Is D&D/D20 Childish and Immature?

[Mathew_Freeman]

OK here's a thought...

Is Fight Club an immature, childish movie?

On one hand, yes. It's a film about a bunch of guys that get together to beat the crap out each other, and features well known 'heart-throb' Brad Pitt looking all manly and rugged in the midst of combat.

On the other hand, no. It's a very clever film about modern society, about how we have become our possesions, about someone with a serious problem and so on and so forth.

My opinion goes more with the latter idea. Same sort of thing with D&D. It's easy to talk about your 15th level Wizard with the Quickened Fireball and have someone understand you, it's much harder to talk about his background and motivations - and so people tend to think all he has is a Quickened Fireball.

Not quite sure what my point is, but hopefully that all made sense in someone else's head.

 

[S'mon]

OK here's a thought...

Is Fight Club an immature, childish movie?

On one hand, yes. It's a film about a bunch of guys that get together to beat the crap out each other, and features well known 'heart-throb' Brad Pitt looking all manly and rugged in the midst of combat.

On the other hand, no. It's a very clever film about modern society, about how we have become our possesions, about someone with a serious problem and so on and so forth.

My opinion goes more with the latter idea. Same sort of thing with D&D. It's easy to talk about your 15th level Wizard with the Quickened Fireball and have someone understand you, it's much harder to talk about his background and motivations - and so people tend to think all he has is a Quickened Fireball.

Not quite sure what my point is, but hopefully that all made sense in someone else's head.

Yep, you can deal with 'mature themes' (and I don't mean sex & violence) in an action movie or in a D&D game. Look at 'Unforgiven''s treatment of the Western, for example. I think I do this quite often, not always knowingly. D&D suits some themes better than others - the question of the nature of evil, for instance, as a theme is quite central to my game universe. I use a lot of political & historical themes in my game too, such as the cost and benefit of Imperialism, how societies cope with relative decline (a very British theme), fascism vs liberalism, and so on. Mostly the players just kill orcs (or hobgoblins, in your case) to start with, but there's a lot going on in the background!

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

Mostly the players just kill orcs (or hobgoblins, in your case) to start with, but there's a lot going on in the background!

I noticed this at GenConUK. Even though all we were really doing was running about bashing stuff and trying to get into a big dungeon, you'd put a lot of work into the background. Where abouts does your normal game group play?

 

[kenjib]

Conan stories appeal primarily to adolescent males, or the adolesecent male within all (most) of us

I dunno. Raw masculinity is not necessarily an adolescent trait. Conan is basically a re-write of Tarzan. Tarzan/Conan represent masculinity unbridled by the constraints of a civilization which forces an increased feminization. He is a conduit for us to indulge in some natural aspects of the human condition which are heavily oppressed in the industrialized world. They are oppressed for good reason, but not without negative side effects.

Why is fulfilling an oppressed intrinsic desire for warlike behavior in a safe and controlled environment a childish thing? I wouldn't consider romance novels to be childish, nor would I consider Conan or other war stories (which Conan essentially is) to be such.

As this relates to D&D, a heavy focus on combat is not necessarily childish, depending on the context that the combat is placed in.

 

[Voneth]

Originally posted by SHARK
Has D&D reputation for being a game of wonder and imagination derailed into something for children?

In case some people didn't notice, most of the world equates anything that is synomous with wonder and imagination as a "childish" pursit. Some half naked guy in a football stadium can paint himself the team colors and he's all right. Some guy can dress up like a Jedi at a con and he's a loon. Dress him up as a wizard or vampire and he's a freak.

As the baby boomer gamers get older, I keep reading posts that they are getting uncomfortable about large amount of young people in the hobby and how their cherished games have been dumbed down for these kids who can't hold a conversation about politics and Nepolionic warfare.

DND started in small white box with a word count that you can now email in a second. Squad Leader at one time came in one box with one rule booklet. Battletech (Battledroids at the time) was also a one box, simple game.

All of this "advanced" material was drumed up for sales and for a crowd that had mastered the original rules as they got older. So at some point, however, you have to reset the clock if you want you hobby to continue. That clock not only includes the rules, but the age of the gamers as well. ...

Unless you want to ask that 45-year old painted NFL fan over there to join you at the table.

Hmmm Elway, 21st Epic Level Quarterback

Why is fulfilling an oppressed intrinsic desire for warlike behavior in a safe and controlled environment a childish thing?

Because our society decided ages ago that team sports would fulfill that function. Any other outlet has to earn it's wings first, especially if it has its roots in something that doesn't make money.

 

[barsoomcore]

Tarzan/Conan represent masculinity unbridled by the constraints of a civilization which forces an increased feminization.

Well, that's one reading. You could also look at T/C as wish fulfillment based on power. Vicariously, the reader is able to exert dominance over the world, displaying strength and power and social esteem. And that is adolescent -- the selfish desire to extract value from rather than engage fully with the world.

And so an RPG experience can be about either power fantasies or the interactions of people and environments -- or more likely some messy combination of the two (plus assorted other elements I've forgotten).

I would class romance novels as equally childish -- again, they're essentially power fantasies the reader uses to vicariously acquire prestige, esteem and power -- rather than actually examine the relationship between the self and the world (that's an incredibly stuffy way to put it, but the best I can do right now).

Fulfilling a desire will always be less mature than examining a desire. Maybe I'm using "mature" in a very specific way -- but to me it indicates an interest in the world beyond simply taking from it what you need.

 

[kenjib]

Fulfilling a desire will always be less mature than examining a desire. Maybe I'm using "mature" in a very specific way -- but to me it indicates an interest in the world beyond simply taking from it what you need.

You are talking from the perspective of the characters in the book though, not the person reading it. There is a big difference between irresponsibly taking what you want from the world and reading about someone else irresponsibly taking what they want from the world so you can experience it harmlessly in a vicarious manner. EDIT: The former is fulfilling the desire. The second is, indeed examining a desire on the part of the reader, if not the character in the book. You are ignoring a layer of abstraction.

Approaching your argument from a different angle, were Kenneth Lay's actions immature? I don't think that's the word I would choose to describe them.

 

[barsoomcore]

You are talking from the perspective of the characters in the book though, not the person reading it. There is a big difference between irresponsibly taking what you want from the world and reading about someone else irresponsibly taking what they want from the world so you can experience it harmlessly in a vicarious manner.

Just like there's a big difference between harmlessly experiencing someone else's irresponsibility and actually contemplating the causes and effects of such irresponsibility.

Understand that I'm not saying there's anything wrong with reading Tarzan books, but they don't provide the same philosophical/emotional depth that more... mature books do. Now that maturity actually exists somewhere in the space between the page and the reader's mind, of course, so while it's possible to draw fairly sophisticated ideas from ERB (which it sounds like you have done) -- the books themselves don't contain much sophisticated thought about the way people behave.

Approaching your argument from a different angle, were Kenneth Lay's actions immature? I don't think that's the word I would choose to describe them.

Of course they were immature. That's not the PROBLEM -- the problem is that they were unethical and inconsiderate. I don't equate those qualities with immaturity. Immature acts can be fun, generous, healthy acts. Like I said, I think maturity is defined by an interest in things beyond what they can provide to you personally.

Like Harn, for example.

 

[kenjib]

Regarding Kenneth Lay, I think that there is more of a distinction between immature and irresponsible than you are drawing, although I could be mistaken.

I can see from the discussion regarding Conan an interesting distillation that reflects on D&D, and that is the difference between the product itself and the act of using the product. Perhaps it is true than in many ways D&D is less mature than Harn as a product, although the usage thereof can be quite a different picture. The arguments in favor of D&D's maturity level seem to center around the usage and application of the rules whereas the arguments against D&D's maturity seem to center around the rules themself.

Part of the problem with this debate so far is the fact that the two sides are mostly arguing about two different things. The relationship between rules and application thereof seems to be the key element that needs examination. Why fit a square peg into a round hole? Only because you can't find a round peg? Does this really change the nature of the square peg?

 

[barsoomcore]

Regarding Kenneth Lay, I think that there is more of a distinction between immature and irresponsible than you are drawing, although I could be mistaken.

It's just barely possible that I was not entirely clear -- I consider immaturity and irresponsibility COMPLETELY separate notions. I don't see that they have much to do with each other.

The arguments in favor of D&D's maturity level seem to center around the usage and application of the rules whereas the arguments against D&D's maturity seem to center around the rules themself.

Oho! Well spotted.

So the REAL issue is: do the rules of D&D as published promote or otherwise encourage immature play? Do they discourage mature play (for you see that the one does not necessarily imply the other)?

Whether or not we think immature play is a good thing or not, what do we think about those two questions?

My feeling is yes, the rules of D&D encourage immature play, but no, they do not discourage mature play. That is it's easier (or perhaps more rewarding) to power-fantasize in D&D than in, perhaps, Harn (what do I know -- I bought Harn before it was a game), but it's no more difficult to run a sophisticated and mature game in D&D than it is in any other system I've come across.

I think those are the key questions.