
grew and were changed by their experiences-- occurs.
This means allowing time and space in your gaming sessions for your
characters to have an off-stage life. If your game shows how a Prince, a
Fat Knight and a couple of low-life thieves went off to fight the
Octoplonk on a back-water planet, then make sure they have time to
contemplate and react when one of their comrades is killed. Force them
to play out the funeral, or break the news to his girl-friend. Don't
drag them on to the next bit of the "scenario".
Think of characters in terms of their personality types, be it ever so
stereotyped, rather than their weapons skills. We care that Character A
is a gung ho patriot; Character B is a battle hardened veteran and
Character C was nearly a conshi: not that A had 2 more hitpoints than B.
Think of scenarios in terms of characterisation events, rather than
action events. Don't say "This time, I've planned a really tactically
interesting battle for them to fight"; say "This week, they'll be
another battle, much the same as last week. The twist is that the
sergeant will be shot in the back, so the raw recruit will have to take
charge of the squad..."
A war story may not be the most sophisticated narrative in the world,
but it's more mature then simple geek-bashing.
2: Consider expanding the range of genre material that we play in. I
know, I know, I've said this before: why are our characters exclusively
over-the-top super-heroes, and never down-to-earth human beings
temporarily drawn into an interesting situation? One of my great un-run
games ideas is "tell the story of a hugely dramatic fantasy war against
the dark lord from the point of view of the foot-soldiers, beginning
with a bunch of peasants getting pressed into service, and ending with
them coming back to their village, wooden legs, eye patches and all." I
have never been able to work out a good reason why we can't run a game
where the main character is a lawyer, a medic or a social worker. (There
are large numbers of TV series and novels based on these themes. But we
only run games about super heroes. Immaturity?) Heck, there've been
precious few police or detective RPGs.
3: Explore the free-form genre. Freeforms are a wonderful idea; a
totally different structural approach to role-playing, in which subtle
(not in-yer face) characterisation and action-free drama are at a
premium. Unfortunately, they seem to have become frozen into a limited,
game-play structure in which masses of characters walk around a room
swapping information cards and playing diplomacy. But they could still
be salvaged as a sort of living theatre.
All this is based on the assumption that we want our games to be more
mature. Someone, possibly with a name beginning with "W" is likely to
say: "But I don't want social comment and realistic characterisation.
After a hard day learning my 6 times table, I just want to come home and
blow away some Orcs." And I will not put my hand on my heart and swear
that I disagree.
--
Andrew Rilstone andrew@aslan.demon.co.uk http://www.aslan.demon.co.uk/
He has more good stuff on his website (link at end).
What do you think of this? Andrew's definition of 'mature' is the kind of stuff I might actually buy - I wonder if WotC or other publishers are interested in producing such content?
From: Andrew Rilstone <andrew@aslan.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: uk.games.roleplay
Subject: "Mature Themes"
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 00
05 +0100Can Role-playing games deal with Mature Themes
by Andrew "definitely not a columnist" Rilstone
Some things are liked by children but not by adults. Some things are
liked by adults but not by children. An awful lot of thing are liked by
both children and adults.
"The Care Bears Movie" is in the first category; "Mrs Dalloway" is in
the second category and "Star Wars" is in the third category. (It isn't
true that all children like "The Care Bears", but it is, I think, true
that all people who like "The Care Bears" are children..) We could
therefore say that "The Care Bears" is immature and "Mrs Dalloway" is
mature: but what would we say about "Star Wars"?
I agree that "immature" is not a particularly useful term in this
discussion.
What characterises the for-the-sake-of-the-argument "immature" stuff?
Answer: it can be enjoyed at a very immediate level, with little effort.
It is, to use the technical term, in-yer-face.
Adventures stories, cartoons, super-hero comics, action movies, slap-
stick comedy, shoot-em-up computer games, "pop" music, dungeon bashing
RPGs: they all involve primary colours, loud noises, relatively
straightforward morality, instantly memorable melody or beat; simple
jokes that generate immediate belly laughs; violent confrontations with
clear resolutions fairly simple language; lots of exclamation marks.
Kids can enjoy, understand and consume this sort of stuff easily and
uncritically. And--here comes the point--most adults enjoy it as well.
Further more, most of the for-the-sake-of-the-argument mature stuff has
many of the same characteristics. It's okay for classical music to have
memorable tunes, it's okay for "serious literature" to have thrilling
stories with chases, escapes and explosions, it's okay for sophisticated
satirical comedy to make you laugh.
"Mature" art, then, doesn't necessarily delete the in-yer-face pleasure
of childish stuff, but it adds something else as well: more subtlety of
characterisation, say, or social commentary, or stylistic brilliance.
The instant-hit we get out of an "immature" story may be delayed,
watered down or even removed altogether; to the extent that the
book/film/symphony may be "difficult", hard to read, not much fun on the
first attempt. However, the "deeper" pleasures of the "difficult" work
are such that we press on with it. The book improves with each reading,
we end up saying "it changed my life" or "it really opened my eyes" or
"those characters are always in my mind, as real to me as my own
family".
Maturity implies growth: it would be foolish (childish, even) to say
"So-and-so is immature because he likes "Bugs Bunny" movies." It would
be reasonable to say "So-and-so is immature because at 35 he *only* like
"Bugs Bunny" movies; his tastes have not progressed since he was
eleven."
Those with "mature" taste, can, on the whole, still enjoy and appreciate
"immature" things; but those with "immature" tastes often find "mature"
taste inconceivable. They are very likely to say "No-one really enjoys
Salman Rushdie/Ingmar Bergman/Virginia Woolf. They are just pseuds,
PRETENDING to like them because it makes them feel clever. They would
really rather be watching Terminator II."
Many RPGs are in-yer-face; provide instant thrills and excitement,
simple morality, violence, explosions and lots of exclamation marks.
There is nothing wrong with this. However, very few RPGs deal with
social comment, realistic characterisation, human relationships and so
on.
We have games based on martial arts movies, where the fun comes from
thinking up ludicrous stunts and smashing large numbers of bad guys. We
have games based on space opera movies, where the fun comes from, er,
thinking up ludicrous stunts and smashing large numbers of bad guys. We
have horror story games, where the fun comes from the adrenaline-thrill
of going into darkened rooms where there might be terrifying monsters--
horror comics, almost fairground ghost-trains. We have many, many,
macho-military games, where the fun comes from tooling up with an
enormous weapon and pretending to rush headlong into battle against the
enemy, and, er, smashing large numbers of bad guys. Games are usually
predicated on an escape from danger, a conflict with a baddy, the
solution to a puzzle or a combination of all three: rarely with
resolving a relationship, changing a social situation, gaining in self
knowledge. Arguably, the "cybergoth" tendency has introduced the theme
of growing up or coming of age, but it does it through an adventure
story medium.
Quoth Michael Moorcock:
"Very few adult characters exist in pure swords-and-sorcery stories.
They are either permenant adolescents like Conan, actual children like
Ged in "Wizard of Earthsea", youths like Airar Alvarsan in "The Well of
the Unicorn" or quasi-children like the hobbits in "Lord of the
Rings."....Innocent, sensitive, intensely loyal and enthusiastic, given
to sudden tantrums and terrors, impressionable, sentimental and
sometimes ruthless, these characters very rarely show mature human
responses to their environment, their fellow creatures or the problems
they face."
Remind you of any PCs you know?
Perhaps, in this sense, we could say that the role-playing hobby is
"immature": it deals with a narrow range of easily accessible story-
types, and has not grown or progressed (in this respect) significantly
since its inception.
Is role-playing capable of dealing with the more "mature" subject
matter, or is it by its nature limited to dealing with adventure
stories?
Role-playing is, by its nature, a dramatic medium. At its core is a
verbal exchange between player and referee: the referee says "What do
you do", the player says "I do such and such" the referee says "Such and
such happens, what do you do now" and so on, for as long as people's
attention holds out. Therefore, things have to be happening all the
time. A character can't just sit at home hating the evil Octoplonks,
being consumed by his hatred, but not doing anything about it. That
would be perfectly acceptable in a novel, if the writer's wit and
understanding of human nature was sufficient to keep you interested, but
it can't happen in a movie, a play--or, I would contend, an RPG.
In a play, one of the "things which happens" can be a long conversation.
People can and do run RPGs in which players and NPCs sit around and talk
to each other. But in both cases, the conversation has to have a point
to be of interest: something has to happen in it. Fred the Fighter and
Wally the Wizard sitting around in the bar saying "Nice day at the
battle?" "So so-can't complain. Another ale." "Thanks. Did you cast your
spell okay." "In the end. We had some hassle due to staff shortages"
would be boring as hell. Fred the Fighter confronting Wally the Wizard
and demanding to know why he (apparently) betrayed them the evil
Octoplonks could be extremely interesting and dramatic. Does it follow
from this that when role-playing games try to stop being adventure
stories, they simply become melodramas instead?
I am not convinced that it is harder for players to think of interesting
and dramatic dialogue ("You fiend; you betrayed us, Eric the Cleric died
because of you") than it is for them to think up interesting and
dramatic stunts, tactics, or fight manoeuvres. Phil Masters argued that
a game which was purely predicated on characters "talking about their
problems", while theoretically possible, would in practice not be
feasible because of the demands that it made on the players. To make an
Ingmar Bergman RPG, you have to be as good at writing and acting as
Ingmar Bergman. I think that this is a fallacy; you might as well say
that in order to play "Feng Shui" you have to be as good at
choreographing fights as Jackie Chan. All RPGs are, considered as drama,
hideously inadequate and inferior to the literature or movies they are
based on that doesn't stop us from playing them.
There is a great wodge of "serious" literature which can't possibly be
imitated in RPGs. I would suggest:
All psychological studies
All "slice-of-life" drama
Nearly all travelogue
Most fatalistic tragedy
All literature in which ordinary, dull events are made interesting by
the wit or stylistic flair with which they are described.
This leaves a large range of literature which is dramatic (things
happen) but which is also mature (the gratification is not instant; the
themes discussed are sophisticated) which RPGs could perfectly well
emulate. The entire cannon of Shakespeare comes to mind. I've often
thought that the Prince Hal trilogy would make a damn fine RPG.
I would suggest the following strategies:
1: Continue to run action-adventure, but regard the derring-do as the
matrix within in which the real plot--the story of how the characters
grew and were changed by their experiences-- occurs.
This means allowing time and space in your gaming sessions for your
characters to have an off-stage life. If your game shows how a Prince, a
Fat Knight and a couple of low-life thieves went off to fight the
Octoplonk on a back-water planet, then make sure they have time to
contemplate and react when one of their comrades is killed. Force them
to play out the funeral, or break the news to his girl-friend. Don't
drag them on to the next bit of the "scenario".
Think of characters in terms of their personality types, be it ever so
stereotyped, rather than their weapons skills. We care that Character A
is a gung ho patriot; Character B is a battle hardened veteran and
Character C was nearly a conshi: not that A had 2 more hitpoints than B.
Think of scenarios in terms of characterisation events, rather than
action events. Don't say "This time, I've planned a really tactically
interesting battle for them to fight"; say "This week, they'll be
another battle, much the same as last week. The twist is that the
sergeant will be shot in the back, so the raw recruit will have to take
charge of the squad..."
A war story may not be the most sophisticated narrative in the world,
but it's more mature then simple geek-bashing.
2: Consider expanding the range of genre material that we play in. I
know, I know, I've said this before: why are our characters exclusively
over-the-top super-heroes, and never down-to-earth human beings
temporarily drawn into an interesting situation? One of my great un-run
games ideas is "tell the story of a hugely dramatic fantasy war against
the dark lord from the point of view of the foot-soldiers, beginning
with a bunch of peasants getting pressed into service, and ending with
them coming back to their village, wooden legs, eye patches and all." I
have never been able to work out a good reason why we can't run a game
where the main character is a lawyer, a medic or a social worker. (There
are large numbers of TV series and novels based on these themes. But we
only run games about super heroes. Immaturity?) Heck, there've been
precious few police or detective RPGs.
3: Explore the free-form genre. Freeforms are a wonderful idea; a
totally different structural approach to role-playing, in which subtle
(not in-yer face) characterisation and action-free drama are at a
premium. Unfortunately, they seem to have become frozen into a limited,
game-play structure in which masses of characters walk around a room
swapping information cards and playing diplomacy. But they could still
be salvaged as a sort of living theatre.
All this is based on the assumption that we want our games to be more
mature. Someone, possibly with a name beginning with "W" is likely to
say: "But I don't want social comment and realistic characterisation.
After a hard day learning my 6 times table, I just want to come home and
blow away some Orcs." And I will not put my hand on my heart and swear
that I disagree.
--
Andrew Rilstone andrew@aslan.demon.co.uk http://www.aslan.demon.co.uk/
