ConcreteBuddha
First Post
I apologize in advance for the length of this post.
I also wish to say that I do not believe that I am right and everyone else is wrong. In fact, I probably am wrong about a lot of things. However, I am attempting to build a framework where none exists. The Roll-Player/Role-Player argument has been around for a while, and the causes for this distinction have never been fully explained (And I do not think I have the final answer).
I believe that RPGs are a part of a larger system (namely how humans interact with each other), and that the Roll-Player/Role-Player division can be expressed in larger, more generalized terms that can describe other activities as well.
On Monte Cook's messageboards in Line of Sight, there is a similiar thread dealing with "Why is DnD centered around combat?" I believe that combat, roll-playing and competition are all linked. To start, here are my first couple posts on that board:
Post #1:
Re: A thought about D&D centering around combat
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Short version:
Why is combat in DnD?
It is a simple way to compete, and competition is fun for the target audience.
.
.
.
Long version:
Back to the original question: Why is combat emphasized in DnD?
I'd like to ask: what is "combat"? Combat, IMHO, is defined as "concrete competition".
"Concrete" as in real-world, easily pictured, and easily given a workable (though not necessarily realistic) rules system. "Competition" as in one group wins, another group loses. An example of this is football.
.
.
Concrete competition is tied to and opposed to concrete cooperation. (kinda like LG and CG) "Cooperation" is when all sides work together and everyone wins. An example of this is a sewing circle.
.
.
I would contend that the reason why DnD emphasizes combat over concrete cooperation is because the people who tend to want to play it tend to be more competitive than cooperative.
The ratio of cooperation/competition varies. Some groups are so competitive that they destroy the party (edit: every person for themselves). Some are so cooperative that the playing groups resemble socialist cells.
But WotC (and other previous generations) saw who they were marketing to: competitive young males who like to argue a point.
(Disclaimer: not all young males are competitive. Not all RPGers are competitive young males. We are talking about a consumer market here. Howard Stern's market is young males. That doesn't mean only young males listen to his broadcast. It means that is who the material is targeted to.)
Gygax has since marketed something that doesn't emphasize combat: LA. It deals far more with cooperation than with competition. I would contend that Vampire and Macs target the same consumer base.
.
.
Why concrete? Because visuallizing a concrete subject in an abstract game is far easier than visuallizing an abstract subject in an abstract game.
Abstract: something you cannot perceive with the five senses.
Examples: math, morality, science, ideas, values, logic, systems
.
.
Disclaimer: I realize that the above contained many sweeping generalizations and I do not advocate putting people in boxes that they cannot escape from. I just feel that it is an overlooked avenue of why there are so few women roleplayers.
(If I ever hear "women=cooperative and men=competitive", I'll be angry. Women CAN be competitive just as men CAN be cooperative, but women tend to like cooperation more than men and vice versa. Nuclear weapons were not created by women.)
I believe that most women just don't like DnD. Why? Because DnD emphasizes hacking enemies to bits, wielding powerful weaponry and defeating all who oppose your character. These are generally not cooperative traits. Those who prefer cooperation over competition will do something else (house rule or play another game or leave the hobby altogether).
.
.
There may be those who say, "You can cooperate in DnD! Look at this or this or that..."
I did not say: DnD = competition
I would say: DnD = competition + cooperation (where generally competition > cooperation)
.
.
Sorry for such a long post, but I did not want to be mistaken for antifeminism, or permiating gender stereotypes, or any other type of prejudice. I believe it is possible for gender roles to alter over time and to have people break the mold. But to a business, the mold exists, and that is what they throw their dart (product) at.
.
.
Post #2
Re: A thought about D&D centering around combat
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I have played Vampire. And I agree that Vampire has a lot of competition. I did not and do not think that Vampire lacks this aspect. I agree that Vampire has multitudes of inter and intrapersonal conflicts.
I would make this reply, however:
Vampire = Competition + Cooperation (where cooperation > competition.)
I will like to point out that Vampire emphasizes group play and cooperation with a Storyteller far more than DnD does. Why?
.
.
1) Vampire encourages the players to cooperate with the Storyteller to make a common storyline, whereas DnD is more about DM (NPCs and monsters) vs. players.
An example of this is the lack of XP players receive in DnD for good roleplaying. DnD is based on the objectivity of CR and party level to determine XP.
Vampire players, on the other hand, are rewarded for behavior that the Storyteller likes (i.e. good roleplaying). This is purely subjective, as one Storyteller's good roleplaying could be another Storyteller's bad. The players must cooperate with the opinions of the Storyteller in order to receive XP.
2) The lack of rules in Vampire leave more rules to the subjectivity of the Storyteller. They are encouraged, and somewhat forced, to make subjective rulings where they cannot have any rules for backing. There is far less "ruleslawyering" in Vampire because the rules (most of the time) fall to the will of the DM and the players must cooperate with the Storyteller's ruling or not play.
The relative nature of "failure" and "success", the use of descriptions instead of numbers, and the lack of battlemaps are other subjectivities that must be inserted by the Storyteller.
DnD is almost set in stone. The rules generally take precedence over the whim of the DM. If a player can point to page XX where the rules for Initiative are mentioned, then that is the way play generally works. People will point to rule zero as the DM's way out of this conundrum, but whatever the DM rules must be consistent for both the DM and players.
The static measure of exact hits and misses as defined by multiple rules such as d20, AC, HPs and Saving Throws are all examples of how DnD is more prone to rigorous competitive play. DnD also often uses miniatures to exactly replicate situations so that fairness and consistency are upheld. Players do not trust the DM to be fair to their characters, so the game tool of a battlemap is needed to objectify the combat process.
3) Interpersonal and intrapersonal competition are inherent within Vampire. However, I would contend that both of these are also in DnD in addition to combat, player vs. player, player vs. DM, PC vs. environment and generally everything vs. everything.
DnD places such a heavy emphasis on rules because, without a "rules bible", the players would fight over the most miniscule ideas. This is inherent in the material and the players. DnD is about competition and DnD attracts competitive players. The two go hand in hand.
Since Vampire has fewer rules, it attracts people who do not need rules. People who need rules feel lost inside the subjectivity of Vampire. People who do not need rules are more inclined to allow someone else (the Storyteller) define the situation. This shows a reliance and trust with another human being. (cooperation)
.
.
.
A game that emphasizes ultimate cooperation is "House." (edit: In its ideal form). In this game, we all decide together what roles each person will have, what the house looks like, and what we will do together in our house. The only rule is "cooperate." Without this rule, the game breaks apart. The Sims is a grown-up example of this game.
A game that emphasizes ultimate competition is "Tag". (edit: In its ideal form). In this game, the exact rules must be defined, from the amount of contact necessary to tag someone, to the exact limits of "base". Without precise and sometimes lengthy rules, arguments flare up over interpretations of the rules. The game is all about who wins by not being tagged 'it'. Diablo II is a grown-up example of this game.
I contend that Vampire is more inclined to represent the former while DnD is more qualified to represent the latter.
.
.
.
A couple of points:
1) It was brought up by Carthain in the Monte Cook forum that Hackmaster is far more competitive than DnD. I agree with this interpretation. Hackmaster is definitely father along in the competitive spectrum than DnD.
2) I do not feel right in taking other posts from that message board because they specifically address the issues that Carthain brought up. And I can not honorably move his posts to this message board. Hopefully he is on this message board as well because he had some good points.
3) I would like to use Myers-Briggs/Keirsey terminology, but I do not know how many people here are familiar with it, and if others would like me to explain the theory. For example, I would descibe the stereotype of a young male rollplayer growing up and turning more towards roleplaying as:
Young T grows up and learns how to use the F tool.
4) I do not know how to post a link to the other message board or else I would.
5) If you managed to get through all of that, I congratulate you.
6) I reiterate: I can be wrong, and I am probably mostly wrong. That is what a theory is all about. But having a faulty theory is better than having none, IMHO.
(edit: unbolded stuff that looked horrible to read.)
I also wish to say that I do not believe that I am right and everyone else is wrong. In fact, I probably am wrong about a lot of things. However, I am attempting to build a framework where none exists. The Roll-Player/Role-Player argument has been around for a while, and the causes for this distinction have never been fully explained (And I do not think I have the final answer).
I believe that RPGs are a part of a larger system (namely how humans interact with each other), and that the Roll-Player/Role-Player division can be expressed in larger, more generalized terms that can describe other activities as well.
On Monte Cook's messageboards in Line of Sight, there is a similiar thread dealing with "Why is DnD centered around combat?" I believe that combat, roll-playing and competition are all linked. To start, here are my first couple posts on that board:
Post #1:
Re: A thought about D&D centering around combat
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Short version:
Why is combat in DnD?
It is a simple way to compete, and competition is fun for the target audience.
.
.
.
Long version:
Back to the original question: Why is combat emphasized in DnD?
I'd like to ask: what is "combat"? Combat, IMHO, is defined as "concrete competition".
"Concrete" as in real-world, easily pictured, and easily given a workable (though not necessarily realistic) rules system. "Competition" as in one group wins, another group loses. An example of this is football.
.
.
Concrete competition is tied to and opposed to concrete cooperation. (kinda like LG and CG) "Cooperation" is when all sides work together and everyone wins. An example of this is a sewing circle.
.
.
I would contend that the reason why DnD emphasizes combat over concrete cooperation is because the people who tend to want to play it tend to be more competitive than cooperative.
The ratio of cooperation/competition varies. Some groups are so competitive that they destroy the party (edit: every person for themselves). Some are so cooperative that the playing groups resemble socialist cells.
But WotC (and other previous generations) saw who they were marketing to: competitive young males who like to argue a point.
(Disclaimer: not all young males are competitive. Not all RPGers are competitive young males. We are talking about a consumer market here. Howard Stern's market is young males. That doesn't mean only young males listen to his broadcast. It means that is who the material is targeted to.)
Gygax has since marketed something that doesn't emphasize combat: LA. It deals far more with cooperation than with competition. I would contend that Vampire and Macs target the same consumer base.
.
.
Why concrete? Because visuallizing a concrete subject in an abstract game is far easier than visuallizing an abstract subject in an abstract game.
Abstract: something you cannot perceive with the five senses.
Examples: math, morality, science, ideas, values, logic, systems
.
.
Disclaimer: I realize that the above contained many sweeping generalizations and I do not advocate putting people in boxes that they cannot escape from. I just feel that it is an overlooked avenue of why there are so few women roleplayers.
(If I ever hear "women=cooperative and men=competitive", I'll be angry. Women CAN be competitive just as men CAN be cooperative, but women tend to like cooperation more than men and vice versa. Nuclear weapons were not created by women.)
I believe that most women just don't like DnD. Why? Because DnD emphasizes hacking enemies to bits, wielding powerful weaponry and defeating all who oppose your character. These are generally not cooperative traits. Those who prefer cooperation over competition will do something else (house rule or play another game or leave the hobby altogether).
.
.
There may be those who say, "You can cooperate in DnD! Look at this or this or that..."
I did not say: DnD = competition
I would say: DnD = competition + cooperation (where generally competition > cooperation)
.
.
Sorry for such a long post, but I did not want to be mistaken for antifeminism, or permiating gender stereotypes, or any other type of prejudice. I believe it is possible for gender roles to alter over time and to have people break the mold. But to a business, the mold exists, and that is what they throw their dart (product) at.
.
.
Post #2
Re: A thought about D&D centering around combat
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I have played Vampire. And I agree that Vampire has a lot of competition. I did not and do not think that Vampire lacks this aspect. I agree that Vampire has multitudes of inter and intrapersonal conflicts.
I would make this reply, however:
Vampire = Competition + Cooperation (where cooperation > competition.)
I will like to point out that Vampire emphasizes group play and cooperation with a Storyteller far more than DnD does. Why?
.
.
1) Vampire encourages the players to cooperate with the Storyteller to make a common storyline, whereas DnD is more about DM (NPCs and monsters) vs. players.
An example of this is the lack of XP players receive in DnD for good roleplaying. DnD is based on the objectivity of CR and party level to determine XP.
Vampire players, on the other hand, are rewarded for behavior that the Storyteller likes (i.e. good roleplaying). This is purely subjective, as one Storyteller's good roleplaying could be another Storyteller's bad. The players must cooperate with the opinions of the Storyteller in order to receive XP.
2) The lack of rules in Vampire leave more rules to the subjectivity of the Storyteller. They are encouraged, and somewhat forced, to make subjective rulings where they cannot have any rules for backing. There is far less "ruleslawyering" in Vampire because the rules (most of the time) fall to the will of the DM and the players must cooperate with the Storyteller's ruling or not play.
The relative nature of "failure" and "success", the use of descriptions instead of numbers, and the lack of battlemaps are other subjectivities that must be inserted by the Storyteller.
DnD is almost set in stone. The rules generally take precedence over the whim of the DM. If a player can point to page XX where the rules for Initiative are mentioned, then that is the way play generally works. People will point to rule zero as the DM's way out of this conundrum, but whatever the DM rules must be consistent for both the DM and players.
The static measure of exact hits and misses as defined by multiple rules such as d20, AC, HPs and Saving Throws are all examples of how DnD is more prone to rigorous competitive play. DnD also often uses miniatures to exactly replicate situations so that fairness and consistency are upheld. Players do not trust the DM to be fair to their characters, so the game tool of a battlemap is needed to objectify the combat process.
3) Interpersonal and intrapersonal competition are inherent within Vampire. However, I would contend that both of these are also in DnD in addition to combat, player vs. player, player vs. DM, PC vs. environment and generally everything vs. everything.
DnD places such a heavy emphasis on rules because, without a "rules bible", the players would fight over the most miniscule ideas. This is inherent in the material and the players. DnD is about competition and DnD attracts competitive players. The two go hand in hand.
Since Vampire has fewer rules, it attracts people who do not need rules. People who need rules feel lost inside the subjectivity of Vampire. People who do not need rules are more inclined to allow someone else (the Storyteller) define the situation. This shows a reliance and trust with another human being. (cooperation)
.
.
.
A game that emphasizes ultimate cooperation is "House." (edit: In its ideal form). In this game, we all decide together what roles each person will have, what the house looks like, and what we will do together in our house. The only rule is "cooperate." Without this rule, the game breaks apart. The Sims is a grown-up example of this game.
A game that emphasizes ultimate competition is "Tag". (edit: In its ideal form). In this game, the exact rules must be defined, from the amount of contact necessary to tag someone, to the exact limits of "base". Without precise and sometimes lengthy rules, arguments flare up over interpretations of the rules. The game is all about who wins by not being tagged 'it'. Diablo II is a grown-up example of this game.
I contend that Vampire is more inclined to represent the former while DnD is more qualified to represent the latter.
.
.
.
A couple of points:
1) It was brought up by Carthain in the Monte Cook forum that Hackmaster is far more competitive than DnD. I agree with this interpretation. Hackmaster is definitely father along in the competitive spectrum than DnD.
2) I do not feel right in taking other posts from that message board because they specifically address the issues that Carthain brought up. And I can not honorably move his posts to this message board. Hopefully he is on this message board as well because he had some good points.
3) I would like to use Myers-Briggs/Keirsey terminology, but I do not know how many people here are familiar with it, and if others would like me to explain the theory. For example, I would descibe the stereotype of a young male rollplayer growing up and turning more towards roleplaying as:
Young T grows up and learns how to use the F tool.
4) I do not know how to post a link to the other message board or else I would.
5) If you managed to get through all of that, I congratulate you.
6) I reiterate: I can be wrong, and I am probably mostly wrong. That is what a theory is all about. But having a faulty theory is better than having none, IMHO.
(edit: unbolded stuff that looked horrible to read.)
Last edited:
