I hope to get discussion going on the purely social aspect of RPG and possibly the nature of human interaction in general. Hopefully there'll be a slew of daughter and related threads.
First topic:
It has been said that the typical roleplaying group has it backwards. That is, typically the group roleplays together first and are friends second, if at all or that the group does not socialize outside of the game and that this is not a good thing, for various reasons. In thinking about this, I wonder how this situation is different from any other social situation where people are sort of forced into interacting, such as work or school or church.
Quote from: Jack Spencer JrIt has been said that the typical roleplaying group has it backwards. That is, typically the group roleplays together first and are friends second, if at all or that the group does not socialize outside of the game and that this is not a good thing, for various reasons.
The typical scenario has not been my experience. Then again, I am not necessarily a typical gamer. In recent years my typical game group has been myself (my roleplaying tends to be more immersive, acting improv oriented), my girlfriend at the time (usually artstic leaning, usually with RPG experience), a GM (one worked in aerospace engineering, the other was a geologist, both extremely analytical), sometimes his girlfriend (not ususally an RPGer, but trying it out to see what their s.o. was into) and the GMs buddy (more the typical gamer type, but more social hence his close friendship with the GM). I have played three significant campaigns in three long-lasting groups, and though the only common factor has been me, the roles pretty much carry over from group to group.
In all three groups, we had extended contact outside the game, or were friends before the game started. Almost all the campaigns ended when one or more parties moved out the area, though we still stay in touch.
You may be treading into dangerous waters, because before you look at the typical game group, you might have to look what you perceive the typical gamer to be.
-edited grammar-
My initial reaction, Jack, was that my first major game group was not like that and my second was; but on reflection, it isn't like this at all, really.
The first group revolved around the fact that my wife had a friend from childhood, and her boyfriend and I both liked games, and so the four of us got together and played games--and then discovered role playing games, which we added to the mix and enjoyed thoroughly. Other friends joined us.
The second group was a bunch of local kids who impressed me into serving as their referee and teaching them to play, maybe two of whom I knew before the game began. This group grew into scores of people, most of whom I knew because they came to the game.
However, the difference was not in the group; it was in my position within the group--socially, not mechanically.
In the first group, most of the people who came to play were friends of my wife, and thus people I knew socially before they came; some were people I knew through work (not necessarily people with whom I worked--I was in radio at the time, so I knew a lot of people who were listeners, et cetera). In the second group most of the players were strangers to me, because I wasn't really involved socially with many people in the area (I was in law school, a half hour commute to the next state) running a game mostly for people who were younger. Most of the people who came to the game were friends of the other players, so they knew each other--they just didn't know me.
A lot of the people in that second group are still people I know, even in some sense friends (I don't have contact with some, for various reasons, such as wives who don't want their husbands involved with their former friends). I met them through gaming, but because of time and distance don't play much with them now.
So I'd have to say that what you suggest is not my experience, although in some ways it's easy to confuse my experience with what you describe. There were a lot of friends of friends who played in my home whom I never knew well.
And I think your comparison to church groups and work is quite apt.
When I was twelve, my family moved to a new neighborhood. Before that I played with all the kids in the old neighborhood; after that, I never really connected with the kids on my street, even though there were many my age. My mom observed at the time that there comes a point in life at which geography is no longer a primary consideration in friendship; you play with people who share interests. Church, work, sports, and games are ways to interact with people and find out which of them will become your friends. Of course you thus find yourself socializing with people you don't know and maybe don't particularly like--but that's the way socializing works, isn't it?
--M. J. Young
This reminds me of that theory I only vaguely remember. The one about the 'stages' of interpersonal relationships you learn to create. It went something like this:[list=1]
- You make friends with those around you because you don't have any choice. 'Friends of Proximity'
- You make friends because of like interests. 'Friends of Commonality'
- You make friends whose interests compliment¹ yours. 'Friends of Complimentality'[/list:o]Now there's no such thing as a friend of only one level, but there are times when it gets harder to find those scoring higher on this list.
Now what does that have to do with Jack's question? Imagine forming a relationship of only complimentary¹ interests. He likes to gamemaster, you like to play. She likes to cook, you like to eat. She likes to be on top...ahem. The point is that aside from this complimentary interest, you have nothing else in common. Your gamemaster doesn't care about your feelings or as a person. Your gourmet isn't sensative to your tastes in 'spiciness.' Ahem...you get the idea. These relationships do not factor in multiple levels and therefore 'new' social contracts can't be written 'on the fly' (it happens by 'retreating' to a 'lower level'). There comes to be no 'release valves' to the relationship and it either breaks down or goes into dysfunction.
Fang Langford
¹ I guess I got this one with the 'he cooks, she eats' thing.
Quote from: Le Joueur... She likes to be on top...ahem. The point is that aside from this complimentary interest, you have nothing else in common. Your gamemaster doesn't care about your feelings or as a person. Your gourmet isn't sensative to your tastes in 'spiciness.' Ahem...you get the idea.
By "Ahem...you get the idea" I think Fang is trying to be tactful about the she likes to be on top example, which would be "She doesn't care about you so long as she get her orgasm." I don't have that much tact but I thought stating it was worthwhile since it illustrates that such shallow relationships lead to selfishness, which the other examples didn't show so clearly.