Jack7
First Post
ESSAYS ON GAME DESIGN
Essay Seven: Why the Game Exists
In the Mos Eisley thread (which I have been enjoying a lot by the way and having a ball posting in it too, because I've been specifically trying to humorously examine the idea from all sides) Mad Zag brings up a very interesting point.
Why Does the Game Exist?
Does the game exist to service all points of view, all possible expressions of circumstance, character types, races, classes, ideas, alignments, etc, etc, equally?
Or does the game (itself) indeed have a certain viewpoint, does it consider some things of primary importance, some of lesser importance, some entirely non-important or maybe even negatively? Does the game have any actual enduring and universal values that are peculiar to it, and that are basic to the structure, so that if you removed them you really would have not D&D, but something else entirely?
(Now I have to interject this caveat, the Mos Eisley thread and this one are both about D&D, though to me I don't care if you talk about the Fantasy Gaming genre in general either. They are after all related subjects. Is there something basic to Fantasy Gaming that if removed or modified in too great a fashion will result in not-fantasy, or at least everything but fantasy?)
As a result of these musings I broke down the possibilities of why the game exists, and what some of the possible expressions of those “why viewpoints/ideas” are, into two basic premises:
The Game Exists to Promote Certain Ideals - First of all, in this category, and from this point of view, the primary consideration to me is that D&D is a Human Game. That is, yes, elves, and dwarves, and other races exist, but it is a human-centric world, about basically human interests. Elves and Dwarves and so forth really represent human attributes to one degree or another, or at the very least the real importance of other races in the game depends to one degree or another on their interactions with humans and human cultures. Secondly, the game is basically about the triumph of good over evil, good being represented by Civilization and the Characters themselves, and evil represented by barbarism and "monsters." Good and evil are not morally equivalent. They are antithetical to one another. A corollary of the good and evil theme is heroism. Characters, representing basic goodness find their highest expression in acts of in-game heroism. Because heroism is a primary consideration for most in-game races and classes things like Assassins and Blackguards are seen as "outsiders" to basic human and humanoid society, the extreme exception, not the rule, and not equal and valued members of society and culture. Another consideration of course, in both D&D and in fantasy gaming itself is magic. In this ideal magic is dangerous, risky, fantastic, and not wholly function-oriented. As a matter of fact magic as often as not breaks open functional assumptions and "tricks reality," rather than being a certain method of “controlling reality.” Hence illusion is often a very powerful form of magic in this paradigm. Continuing on from arcane to divine magic the gods have some expectation of their followers. Characters generally speaking don't run around worshipping and doing the will of evil gods. Evil gods are for villains, not characters. For the opposition, not the home-team. And so likewise with monsters. Monsters are monsters not because of their appearance, but because of their behavior. Monsters are generally bad, not in all cases, but usually, and to be opposed. Monsters breed chaos and collapse, death and disorder. And finally the world in which the game operates is basically fixed (as well as being fixable). The world continues to rotate and go along with or without the characters. The world has existence and reality outside of the characters themselves. In this point of view the game has "compass points" by which the game operates and by which the players can steer the actions and behavior of their characters. The game has a point and it has an objective. The game in this view is also basically set, is traditional, with a well-developed, slow to change basic "culture." A true culture can only arise with a certain aspect or degree of stability. This view of the game promotes both a basic world and game culture, rather than just an amalgamation of powers, classes, and races.
The Game Exists to Promote Changing Ideals (or possibly no fixed set of ideals) - From this point of view humans have moved from being the central focus to being "one of many." Humans are often even the "observers" or outsiders. An “alien” even at times, a stranger in a strange land. In this paradigm I suspect the human as outsider role extends to general game culture. Normality is not viewed as an end, but as a conditional state to be avoided, or at least a state of affairs to be addressed with suspicion. Next, the game is not so much about good and evil, or the triumph of one or the other, as exploration of good and evil being "not really what they immediately appear to be." Perhaps it is not really to say, "good and evil are relative" as much as it is to say that "perceptions and assumptions about what actually constitutes good and evil can be relative." With changing ideals one is conflicted about how much trust one can place in one's own assumptions about good and evil. This leads to scattered, or at least unfocused ideas about what constitutes heroism and whether anti-heroes are in actuality, or not, heroes in their own right. Characters don't use their powers to represent heroism; they use their powers to represent themselves while trying to figure out if heroism is after all a worthwhile goal. It may be in a particular circumstance; then again it may not be in another. (This also modifies the idea of “what is lawful?”) Survival is more important than honor. You win fights only if you are the last man standing, you don't win fights merely by standing for the right thing to the end. In such a game the Assassin is as good as the Cleric as long as the Assassin has "good functional and pragmatic value." What can you bring to the table to assure "the win?" A character’s value is not what he represents outside of himself, but what he can practically achieve by himself. Continuing on from this perspective magic also is functionally-oriented. Magic is not so much about Wonder and Miracles as about Work and Mechanics. What has magic done for me recently, and if I can't use it like an arcane Gatlin gun then how do you aim it, and for what real reasons would you bother using it? The same for the gods. Gods are for granting powers, and answering prayers - when you need it and in exactly the way you ask for it. The important thing is not what the god stands for, or what you stand for, but that a viable and mutually beneficial exchange can take place. I can strike a deal with an evil god, sure, long as I get mine, and it's a fair deal that doesn’t cost me too much. (Never mind the natural dilemma of associating fair with evil in dealmaking.) With monsters however you have a peculiarly different and far more interesting situation. In this view monsters take the place of humanoid races as the expression of varied types of human behavior. Monsters are not immediately viewed as evil in either outlook or behavior, but viewed in a pragmatic sense. If, practically speaking, I can cut a deal with an evil god that some orc worships then how could the orc be any more evil than me for engaging in the same behavior? I'm complex as a character, so maybe the monster is likewise complex, my motivations vary, maybe his do as well. And if I'm not evil for consorting with evil gods out of pragmatic concerns, then is he? Which brings me to the final basic point; the world is for the character. And it is the character that is ever changing, so it is the world that must keep up. There isn’t so much a coherent game culture with specific goals and waypoints, as there is a sort of melting pot in search of a nebulous objective. In this game view the point is not to fix a broken world, it is to try and figure out what the world is exactly, and what you should or maybe shouldn’t do about that.
You can discuss your ideas on these questions either seriously, or humorously, or both. To tell you the truth I wish more threads showed a more humorously oriented discussion about gaming matters, than a "I'll scratch your bloody eyeballs out you horrible, stupid, little snot, this is serious, we're talking about the bonuses that Goblin shamans get here!! Don't you know what is important in life??!!"
Maybe it's just me but the bonuses that Goblin shamans get just isn't a life or death matter. Or, in and of itself, even a very important one. I think whether I'm gonna have Taco Bell El Grande or poached fish ala the little woman tonight is probably higher on my list of urgent priorities than my Goblin shaman bonus. So as far as I'm concerned if you want to wisecrack every now and again in this thread then go right ahead. Personally, I’ll enjoy the ha-ha. Just try and make it funny, will ya?
And to tell you the truth it is also my personal hope that this won't devolve into another edition’s war thread. I'm sick a that crap myself. Though I have no personal problem with someone talking about how they think one viewpoint or another is more clearly expressed in any particular edition. But folks, for heaven's sake, can't you talk about the viewpoint of another person without automatically assuming what is their “real and nefarious intention” or without calling the other guy an idiot because he thinks a particular edition is superior to another in some way? Does that really matter in the big scheme of things?
So, I'd like to have that kinda thing avoided, but, we'll see.
As for my viewpoint I see good points and bad points about both basic views, though I'm under no illusion(s) that things are as black and white as I've laid them out. This was just a starting point for discussion in addressing general ideas. Me, I’m basically a “The Game Exists to Promote Certain Ideals Man,” but not in every respect or circumstance.
Anyways, that was my set of questions and observations about the matter(s) of Why the Game Exists.
What are yours?
http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/252558-phb2-races-mos-eisley-cantina.html
Essay Seven: Why the Game Exists
In the Mos Eisley thread (which I have been enjoying a lot by the way and having a ball posting in it too, because I've been specifically trying to humorously examine the idea from all sides) Mad Zag brings up a very interesting point.
Why Does the Game Exist?
Does the game exist to service all points of view, all possible expressions of circumstance, character types, races, classes, ideas, alignments, etc, etc, equally?
Or does the game (itself) indeed have a certain viewpoint, does it consider some things of primary importance, some of lesser importance, some entirely non-important or maybe even negatively? Does the game have any actual enduring and universal values that are peculiar to it, and that are basic to the structure, so that if you removed them you really would have not D&D, but something else entirely?
(Now I have to interject this caveat, the Mos Eisley thread and this one are both about D&D, though to me I don't care if you talk about the Fantasy Gaming genre in general either. They are after all related subjects. Is there something basic to Fantasy Gaming that if removed or modified in too great a fashion will result in not-fantasy, or at least everything but fantasy?)
As a result of these musings I broke down the possibilities of why the game exists, and what some of the possible expressions of those “why viewpoints/ideas” are, into two basic premises:
The Game Exists to Promote Certain Ideals - First of all, in this category, and from this point of view, the primary consideration to me is that D&D is a Human Game. That is, yes, elves, and dwarves, and other races exist, but it is a human-centric world, about basically human interests. Elves and Dwarves and so forth really represent human attributes to one degree or another, or at the very least the real importance of other races in the game depends to one degree or another on their interactions with humans and human cultures. Secondly, the game is basically about the triumph of good over evil, good being represented by Civilization and the Characters themselves, and evil represented by barbarism and "monsters." Good and evil are not morally equivalent. They are antithetical to one another. A corollary of the good and evil theme is heroism. Characters, representing basic goodness find their highest expression in acts of in-game heroism. Because heroism is a primary consideration for most in-game races and classes things like Assassins and Blackguards are seen as "outsiders" to basic human and humanoid society, the extreme exception, not the rule, and not equal and valued members of society and culture. Another consideration of course, in both D&D and in fantasy gaming itself is magic. In this ideal magic is dangerous, risky, fantastic, and not wholly function-oriented. As a matter of fact magic as often as not breaks open functional assumptions and "tricks reality," rather than being a certain method of “controlling reality.” Hence illusion is often a very powerful form of magic in this paradigm. Continuing on from arcane to divine magic the gods have some expectation of their followers. Characters generally speaking don't run around worshipping and doing the will of evil gods. Evil gods are for villains, not characters. For the opposition, not the home-team. And so likewise with monsters. Monsters are monsters not because of their appearance, but because of their behavior. Monsters are generally bad, not in all cases, but usually, and to be opposed. Monsters breed chaos and collapse, death and disorder. And finally the world in which the game operates is basically fixed (as well as being fixable). The world continues to rotate and go along with or without the characters. The world has existence and reality outside of the characters themselves. In this point of view the game has "compass points" by which the game operates and by which the players can steer the actions and behavior of their characters. The game has a point and it has an objective. The game in this view is also basically set, is traditional, with a well-developed, slow to change basic "culture." A true culture can only arise with a certain aspect or degree of stability. This view of the game promotes both a basic world and game culture, rather than just an amalgamation of powers, classes, and races.
The Game Exists to Promote Changing Ideals (or possibly no fixed set of ideals) - From this point of view humans have moved from being the central focus to being "one of many." Humans are often even the "observers" or outsiders. An “alien” even at times, a stranger in a strange land. In this paradigm I suspect the human as outsider role extends to general game culture. Normality is not viewed as an end, but as a conditional state to be avoided, or at least a state of affairs to be addressed with suspicion. Next, the game is not so much about good and evil, or the triumph of one or the other, as exploration of good and evil being "not really what they immediately appear to be." Perhaps it is not really to say, "good and evil are relative" as much as it is to say that "perceptions and assumptions about what actually constitutes good and evil can be relative." With changing ideals one is conflicted about how much trust one can place in one's own assumptions about good and evil. This leads to scattered, or at least unfocused ideas about what constitutes heroism and whether anti-heroes are in actuality, or not, heroes in their own right. Characters don't use their powers to represent heroism; they use their powers to represent themselves while trying to figure out if heroism is after all a worthwhile goal. It may be in a particular circumstance; then again it may not be in another. (This also modifies the idea of “what is lawful?”) Survival is more important than honor. You win fights only if you are the last man standing, you don't win fights merely by standing for the right thing to the end. In such a game the Assassin is as good as the Cleric as long as the Assassin has "good functional and pragmatic value." What can you bring to the table to assure "the win?" A character’s value is not what he represents outside of himself, but what he can practically achieve by himself. Continuing on from this perspective magic also is functionally-oriented. Magic is not so much about Wonder and Miracles as about Work and Mechanics. What has magic done for me recently, and if I can't use it like an arcane Gatlin gun then how do you aim it, and for what real reasons would you bother using it? The same for the gods. Gods are for granting powers, and answering prayers - when you need it and in exactly the way you ask for it. The important thing is not what the god stands for, or what you stand for, but that a viable and mutually beneficial exchange can take place. I can strike a deal with an evil god, sure, long as I get mine, and it's a fair deal that doesn’t cost me too much. (Never mind the natural dilemma of associating fair with evil in dealmaking.) With monsters however you have a peculiarly different and far more interesting situation. In this view monsters take the place of humanoid races as the expression of varied types of human behavior. Monsters are not immediately viewed as evil in either outlook or behavior, but viewed in a pragmatic sense. If, practically speaking, I can cut a deal with an evil god that some orc worships then how could the orc be any more evil than me for engaging in the same behavior? I'm complex as a character, so maybe the monster is likewise complex, my motivations vary, maybe his do as well. And if I'm not evil for consorting with evil gods out of pragmatic concerns, then is he? Which brings me to the final basic point; the world is for the character. And it is the character that is ever changing, so it is the world that must keep up. There isn’t so much a coherent game culture with specific goals and waypoints, as there is a sort of melting pot in search of a nebulous objective. In this game view the point is not to fix a broken world, it is to try and figure out what the world is exactly, and what you should or maybe shouldn’t do about that.
You can discuss your ideas on these questions either seriously, or humorously, or both. To tell you the truth I wish more threads showed a more humorously oriented discussion about gaming matters, than a "I'll scratch your bloody eyeballs out you horrible, stupid, little snot, this is serious, we're talking about the bonuses that Goblin shamans get here!! Don't you know what is important in life??!!"
Maybe it's just me but the bonuses that Goblin shamans get just isn't a life or death matter. Or, in and of itself, even a very important one. I think whether I'm gonna have Taco Bell El Grande or poached fish ala the little woman tonight is probably higher on my list of urgent priorities than my Goblin shaman bonus. So as far as I'm concerned if you want to wisecrack every now and again in this thread then go right ahead. Personally, I’ll enjoy the ha-ha. Just try and make it funny, will ya?
And to tell you the truth it is also my personal hope that this won't devolve into another edition’s war thread. I'm sick a that crap myself. Though I have no personal problem with someone talking about how they think one viewpoint or another is more clearly expressed in any particular edition. But folks, for heaven's sake, can't you talk about the viewpoint of another person without automatically assuming what is their “real and nefarious intention” or without calling the other guy an idiot because he thinks a particular edition is superior to another in some way? Does that really matter in the big scheme of things?
So, I'd like to have that kinda thing avoided, but, we'll see.
As for my viewpoint I see good points and bad points about both basic views, though I'm under no illusion(s) that things are as black and white as I've laid them out. This was just a starting point for discussion in addressing general ideas. Me, I’m basically a “The Game Exists to Promote Certain Ideals Man,” but not in every respect or circumstance.
Anyways, that was my set of questions and observations about the matter(s) of Why the Game Exists.
What are yours?
http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/252558-phb2-races-mos-eisley-cantina.html
Last edited:
