What is an RPG really? (A look at Game Theory and Psychology)

[jester47]

I think the most solid argument against role playing games in general is that they are based on the very powerful psychological tool known "simply" as roleplaying.

Roleplaying is used in therepy. The Dictionary of Terms & Terminology of Psychology gives this definition:

Teaching people to behave in a certain way by encouraging them to pretend that they are in a particular situation. This helps people acquire complex behaviors in an efficient way. Also see behavior rehearsal

Behavior rehearsal: A behavior therapy technique in which a client practices new behavior in the consulting room, often aided by demonstrations and role-play by the therapist.

Now then you combine this with game theory.

At this point you may be saying "ok Aaron, I see the point about role playing but games (with dice and such) are not really game theory."

Here is a description of game theory I found at whatis.techtarget.com:

"Game-theory research involves studies of the interactions among people or groups of people. Because people make use of an ever-increasing number and variety of technologies to achieve desired ends, game theory can be indirectly applied in practical pursuits such as engineering, information technology, and computer science. "

"So-called games can range from simple personal or small group encounters or problems to major confrontations between corporations or superpowers. One of the principal aims of game theory is to determine the optimum strategy for dealing with a given situation or confrontation. This can involve such goals as maximizing one's gains, maximizing the probability that a specific goal can be reached, minimizing one's risks or losses, or inflicting the greatest possible damage on adversaries."

You min/maxers are closer to the truth than you think! However one sentence does seem to stick out in this quote: "One of the principal aims of game theory is to determine the optimum strategy for dealing with a given situation or confrontation."

In essence the game portion of the roleplaying game is a mathematical system set up to mimic these interactions in the proposed world. Thats why trying to figure out an economic system that seems real for a medieval fantasy world is so hard. We have our best and brightest trying to figure out how the real world works. It will be some time before we can get somthing that really feels realistic in a game.

Now you have a situation where both of these very powerful tools are being used as an entertainment medium. In essence you are tapping into somthing that is not fully understood. The psychology and the game go hand in hand. You are working on a level of your mind that is built for conditioning your behevior. Oddly I think this is why is scares some people so much, and why everquest and other MMOLRPGs are getting so much attention. Essentialy this very scary thing has been further combined with the other scary thing in our society: Television. (ever see one of these things without its back cover? Talk about creepy looking...)

I think the reason that D&D recieves so much flack from the christian right is not because it has demons or promotes witchcraft, but rather it is seen as a competitor. Most of the versions of christianity that have a problem with D&D are very into how people behave. The part of the mind that conditions behavior is thier territory. They know what they are putting into it because they are useing a formula that they are very familiar with. Anything that vies for this area of the mind is considered the tool of the enemy of their favorite formula. Similar patterns can be seen in groups that want to control human behevior the world over. And I think that is why the Bhuddists are popular among the people that don't want thier behevior controled.

 

[Zappo]

Roleplaying is used in therepy. The Dictionary of Terms & Terminology of Psychology gives this definition:

Teaching people to behave in a certain way by encouraging them to pretend that they are in a particular situation. This helps people acquire complex behaviors in an efficient way. Also see behavior rehearsal

Behavior rehearsal: A behavior therapy technique in which a client practices new behavior in the consulting room, often aided by demonstrations and role-play by the therapist.

Wait, roleplaying games have a huge difference. You aren't pretending to be in a particular situation; you are pretending to be someone else in a particular situation. I'm not a psychologist, but I know enough about scientific procedure to think that that would disallow us from assuming that roleplaying gaming has the same, or even similar, effect as therapeutic roleplaying. Again, IANAP, but I think that this added layer of distance from self greatly diminishes (or maybe nullifies) the conditioning aspect of roleplaying, to the point that any sane mind is immune from it.

I admit that I'm very uncomfortable with games where I'm supposed to play myself; I know that I and most people in general have enough willpower not to be conditioned, but I recognize that it's not automatic as in usual RPGing; you have to be conscious of what is going on and I'm not sure everyone would be.

I think the reason that D&D recieves so much flack from the christian right is not because it has demons or promotes witchcraft, but rather it is seen as a competitor.

I agree 100% with this.

 

[Azure Trance]

Interesting topic - Ive never seen this viewpoint before;

[clicks favorites > add to favorites]

^ Poor mans search engine

 

[Emiricol]

Blah blah blah. I've been gaming since I was 11, I'm now 30, and I've never gone off the deep end over a game. I've never cast magic missile to rid myself of an annoying colleague at work. I won't get into income, but will say that I do quite, quite well - in other words, I'm no reclusive loser who can't take a shower.

This is the problem with psychobabble. It is like statistics. There's lies, damn lies, and pop psychology.

Not to mention, every 10 years or so many of the fundamental, cornerstone beliefs of the psychology community get overturned with an almost "man, what were we thinking?" attitude.

There are differences in gaming as well - we aren't pretending to personally be in a real-world situation. We are, at worst, pretending to be someone else in a fantasy situation. Most don't even bother with first-person speech within a gaming session.

Puh-leeze.

 

[seasong]

Yes, yes, I'm getting sucked in by a troll. However, there are a few errors which some of the audience may be fooled by, that need to be corrected:

1. In therapeutic roleplaying, the goal is to devise strategies for handling situations. It requires a fair amount of concentration, and a lot of "do overs". It is NOT extemperaneous, and in fact, often includes a script. The point is that the behavioral change is neither effortless nor accidental. It requires the subject wanting to change in the particular direction, and deliberately focusing on applying the ideas in the roleplaying to real life. Tha desire to change oneself is generally lacking in our games.

Summed up: The roleplaying does not change the behavior. It provides information on HOW to change the behavior - will must still be exerted to actually change behavior.

2. Game theory has been grossly mistated here. The quotes are accurate, but the extended assumptions are not. Game theory is not about conditioning a particular 'optimum response', but a system of finding the optimum response. To put that another way, game theory is a subset of the scientific method. It teaches you how to figure things out. In real life, applied game theory is often used to understand why ethics evolved, and why they are, in fact, optimal (for example, how marriage helps assure the continuation of the species more efficiently than random sex).

Summed up: If everyone understood game theory, we still wouldn't be min-maxed thugs. In many cases, we would be more ethical than we are today, and no one would buy lottery tickets.

 

[jester47]

Re: Re: What is an RPG really? (A look at Game Theory and Psychology)

Wait, roleplaying games have a huge difference. You aren't pretending to be in a particular situation; you are pretending to be someone else in a particular situation. I'm not a psychologist, but I know enough about scientific procedure to think that that would disallow us from assuming that roleplaying gaming has the same, or even similar, effect as therapeutic roleplaying. Again, IANAP, but I think that this added layer of distance from self greatly diminishes (or maybe nullifies) the conditioning aspect of roleplaying, to the point that any sane mind is immune from it.

I admit that I'm very uncomfortable with games where I'm supposed to play myself; I know that I and most people in general have enough willpower not to be conditioned, but I recognize that it's not automatic as in usual RPGing; you have to be conscious of what is going on and I'm not sure everyone would be.I agree 100% with this.

As I have come to undersand it, (I am not a psychologist either) roleplaying does use the technique in where you take on the role of someone else to understand someone else. I think that there is a distanceing agent but it is not the role assumption of someone else. I think rather it is the bits of game theory that do this, as that is modeled imperfectly on a world that cannot be, and so those of us without severe reality problems (I think everyone has a problem with reality somewhere) deal with it just fine.

Aaron.

 

[maddman75]

I've actually spent some time studying influence and manipulation, and completely disagree that role playing is psychologically harmful.

I'll admit that it is possible to use such a setting to influence beliefs and behaviours, it would require several things.

- The DM would have to be doing it on purpose, and know what the hell he was doing.

- The players would have to be open to suggestion by the DM.

For an example, if the DM were to consistantly make a certain face, sound or gesture whenever the character succeeded in a quest, got treasure, or gained a level, then another face/gesture/sound whenever the character failed a save or died, he could later use these triggers to influence the player's behaviour outside the game.

It would have to be intentional.

Essentially, you can try to influence and manipulate people any time you talk to them. Its easier if you are in a position of authority. So a DM could try such things, but it wouldn't be as easy as say a teacher or employer to try and influence people.

It is conceivable possible, but not inherantly dangerous or something that happens on accident or as a side effect. There is a great wall mentally between what happens in the game and IRL.

Sure there will be the occasional sociopath that can't make the distinction, but this is likely the same kind of person that would knife someone over a monopoly game.

 

[jester47]

Blah blah blah. I've been gaming since I was 11, I'm now 30, and I've never gone off the deep end over a game. I've never cast magic missile to rid myself of an annoying colleague at work. I won't get into income, but will say that I do quite, quite well - in other words, I'm no reclusive loser who can't take a shower.

I do not think that is my thesis. I think what I am trying to say is that there an element of the mind that governs behavior and that this element is being used when calculating the behevior of a fictional character. This behavioral territory is sacred to many people of faith that think actions should be controled and so they freak when you start to play a game. I think it is a very powerful part of the mind, but I do think it can be used several different ways beyond the social control exhibited by these religions.

This is the problem with psychobabble. It is like statistics. There's lies, damn lies, and pop psychology.

Not to mention, every 10 years or so many of the fundamental, cornerstone beliefs of the psychology community get overturned with an almost "man, what were we thinking?" attitude.

That is why I did not get a BA in Psychology but rather History. History uses other sciences to look at the way things are working in a certain time. We use a combination of records, archeology, nutrition, biology, physics and other such things to figure out how people worked, fought, thought, and acted in a certain time period. So yean you are right. Psychology is pretty weak as a science, but it is getting stronger. I would say it is about as effective as mathematics around the year 800. 1200 more years of development will work wonders.

Aaron.

 

[jester47]

Yes, yes, I'm getting sucked in by a troll.

I did not plan on this to be a troll, It just was a thought that I had and I put it out there because it was rather crude and the best way to refine it is by peer review.

However, there are a few errors which some of the audience may be fooled by, that need to be corrected:

These are good points. Everyone pay attention.

1. In therapeutic roleplaying, the goal is to devise strategies for handling situations. It requires a fair amount of concentration, and a lot of "do overs". It is NOT extemperaneous, and in fact, often includes a script. The point is that the behavioral change is neither effortless nor accidental. It requires the subject wanting to change in the particular direction, and deliberately focusing on applying the ideas in the roleplaying to real life. Tha desire to change oneself is generally lacking in our games.

Summed up: The roleplaying does not change the behavior. It provides information on HOW to change the behavior - will must still be exerted to actually change behavior.

2. Game theory has been grossly mistated here. The quotes are accurate, but the extended assumptions are not. Game theory is not about conditioning a particular 'optimum response', but a system of finding the optimum response. To put that another way, game theory is a subset of the scientific method. It teaches you how to figure things out. In real life, applied game theory is often used to understand why ethics evolved, and why they are, in fact, optimal (for example, how marriage helps assure the continuation of the species more efficiently than random sex).

Summed up: If everyone understood game theory, we still wouldn't be min-maxed thugs. In many cases, we would be more ethical than we are today, and no one would buy lottery tickets.

I left this all in here because seasong makes really good points with these. I think my point is that given a situation there is an optimal response for the players to have thier characters take that benefit all the characters. The game theory that I am talking about is figureing out that optimal response. In a sense it is "Ok how do we get through the tomb of horrors where everyone survives?" I think that it is definately a game theory question. But there are two other factors that make it a very complicated one, namely the use of the part of the brain that determines how someone should behave (which can recursively touch again on game theory, citing the ethics example above.) and random numbers, again a related element of game theory.

Aaron.

 

[jester47]

I've actually spent some time studying influence and manipulation, and completely disagree that role playing is psychologically harmful.

snip: A really really good point

Maddman does make a very good point here. It make merealise a point I need to clarify. I think that the strongest argument against roleplaying games is the use of roleplaying as an element to the game. This does not mean that I think it is a strong argument. I think what Maddman states is the way it is. People fear it because of its rare potential, not what it actually is. In fact many boardgames can be used in the same way as Maddman describes.

Aaron.