Article on _genuine_ mature themes

[Magic-User]

I'll take the opportunity to vent. I am responding to the article, just to throw my opinions out, not to S'mon, Monte, or anyone else.

I hate the idea that mature books are about people's daily lives. I hate the idea the mature games have to have deep and subtle social characteristics. I hate the idea that RPGs are by default "immature" for dealing with extraordinary characters. I hate Salman Rushdie, Ingmar Bergman, and Virginia Woolf.

Already, many of you who agree with Andrew Rilstone have tagged me "immature," and are filtering out what I'm saying. If you're doing that, I hate you, too.

"Maturity," in Western society (I have no idea about other societies) is a poorly-defined concept at best, and I disagree with Andrew Rilstone's definition.

You are not mature because you can read painfully boring novels, and say "Wow! That tear-inducingly boring book really changed the way I look at things!"

You are not mature because you can say "I spent the last four hours role-playing a conversation about fantasy weather!"

You are not mature because you can say, "My character ran away from the army, and I spent all night figuring out who he settled down and had kids with!"

You are not mature because you think of everything in terms of social changes.

I know this is where I should put up my opinion to have it knocked down by all the people here who think they can argue better than me and are completely, irreffutably, and utterly correct on how life should be lived. But I'm not going to do that.

Each and every philosophy about life gets laughed at by some one. And I'm laughing at Andrew Rilstone now. And that's what my post is really about. Something isn't "mature" because it's like Virginia Woolf's writing; it's mature because you think it is.

 

[kenjib]

Hello Magic-User,

I think your point would have much more impact if you weren't so defensive about it. We all have a right to our own opinion, don't we? I don't think you should hate people for having one different from yours, and I don't think you should likewise expect to be hated. Why not save the anger until someone actual does offend you in some way? By starting with such an unprovoked hostile tone it almost sounds like you are intentionally trying to incite people to attack you.

Mr. Rilstone said that mature does not have to be boring. Like Star Wars, it can be exciting and fun, but at the same time draws upon other more subtle issues, such as the archetypes of Joseph Cambell. Ideally these things reinforce the fun and excitement, rather than create something boring and tedious. Do you think that Star Wars is a poor definition of mature?

That said, while I see that you posit that boring and mature are exclusive properties (an assertion that I can't agree with, myself) I don't see in your post a definition of what you actually do define as mature. I am very interested in understanding your position better, so please explain!

Thanks.

 

[Desdichado]

I think magic-user has completely missed the point: Rilstone (and others) have said all along that we shouldn't be rollplaying Salmon Rushdie, Ingmar Berman, etc., but that we can incorporate "mature" themes into games that are otherwise also very fun. Why do you feel that anyone is saying otherwise when the clearly stated position here is the "straddling the line" of fun and escapism (appeals to the immature side in each of us) and the thoughtful (appeals to the mature side in each of us)? The article clearly says that a good mature game doesn't ignore the "immature" part of the game, which is what makes it fun.

As a personal nitpick, I firmly believe that the Campbellian "subtlety" of Star Wars was an after-the-fact pretension of George Lucas based on something some critic, or more likely PhD student writing his dissertation, came up with. In early interviews, Lucas clearly compares Star Wars to the old black and white weekly serial movies he used to watch as a kid, in later interviews, he talks about Campbellian hero's journy and archetypes.

But maybe that's just me.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

But maybe that's just me.

No, I think he lucked out, and then caught word from other people that he accomplished it without trying to.

 

[kenjib]

Yeah, I agree that there's no reason why he had to have done it intentionally. People had been doing it for thousands of years before Campbell wrote about it -- the concept is descriptive rather than proscriptive. It still doesn't alter the fact that, for me, it strengthens the movies regardless of intent.

 

[Merlion]

I could be wrong but I THINK Magic-user is among other things simply saying he doesnt like people telling everyone what does and doesnt constitute "mature". And I agree with him very much to a large extent...I think the word gets overused. to me the only thing mature really means is either the sceintific defintion(as in, a mature specimen of a species), or as more or less synonomyous with being responsible.

 

[kenjib]

I could be wrong but I THINK Magic-user is among other things simply saying he doesnt like people telling everyone what does and doesnt constitute "mature". And I agree with him very much to a large extent...I think the word gets overused. to me the only thing mature really means is either the sceintific defintion(as in, a mature specimen of a species), or as more or less synonomyous with being responsible.

You bring up responsibility though, and in that are defining maturity yourself. According to what you've said, wouldn't mature material address the responsibilities that people have for their actions -- socially, politically, economically, morally, ethically? This actually seems to be something not really reinforced by D&D and really not that far from what the article is talking about.

If I am mistaken, then what do you mean by "being responsible?"

 

[Merlion]

Hmm...I suppose but I think all of that just depends entirly on the gaming group. The article has some good points but he generalizes WAY to much.
I am agreeing with MU's assertion that maturity as a quality of literature etc isnt really up to any one person to decide.

 

[NoOneofConsequence]

The group that I play with agrees with you but I think that you are missing part of the point of the article or I'm misunderstanding your point.

I don't understand how rape, torture or slavery would fall under the category of 'sophisticated' themes. Everyone agrees that these actions are evil and all good characters would oppose such actions. All of these things are very black and white; there is no moral ambiguity. There is no element of moral complexity in these issues.

p.s.
Excellent thread by the way. A question that has been on my
mind ever since BovD came out.

Replying from back to front:

I agree that this is an excellent thread with a worthwhile subject area.

Rape, slavery and torture become sophisticated themes in my roleplaying (and my wife's especially) because of our detailed real world exposure.

When an npc claims to have been raped, most people would probably see a victim to be avenged - a more mature version of the damsel in distress. My wife sees rape evidence kits, crisis counselling, suicide watch etc. It can take a lot of fun out of it for her.

When an npc is tortured, most people would probably see iron maidens, racks and other medieval torture devices that almost look a bit comic in movies (and have often been used for comic effect).

I see pregnant mothers being stabbed in the belly in the compound of Auschwitz Birkenau because they couldn't stand on one leg continuously for over an hour. (I once worked on an oral history of my city's Jewish community)

My wife sees the woman forced by her husband to eat garbage at knife point because she had thrown out his dinner after he had criticised it saying "I'm not eating this S**t!"

In essence, my wife and I have had exposure (thankfully second hand in my case) to the genuine horror that is humanity's abuse of its own members. When we roleplay we like to kill orcs with CE personalities - this is what I meant by sophisitication. I wasn't alluding to uncertain morality but to horrific detail. Perhaps sophistication wasn't the best word to use, but this is what I meant originally.

My wife

 

[fusangite]

I think it's hard to deal with more sophisticated plots in D&D because I would argue that the D&D system, especially alignment, makes the game especially theme-resistant.

As long as you're playing with the core rules, it seems like a waste of time to run a game with adult characters, concepts and themes.

If you want to run a game that deals with weighty themes and makes people think about issues and ideas, design your own system or use a different game. In my view, dealing with real adult issues (which I did do in the games I ran from 1997-2002) is a worthwhile thing to do and can be extremely rewarding.

But I use D&D rules when I want to work in a game of simple archetypes.