Romance? Err... ok?

[S'mon]

I don't think that what D&D play represents or the stories it produces are as close to fantasy literature as people would like. Also, maybe it's just the Tolkien fan in me but I rather admired the great man consigning one romance in LOTR to an appendix and glossing over the other.

My games certainly draw a lot from genre literature and tv shows (sf, fantasy etc); I think lots of peoples' do. I don't find D&D as pure-sui-generis very interesting. I admittedly don't draw much from Tolkien, I prefer the swords & sorcery authors, Moorcock & Leiber are my biggest influences in my D&D game along with other swords & sorcery authors, some pulp sf, and tv shows like Star Trek TNG and Stargate, movies like Star Wars & Batman, the 80s swords & sorcery movies, the occasional good Xena episode, and Games Workshop's Warhammer setting.

 

[fusangite]

Depends on one's definition of "normal". I don't think that sort of discomfort makes sense and regard it as a little abnormal.

You see, if you talked to non-RPG players and said that you played a regular game in which you play-acted political intrigue, people might say "oh -- like model congress or the model UN or diplomacy" (they would still think you were a geek of course); if you told them that you played a regular game in which you engaged in proxy violence, they might say, "oh -- like chess or risk." But if you told them you play-acted seduction recreationally, I think they would be hard pressed to find an activity outside our subculture to which this was comparable.

Does it have to be emotionally identical to have it in the game? I think there are things in the game which are emotionally (and otherwise) quite disparate, but which are all worth having in the game.

Yes. But in my view, the inclusion of something in gaming that is normally outside of the boundaries thereof requires justification beyond "it is in literature" or "it is in life." One must make the case that it is appropriate for the game.

S'mon appears to take the position that it is essentially pathological to exclude from games anything that appears in literature. My point is that to include in games things that are not normally part of gaming is what requires justification. Because RPGs are a kind of game far more than they are a kind of literature, I locate my normative standards for them in a very different place than he does.

Which comes back to the definition of "normal". I'd say politics and violence are conventionally more popular to represent in games than romance and sex. Does it mean representing the latter is inherently abnormal? Not for me.

Well, to avoid a semantic discussion of what "normal" really means, let me put it this way: there are lots of situations in which it is socially acceptable to roll dice; there are lots of situations in which it is socially acceptable to engage in proxy or mock violence; there are lots of situations in which it is socially acceptable for people to collaboratively tell stories; the same cannot be said of play-acting seduction with one's friends.

 

[S'mon]

S'mon appears to take the position that it is essentially pathological to exclude from games anything that appears in literature. My point is that to include in games things that are not normally part of gaming is what requires justification.

Well, I think you're odd, you think I'm odd. Doesn't mean we can't both play D&D.

 

[fusangite]

Well, I think you're odd, you think I'm odd. Doesn't mean we can't both play D&D.

Sure. I'm happy to concede that. Happy gaming.

 

[Eeralai]

Well, to avoid a semantic discussion of what "normal" really means, let me put it this way: there are lots of situations in which it is socially acceptable to roll dice; there are lots of situations in which it is socially acceptable to engage in proxy or mock violence; there are lots of situations in which it is socially acceptable for people to collaboratively tell stories; the same cannot be said of play-acting seduction with one's friends.

Firstly, I think it says something about society that people are far more comfortable with mock violence than mock romance. However, when the average gamer comes home to the spouse and says "We killed a dragon tonight," the spouse will probably say something along the lines of "That's nice honey." But if the average gamer comes home and says "My character got it on with so and so's character" I can imagine the spouse raising the eyebrows with an agressive, "Excuse me?" So while I think romance is fine in RPG's with a group that can handle it, I definitely see Fusangite's point about social acceptability. RPG's are a lot about making characters that do things you will never do in real life. Now some things people would never really want to do like being touched by a wraith or feeling dragon breath, but there are a lot of things in RPG's that would be awesome to do in real life and people can get a cathartic thrill from it. If one of those things is starting a romance, I can see spousal/SO jealousy. In the end it could be a great exploration, but it also could cause problems.

 

[BiggusGeekus]

Firstly, I think it says something about society that people are far more comfortable with mock violence than mock romance.

That we regard fighting evil as a just thing, but that intimate relationships are more special and should be taken more seriously?

Many sides to this question. Many sides.

 

[Falkus]

I think they would be hard pressed to find an activity outside our subculture to which this was comparable.

Acting. Or telephone sex lines. Take your pick.

 

[tetsujin28]

We've used bluebooking for years for romantic plots. It works great. With email, you don't even have to do that.

 

[hong]

I don't think that what D&D play represents or the stories it produces are as close to fantasy literature as people would like. Also, maybe it's just the Tolkien fan in me but I rather admired the great man consigning one romance in LOTR to an appendix and glossing over the other.

Well, Tolkien, Cambridge boy, nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more, y'know?


Hong "AITYD" Ooi

 

[fusangite]

Acting. Or telephone sex lines. Take your pick.

I agree with the latter. But, of course, acting implies audience.