I've written a lot in my time about roleplaying and ethics. The last few years have seen my writing take a downturn - much of this is due to my currently considering my position regarding the hobby.
See, I am not a big fan of The Forge and it's theorists. Gaming theory often comes across to me as populist and poorly structured. Ron Edwards may have been the grand-daddy of indie roleplaying and have some cool system ideas, but his philosophy is often a poorly built hodge-podge of popular philosophical terms that have then been poorly interepreted and slapped together with concepts that "sound" like they fit.
It is such theory, and the recent rise in the popularity of certain indie games that has got me thinking more about my stance. Where do I stand?
Personally I have an intuitive dislike of much roleplaying theory - particularly from the Forge. It rarely is well thought out, but I think it is more to do with the delivery. A lot of game theorists are too evangelical. They have a passion and a desire to see games as something more than just entertainment. They want to explore deeper and further.
Yet I often feel that it is a bunch of thirty-somethings trying to justify why they enjoy playing.
Very few of them actually do any research into what philosophers or sociologists or psychologists have said about gaming and its benefits. They instead choose to create their own terminology and rely heavily on anecdotal musings. It is poor structure.
Don't even get me started on the social contract bug-bear. (Nothing pisses me off more than hearing people talk about "the gaming contract.")
On the plus side, more games are introducing an actual gaming contract session at the beginning of gameplay - which works to mollify my innate fury at the term getting bandied around.
But I do have a serious aggression towards much of this musing. And I think it is because I genuinely don't believe it. I find it to be so much mental wankery. I've studied a lot of philosophers and musings on what those philosophers said, so I am intimately familiar with intellectual masturbation.
Take, for example, Nietzsche and Sartre. It is amazing how many people just haven't understood a thing these people said, and yet will spout absolute shite about "Will to Power" and "Existentialism."
So where's the problem? I clearly hate RPG theory.
But that's the thing. I don't. I do think that it is important to think about roleplaying. But one needs to be a bit more... honest to oneself about the goal. And also a little more realistic.
Gaming can be very insightful, but to treat it as some holy transformative experience is going too far. Also it is important to remember that just as you expect people to listen to you and be open to what you say you must accept that others will want the same in return, and will most likely disagree with good reason.
When I write about roleplaying, I often go to great lengths to stress that I am expressing my opinion. But sometimes it is easy to forget that and just get caught up in the excitement of an idea.
So where do I stand?
For me roleplaying is about having fun - first and foremost. Depending on my mood will depend on the kind of fun I want. I don't want to just tell kick-ass stories. I don't want to always have an intense gaming experience. MOST OF ALL I don't believe that any intense gaming is inherent in any game. This is the most vital thing to me.
Intense gaming comes from the synchronicity of good players and GM. It's something that can't be reproduced on demand. That is probably what lies at the core of my issue with many indie gamers - they are under the impression that the game is producing the effect, when it really is the play group themselves.
Yes, some games can better facilitate this - but it is the group who makes or breaks a game. Take Exalted for example. I personally think the system is utter shit. But I love the game because the setting inspires me to run games that my players love. What makes the games a success though are the players. Exalted would not be so cool without Fraser's Kichorei, or Stephanie's Hotaru or Salvaza. It is the players who make a game intense.
Games like Primetime Adventures will work for some groups and situations, but not all. I have seen PTA tank more often because it created an expectation. Much like the story of the movie being so hyped that it never lived up to its own promotional material, indie games often fall victim to the same thing. When that synchronicity isn't present due to factors such as tiredness, conflicting players or the numerous other factors - then a game will fail to spark. In the case of hyped games like PTA and Burning Empires, this failure to spark can make the game feel even worse than normal. Usually when a game isn't sparking I find it can still be revived. But in games like PTA, I have seen failure to spark result in rather hostile responses.
I have yet to have a fixed view of gaming. I like to keep my mind open, but I do know that I have biases. But ultimately, I feel that I am meeting more and more people who seem to have this need to justify why they play. They go on these quests to find some reason beyond "to have fun."
That, to me, is a fool's errand. I have no problem admitting that I just want to enjoy myself and have a good time with friends. If I have a truly intense experience in the process - great. Sure, I'd like to talk about why that is so, but I never want to lose sight of why I started playing in the first place. To have fun.
Love and Huggles
Conan
Currently Reading: The Secret of Zir'An
Currently Playing: Exalted: The Seventh Legion
Mood: Musing about gaming in general
No comments:
Post a Comment