Formal study of the RPG phenomenon
- Thread starter Altamont Ravenard
- Start date
Altamont Ravenard
Explorer
Wow, that's a great start...
I thought that my post had fallen into oblivion (went straight to page 2 without getting more than a couple of views), I'm very happy that it didn't, and that this sort of subject might interest people...
I don't have time right now to be long and windy, since I'll be leaving for work soon, but I'll try to put up something this evening (or maybe at lunch if I have the time).
Perhaps to explain more how (and why I think that) rpg's can mirror the relation between author and reader, I can advance a few things. I loosely base my assumption on the theories of Umberto Eco's Lector in Fabula, wherein he explains that the Author, when writing his text, has in mind an Ideal Reader, ie the reader that will respond to his text fully, and thus adjusts his writing (what he writes and how he writes) to suit this Ideal Reader.
Now, in a RPG, that Ideal Reader is embodied by the players. The DM presents a story with content and style, and usually (of course this is not always the case) tries to tailor said story to the likings of his group. Also, whereas in a normal text, the "feedback" comes from (I'm going to miss my bus! Aargh! <- not an example of feedback) the Ideal Reader, which is a pure invention of the author, the "feedback" in the game comes directly from the players (by feedback, I don't necessarily mean good/bad, but more of the type "Hey I put a plot hook there, why didn't anyone bite?", or somesuch)
THis will have to do for now. Thanks a lot once more!
*sound of the bus passing*
Damn you ENWorld! That's not the first time you made me late for work!
AR
I thought that my post had fallen into oblivion (went straight to page 2 without getting more than a couple of views), I'm very happy that it didn't, and that this sort of subject might interest people...
I don't have time right now to be long and windy, since I'll be leaving for work soon, but I'll try to put up something this evening (or maybe at lunch if I have the time).
Perhaps to explain more how (and why I think that) rpg's can mirror the relation between author and reader, I can advance a few things. I loosely base my assumption on the theories of Umberto Eco's Lector in Fabula, wherein he explains that the Author, when writing his text, has in mind an Ideal Reader, ie the reader that will respond to his text fully, and thus adjusts his writing (what he writes and how he writes) to suit this Ideal Reader.
Now, in a RPG, that Ideal Reader is embodied by the players. The DM presents a story with content and style, and usually (of course this is not always the case) tries to tailor said story to the likings of his group. Also, whereas in a normal text, the "feedback" comes from (I'm going to miss my bus! Aargh! <- not an example of feedback) the Ideal Reader, which is a pure invention of the author, the "feedback" in the game comes directly from the players (by feedback, I don't necessarily mean good/bad, but more of the type "Hey I put a plot hook there, why didn't anyone bite?", or somesuch)
THis will have to do for now. Thanks a lot once more!
*sound of the bus passing*
Damn you ENWorld! That's not the first time you made me late for work!
AR
Altamont Ravenard
Explorer
diaglo said:
I disagree. The most notable difference between playing RPG's and playing Cowboys & Indians is the rules that were developped to settle the "I killed you / no you didn't", and that the enforcement of those rules is entrusted to a participant of the game (ie the DM). We could have played Cowboys & Indians with one guy who would play the Great Manitou (is there an equivalent in english for that?) who'd rule that, yes, he killed you or no, he didn't.
AR
Yo, AR,
As a novelist and DM, I feel as though this is a topic close to my heart.
It's similar in a lot of ways. For example, establishing an agreed-upon logic. If magic can do anything in a fantasy story, the reader usually gets dull. Magic is only interesting if it is mysterious, powerful, but ALSO kept in check by limitations that adhere to the world's internal logic. The swordsman should, barring injury or special circumstances, radically change his style for no reason, either for better or worse -- he shouldn't be able to defeat twenty guards early in the book and then get beaten down by three guards of no better ability a chapter later (unless the guards have the element of surprise, the swordsman is exhausted or drugged, or something else changes the balance of power). In a novel, those things break the suspension of disbelief. In an RPG, we have rules to ensure that the rules stay consistent unless the DM rules special circumstances -- for example, a Polymorph curse that can't be dispelled or removed by ordinary means, but must be broken by true love...
Other things, however, are different.
The storyline is usually different -- the "try and fail, try and fail, try one last time and succeed" storyline doesn't work, and usually gets replaced by "defeat little minion, defeat bigger minion, defeat BBEG, sell loot". In addition, characters don't have the smooth progression of most novels, first because of the random nature of what they can do (they don't always succeed or fail right when it is dramatically appropriate for them to do so) and second because the characters are somewhat closer to getting to write their own scene. Many times, this results in characters who are unwilling to fail because they are overly self-aware. This isn't just another DM attacking metagaming -- it's HARD for a player to do something genuinely long-term self-destructive, because they're looking at the situation without the same emotional intensity as the person in the story would have. An author usually has the objectivity (and interest in the plot) necessary to give that emotional intensity to his characters. Because D&D is more about problem-solving, defined by success, most players don't get this -- and the DM is often equally to blame.
I usually think that the DM is in charge of the setting, much of the backstory, and the Initial Problem aspect of the plot, along with Complications that arise as necessary. The players are in charge of most of the important characters. The story is limited to the PCs -- you never get to see a scene from the POV of the villain, which is used in many novels either to make you hate the villain more or to begin to sympathize with him.
More as I think.
As a novelist and DM, I feel as though this is a topic close to my heart.
It's similar in a lot of ways. For example, establishing an agreed-upon logic. If magic can do anything in a fantasy story, the reader usually gets dull. Magic is only interesting if it is mysterious, powerful, but ALSO kept in check by limitations that adhere to the world's internal logic. The swordsman should, barring injury or special circumstances, radically change his style for no reason, either for better or worse -- he shouldn't be able to defeat twenty guards early in the book and then get beaten down by three guards of no better ability a chapter later (unless the guards have the element of surprise, the swordsman is exhausted or drugged, or something else changes the balance of power). In a novel, those things break the suspension of disbelief. In an RPG, we have rules to ensure that the rules stay consistent unless the DM rules special circumstances -- for example, a Polymorph curse that can't be dispelled or removed by ordinary means, but must be broken by true love...
Other things, however, are different.
The storyline is usually different -- the "try and fail, try and fail, try one last time and succeed" storyline doesn't work, and usually gets replaced by "defeat little minion, defeat bigger minion, defeat BBEG, sell loot". In addition, characters don't have the smooth progression of most novels, first because of the random nature of what they can do (they don't always succeed or fail right when it is dramatically appropriate for them to do so) and second because the characters are somewhat closer to getting to write their own scene. Many times, this results in characters who are unwilling to fail because they are overly self-aware. This isn't just another DM attacking metagaming -- it's HARD for a player to do something genuinely long-term self-destructive, because they're looking at the situation without the same emotional intensity as the person in the story would have. An author usually has the objectivity (and interest in the plot) necessary to give that emotional intensity to his characters. Because D&D is more about problem-solving, defined by success, most players don't get this -- and the DM is often equally to blame.
I usually think that the DM is in charge of the setting, much of the backstory, and the Initial Problem aspect of the plot, along with Complications that arise as necessary. The players are in charge of most of the important characters. The story is limited to the PCs -- you never get to see a scene from the POV of the villain, which is used in many novels either to make you hate the villain more or to begin to sympathize with him.
More as I think.
Altamont Ravenard
Explorer
How to define a "game"
Here are the basic 6 definitions that go into determining what a "game" is. These can be found in Roger Caillois' book, Les jeux et les hommes (Of men and games):
1) A game is free, in the sense that people decide freely to play a game or not.
2) A game is , where the limits in time and space are defined.
3) The outcome is incertain, ie there is no way to determine before the game begins who will be the victor, or, in a game that has no clear victor, what will be the situation in the end.
4) A game is unproductive, it creates nothing. Property or money can exchange hands, but no money can be made in a game (even in a casino, for example, if the player wins, it is the other participant in the game, the casino itself (or the slot machine) that loses the money).
5) A game is regulated by totally arbitrary rules that every participant agrees upon.
6) A game is fictive, in the sense that it's separated from reality / real life.
These 6 definitions can be applied to the act of Writing as well as the act of Reading works of fiction.
AR
Here are the basic 6 definitions that go into determining what a "game" is. These can be found in Roger Caillois' book, Les jeux et les hommes (Of men and games):
1) A game is free, in the sense that people decide freely to play a game or not.
2) A game is , where the limits in time and space are defined.
3) The outcome is incertain, ie there is no way to determine before the game begins who will be the victor, or, in a game that has no clear victor, what will be the situation in the end.
4) A game is unproductive, it creates nothing. Property or money can exchange hands, but no money can be made in a game (even in a casino, for example, if the player wins, it is the other participant in the game, the casino itself (or the slot machine) that loses the money).
5) A game is regulated by totally arbitrary rules that every participant agrees upon.
6) A game is fictive, in the sense that it's separated from reality / real life.
These 6 definitions can be applied to the act of Writing as well as the act of Reading works of fiction.
AR
I disagree with 3, 4, 5, and possibly 6.
3) In a novel, the goal is to give the APPEARANCE of uncertainty, but most novelists, barring those doing experimental random storytelling, know who is going to win. Most readers know that the hero is gonna be victorious. It's just a matter of how. I don't consider that true uncertainty.
4) Many novels have the goal of passing an idea to the readers -- the reader gains a new perspective or worldview, and the author does not LOSE this perspective when the reader gains it. If you say "tangible only", that's fine, though.
5) Most of the novel takes place within arbitrary rules, but most novelists break at least some of their rules at the end through handwaving. At the end, "True Love" is able to overpower the magic that existed by hard and fast rules through most of the story. Perhaps the handwaving means that the rules are still in place, but I don't think that the creation of the rules overcomes the fundamental fact that the spirit of the rules for most of the novel has been effectively broken. The big twist on the major magical spell, the effect that nobody knew would happen -- it's almost always explained, but it almost always breaks the rules as we initially understand them. And in most cases, it does that in order to create more of a sense of wonder.
6) Possibly, many novels have that goal of passing ideas to readers -- moral, sociological, or psychological ideas. As an author, I want people to read my book and come away with a new thought, a new idea, something that maybe makes them stop and think before doing something dumb in real life a week later. While the story itself is fiction, the moral or ethical idea is intended to cross the fiction/real-world boundaries.
3) In a novel, the goal is to give the APPEARANCE of uncertainty, but most novelists, barring those doing experimental random storytelling, know who is going to win. Most readers know that the hero is gonna be victorious. It's just a matter of how. I don't consider that true uncertainty.
4) Many novels have the goal of passing an idea to the readers -- the reader gains a new perspective or worldview, and the author does not LOSE this perspective when the reader gains it. If you say "tangible only", that's fine, though.
5) Most of the novel takes place within arbitrary rules, but most novelists break at least some of their rules at the end through handwaving. At the end, "True Love" is able to overpower the magic that existed by hard and fast rules through most of the story. Perhaps the handwaving means that the rules are still in place, but I don't think that the creation of the rules overcomes the fundamental fact that the spirit of the rules for most of the novel has been effectively broken. The big twist on the major magical spell, the effect that nobody knew would happen -- it's almost always explained, but it almost always breaks the rules as we initially understand them. And in most cases, it does that in order to create more of a sense of wonder.
6) Possibly, many novels have that goal of passing ideas to readers -- moral, sociological, or psychological ideas. As an author, I want people to read my book and come away with a new thought, a new idea, something that maybe makes them stop and think before doing something dumb in real life a week later. While the story itself is fiction, the moral or ethical idea is intended to cross the fiction/real-world boundaries.
Zander
Explorer
buzz said:
I've read all the above including "Warlocks & Warpdrives" by Kurt Lancaster (the Amazon book). Within certain criteria, I have every book ever published in English or French about RPGs.
You should definitely read the Mackay book. Don't be misled by the subtitle; it's not an investigation of the theatrical aspects of RPGs so much as a semiotic study. I don't think highly of semiology (which IMO is mostly complex ways of stating simple things) but it does include an interesting discussion of self and perspective which seems to have some bearing on your thesis.
The Fine book and the Lancatser book are sociological studies. Both are worth a look. The latter doesn't cover table-top gamers though, but does have a chapter on LARPers.
The Schick book is mostly a listing of the RPGs released up to the time of its publication. It also includes some essays on the early days of RPGs.
If you want to know more about these or any other books about RPGs, drop me a line at afsimkin@hotmail.com. Please include the term "RPG" in the subject line or your message may get deleted.
Last edited:
