Formal study of the RPG phenomenon

[Altamont Ravenard]

First of all, it's important not to mix up the Story (ie the content of the book) and the actual act of either Writing or Reading. The game is not the story. The game is writing/reading the story.

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.

That is the point that I for the moment have the most problem.

In the act of Writing, an author may have a plan of the story he is building, but when he is actually writing, and what will be the definitive form of the story is uncertain until the last period is put.

In the act of Reading... hm...

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.

Yes, it is thought more as a material point of view.

In the act of Writing, you necessarily produce a manuscript of some sort. There is the object, wether it's a file on your computer or pages that you've filled. That object can have value (ie a manuscript by R. A. Salvatore) but the actual process of Writing produces nothing.

In the act of Reading, it is clearer.

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.

In the act of Writing, the rules you abide are those of the language (first and foremost), so that something coherent may emerge (nothing stops you from playing with the language, of course). Also for coherence, you build the inner rules of the story.

In the act of Reading, you accept

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.

In any game, it could be argued that some of the elements inevitably pass on in the real world. Take a sport that you practice for pleasure. You gain physical fitness from it, and physical fitness is useful in the real world.

The way I think it should be understood is that (I hope I'm not saying anything stupid) if you Write / Read, in a work of fiction, that someone dies, no one actually died in real life (for example), and even if you write a story about a man named Eric Noah who works in a library and started a great community of fellow RGP'ers and who wins the Vermont Powerball lottery (162 freakin' million $), it won't make it so (sorry, Mr. Noah).

Also, I am certainly not an expert on the subject. I'm trying to develop a theory of some sort, and it is probably flawed in many aspects.

AR

 

[takyris]

First of all, it's important not to mix up the Story (ie the content of the book) and the actual act of either Writing or Reading. The game is not the story. The game is writing/reading the story.

So we're not talking about the content. You're limiting the discussion to the process of reading/writing and the process of gaming/DMing. Gotcha.

In the act of Writing, an author may have a plan of the story he is building, but when he is actually writing, and what will be the definitive form of the story is uncertain until the last period is put.

In the act of Reading... hm...

This seems a bit quibble-ish. By your definition, it's uncertain whether or not I'm going to work because you don't know whether I'll take twenty steps, walking around the hedge on the left, or nineteen steps, walking around the hedge on the right, to get inside.

I'll accept that there are no absolutes, but then the conversation is effectively over -- "Hey, there are no absolutes, I guess that's that." If you want to talk generalities, though, I believe that most authors and gamers would agree that the author has better control over his plot elements than the DM does of his story elements, by the very fact that the author does not have to rely on anyone else to "guess" what the correct or most efficient means of furthering the plot is.

In the act of Writing, you necessarily produce a manuscript of some sort. There is the object, wether it's a file on your computer or pages that you've filled. That object can have value (ie a manuscript by R. A. Salvatore) but the actual process of Writing produces nothing.

I'm confused. You said "I produce an object", but then you say "the actual process of writing produces nothing". If you mean that the finished product has no inherent value, then the same can be said for a sculpture -- or, for that matter, a car or a building. None have any value except that given them by people.

People find cars useful for transportation, buildings useful for accomodation, and sculptures and novels useful for aesthetic pleasure and enlightenment. There have been many of all objects that have failed to provide that value and fell by the wayside -- the car I currently drive was discontinued because it was inefficient (it has an enormous blind spot and turns poorly).

Basically, I feel as though you are trying to fast-talk an objective distinction where no such distinction exists with this one. I don't believe that a novel is valueless, and I don't even believe that a game is valueless.

In the act of Writing, the rules you abide are those of the language (first and foremost), so that something coherent may emerge (nothing stops you from playing with the language, of course). Also for coherence, you build the inner rules of the story.

In the act of Reading, you accept

Missed whatever you wrote after "accept" here.

As for your other part, saying that we obey the rules of language is pretty baseline. Yes, we also obey the rules of language in an RPG. I don't know that you're gonna get a Master's Thesis out of the fact that few novels and few RPGs are written or performed entirely in a languge none of the participants understand.

You could, however, counter my argument with the idea that the "big breaking of the established rules" is actually part of the rules now. It's almost expected that, in any fantasy novel, the magic is going to change profoundly and do something that, according to our understanding of the rules, was impossible. If it's expected, then it's become part of the ruleset. Possibly.

In any game, it could be argued that some of the elements inevitably pass on in the real world. Take a sport that you practice for pleasure. You gain physical fitness from it, and physical fitness is useful in the real world.

The way I think it should be understood is that (I hope I'm not saying anything stupid) if you Write / Read, in a work of fiction, that someone dies, no one actually died in real life (for example), and even if you write a story about a man named Eric Noah who works in a library and started a great community of fellow RGP'ers and who wins the Vermont Powerball lottery (162 freakin' million $), it won't make it so (sorry, Mr. Noah).

Again, I agree with that wording of it, but again, that's pretty baseline. I guess you have to start somewhere.

 

[JohnNephew]

It sounds like you might want to look for:

Wilson, R. Rawdon. In Palamedes’ Shadow: Explorations in Play, Game, and Narrative Theory. Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1990.

It's out of print, I believe, but I know it was a useful source for my wife when she was writing her dissertation (entitled "Playing with Power: The Authorial Consequences of Roleplaying Games") -- she managed to get a copy through interlibrary loan. (I think Michelle may be the only editor in the industry who can say she has a Ph.D. in RPGs. )

 

[Altamont Ravenard]

[...]

Hehe I guess I should familiarize myself with the theory before I start applying it to the creative process of writing or the less creative but still quite fun process of reading.

Also, although I'm comfortable with the english language, my main language is french, so I still have some trouble translating my thoughts into coherent and comprehensive english sentences.

Once I have read Caillois more thoroughly, I'll address these points more intelligently.

For the part that was cut off (Rules / Reading), I meant to say that when you start to read a book, you accept the rules of reading that the Author has installed into his work, for instance in a fantasy novel, you accept that magic exists and manifests itself. Of course, there is certainly more to it than that. I'll get back to you

AR

 

[takyris]

Hey, AR,

I hope some of this is helpful. On rereading my reply, I think it came off too negatively. I'm not certain that I agree with those Game statements as they apply to writing (at least, not as I currently understand them), but it's a fascinating concept, and I look forward to seeing more of it. As a writer/gamer, I've done a lot of thinking about this, and I'm interested in debate and argument about the concept. I hope that I wasn't too rude.

 

[Aeolius]

the role of the DM is that of the author, and the players become the readers.

I have always referred to my message-based game as a work of coauthored interactive fiction. The players have as large a role in shaping the ongoing saga as the DM. While I may present the players with a scenario, locale, and personalities to interact with, they are the ones to write the remainder of the Chapter.

A problem with play-by-post campaigns is that the DM looks for players interested in writing, instead of finding writers interested in gaming. This is not an insurmountable obstacle, however, as players become accustomed to the medium.