[rantish] Interactive Fantasy and Dysfunction

[Ben Lehman]

There is a very strong "our way or the highway" vibe at the Forge, and I don't like it particularly, mostly because I think it alienates new people.  I've had a couple of friends who are articulate and have a lot to offer on RPG theory (some of whom dart in and out of particular game forums), say that they do not post because they don't feel that anyone will listen to them.
The below quote, to me, really sums this up.

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=7158&highlight=

 I don't mean any offence to the two gentlemen quoted below, it was just something that happened to catch my eye.

I don't think anyone should put up with any dysfunctional gaming at all. I think those that do for any period of time are getting something out of it.

I'd suspect that something is like non-physical sadism and masochism or dominance and submission games.

However, I would like to try to phrase my objections to this in a positive "this is what is cool about any RPG, without any theoretical attachments," rather than "this is why you all suck."  Because you all don't suck.  You're very cool, and you have a lot to offer the RPG community as a whole.

I do not think that you need awareness of any particular theoretical structure to have fun in role-playing games, as a participant, or to create playable and fun games, as a designer.  I think that awareness of this may help you make your games more fun, but it is not a prerequisite to fun, nor is it the only source thereof.

So what, fundamentally, is fun about RPGs?  Well, lots of things.  The social element doesn't hurt, for instance.  But what I'm going to concentrate on here is that RPGs allow an unprecendented degree of interactivity with the fantasy world (where, by fantasy, I mean, "not the real world," rather than "ylfs with swyrds.")

When I was first introduced to nintendo-style video games, at about age 6, I didn't really care about winning or story or anything like that at all.  What was really impressive was that there was an image on the TV screen and I was controlling it.  Albeit, a minor aspect of it, but it was still amazing.  Up there was Mario, doing his thing, except it was ME doing his thing, and that was impressive.  I think that videogames missed a big chance to exploit this inherent coolness, but that's a different essay for a different forum.

(I don't use my introduction to RPGs because, well, that was murkier...)

But, in RPGs, this is an even more powerful feel than it is in videogames.  This is your world, and you really can interact with it how you want (barring restrictions from the system and other participants.)  This, in and of itself is very cool and, no matter how screwed up the RPG, I have almost always been able to enjoy this aspect.

Let me elaborate.  Throughout high school, I played in some pretty incoherent campaigns (and also some very good ones, and since some of my GMs lurk these forums, I'm not going to name names.)  But I had a hell of a lot of fun in these games, so much that I kept playing them every Friday and some Sundays and generally whenever the hell I felt like it, including vast two-week stretches of continuous gaming.  Why did I do this, if I wasn't having fun?  I'm certainly not into BDSM.

I did it because of at least reasons (actually, there were many others, which I will address in another post someday...):  The social interactions (I gamed with my friends) and because it was inherently cool to be able to freely interact with a fantasy world, even at the most trivial level.  No matter what else was going on in the game, I had "my guy" and I could do all sorts of cool things with him -- walk around the room, have conversations and personal relationships with the "other people's guys," swing a sword, cast spells, etc.  I could do all this without compliance of the GM or the other players (well, interactions require the compliance of at least on participant.)

This is cool  A game with nothing but this is cool.  A game with this and some obnoxious stuff is cool.

Yes, a truly socially dysfunctional group is hell the play with.  I've done that, too, and wouldn't go back for the world (well, maybe for the world, so that then I could have some of those $*&_ers hung up by their toenails.)  But we need to draw a distinction between socially dysfunctional and theoretically dysfunctional.  The first is a mess, but the second can often be quite fun, and just means that we don't know how fun it is, or how the fun is achieved, until a more detailed analysis.

I hope that the beginning of this didn't piss anyone off too much.  I would really like to talk a bit about the fundamental fun factors in RPGs.

yrs--
--Ben

[Cadriel]

This is your world, and you really can interact with it how you want (barring restrictions from the system and other participants.)

What I'm getting from your whole post (I picked a line that really exemplified it well) is that you like Exploration of Setting.  In fact, you seem to like Exploration of Setting so much that you can enjoy an otherwise dysfunctional game because of it.  I used to be a major fan of RPG settings; there was a time when, indeed, Exploration of Setting jazzed me as much as it seems to do for you.

The thing is, when I would play in bad games, it would generally come from people who wanted to do something more Gamist, or Narrativist, or even Exploration of a different thingamabob (like Character).  By playing ignorant, I got burnt on the Exploration of Setting elements when it came down to actual play time.  Partly because I was a GM; partly because the games I was in as a player were generally fairly Gamist or abashedly Narrativist (AD&D and classic Marvel Super Heroes, respectively).  I would enjoy flashes of setting Exploration, but they were just flashes.

And that's part of the attitude I've been railing against.  It's like there's an implicit requirement in RPGs that you have to sit through the boring crap to get to the good parts, whether starting off in a "good introductory system" or just the portions of play that are boring and/or stupid because Simulationism was getting in the way (or, worse for me, was the point).  I don't think it requires an in-depth knowledge of theory for the player.  I really don't.  What is needed are better games.  Games that know what they're doing, are conscious of how to do it, and really help the players get what they want instead of giving them what they already have and then spouting weak words of encouragement to go for what they want.  (Most roleplaying games are designed as per the latter.  They give you narrow, muddled Simulationist resolution systems built on years of assumptions and ask that you use them for all kinds of goals.)

Design shouldn't be going on like it has, because it seems clear that the RPG industry as a whole is declining.  I'm not saying that every player should get a degree in Forge-ology, or whatever; I just want designers to own up and design games that help instead of, at best, games that "won't get in the way."  And for gamers to be open-minded enough to realize that these games aren't pandering or condescending or whatever.

-Wayne

[Ben Lehman]

What I'm getting from your whole post (I picked a line that really exemplified it well) is that you like Exploration of Setting.  In fact, you seem to like Exploration of Setting so much that you can enjoy an otherwise dysfunctional game because of it.  I used to be a major fan of RPG settings; there was a time when, indeed, Exploration of Setting jazzed me as much as it seems to do for you.

BL>  I don't think that this is true (on multiple levels).  When I say "world," you have to understand, I just mean "the imaginary space which exists in the participant's heads," not "the darkened Barrowlands of Il-Cannacht."  I think that all RPGs have this space, right?  They just do different things with it, depending on GNS goals.

Example: In an RPG, I can say that "my guy walks across the room and talks to Bob."  WHY I'm doing this (GNS goals) isn't at stake here.  What I'm saying is the fact that you can say that gives RPGs an implicit level of fun which is not represented in any other form of entertainment media.

Also, in general, I came up with a good summation of my overall point:

"In socially non-dysfunctional situations, the participants in RPGs are playing them because they are fun.  The question is what fun are they getting out of them."

yrs--
--Ben

[Bankuei]

Hi Ben,

Thanks for bringing up an excellent point regarding dealing with dysfunction in play.  For the Forge, or any other form of discusssion to work, we can't shut down willingness to talk about the issues in order to work them out.

I agree with you that no one should have to learn any form of theory to enjoy roleplaying, although I find that much of the theory here is a result of trying to identify that which is blocking fun or hindering enjoyment, develop a vocabulary to analyze it, and then go from there.

What I think some folks are confusing, to a great degree, is that people can play with differing GNS goals, and have no idea about what GNS is, and still have functional play.  The key point to making this work, is that the folks with their different goals can't step on each others' toes, and must not fight over power on "where to take the game".  This sort of stuff pans out through luck, trial and error, more than conscious decision, especially since so many folks are ill-equipped to understand what's going on or to verbalize it.

GNS basically says, "Let's lay these cards on the table, so we don't have to learn a new dance in the dark and hope it works out...".

The reason so many folks come to the point of "take it or leave it" is that its usually assumed that the person with issues will at least try to communicate to the group what they want, have problems with, etc.  If this has been done, and the group(or problem people) refuse to listen, or dialogue, then there's not really much more to be done.  Of course, if anyone figures out a tried and true method of communicating to those who cannot or will not listen, then they need to get a job as a peace negotiator ASAP.

Of course, you can play with groups with minor communication issues, etc.  I think the question is at what level problems are cropping up, and how big of an issue they represent.  Obviously, small things that everyone can let slide means, "We can all play".  Stuff like where folks throw fits, emotional manipulation, bullying, ego posturing, etc., that's where the fun stops...

Chris

[Dr. Velocity]

I agree with the last idea - I have ONE 'Prime Directive' for 'fun' - if what you're doing is no longer fun, then there's no point to do it, for a hobby or entertainment. I played Magic the Gathering for YEARS, with friends (we all play at once, in battle royals, like 4-6 people) but the last year or so, just more editions come out, we play, everyone does the same thing, people get upset (half jokingly), counter each other's spells, I use pestilence on all of us until someone kills me or I kill everyone... it just got old and I don't want to use the other decks, etc so I basically retired from Magic. I play when my friends come over, 2-4 games usually, then put my stuff up; I fulfill my obligation and enjoy their company but then I'm done and ready to go on to something else, talking to them, etc.

Same for rpgs, especially where dysfunction is concerned. We've had varying levels of dysfunction, from party 'tension' to two members of the group who would take every opportunity, regardless of game or character types, to kill the other player's character. THAT was irritating. Eventually we all just sort of stopped, adventures weren't going anywhere, players were still a bit tense, players decided they had better things to do...

The bad thing is, you can TELL players are unhappy, but you can't even ASK them, outright, WHY or whats wrong. Because, like other things in life, they may NOT KNOW. The referee and me both took one player aside, who is also our best friend, and talked to him, numerous times, more than one day in a week, and it was like pulling horse teeth - getting HIM to realize WHY he played the way he did, AND to be able to TELL US - sometimes, you don't have that luxury and closeness with players - thats where hard decisions have to be made.

And about the GNS stuff, I look at it most akin to astrology - I think there's validity in it and it DOES account for or classify things pretty well overall, but you don't HAVE to use it; common sense works just as well, but its funny to apply it and see how much it DOES still coincide with your own judgment. Heh.

[talysman]

This is your world, and you really can interact with it how you want (barring restrictions from the system and other participants.)

What I'm getting from your whole post (I picked a line that really exemplified it well) is that you like Exploration of Setting.  In fact, you seem to like Exploration of Setting so much that you can enjoy an otherwise dysfunctional game because of it.

I didn't see a description of Ben's interaction with other players, just his enjoyment of (as you point out) Exploration of Setting. he mentioned quite specifically that he wouldn't go back to the truly dysfunctional groups he played with.

again, the problem is misuse of the term "dysfunctional". Ben "started it" in this thread, but he picked it up from a couple other threads that are active right now and making the same error. to clarify,

But we need to draw a distinction between socially dysfunctional and theoretically dysfunctional. The first is a mess, but the second can often be quite fun, and just means that we don't know how fun it is, or how the fun is achieved, until a more detailed analysis.

there is no such thing as "theoretically dysfunctional", because dysfunction is purely a social phenomenon. a game system may be incoherent (which is what I think Ben means by "theoretically dysfunctional",) which is bad only in the sense that incoherent games can lead to dysfunctional play. but it doesn't always happen; early D&D may be incoherent, but thousands of people played it without dysfunction, because their play drifted in unison with their playgroup.

[Mike Holmes]

Is there any controversy here? I don't think so. Ben, we only advocate that designers understand theory to make better (and not neccessarily the best) games than they would otherwise. So that players don't have to know it to fix games that might require it. Given a group that has no problems, then no theory needed, right?

Ben's friends, whoever you are, post freely. If anyone treats you improperly, then see me, and I'll personally club em for you (I'm not a moderator, but I post a lot). Do you have some opinion that might be seen to be unpopular? Well, then please do post. Because we can't learn anything unless we test our own assumptions.

OTOH, Ben, I hope you and your friends don't take disagreement to be unfriendliness. We debate here. That means that if someone thinks that you're wrong, they'll tell you so. That doesn't mean that they don't like you (hey, I like Marco no matter how much I disagree with him), it means that they have something to say on the matter as well.

Do things get heated? Occasionally, but I'd say that the standards here are objectively quite high.

Is there some other standard that we ought to operate under? If I'm doing it wrong, for my part, please folks let me know.

As to the rest of your post, your gaming sounds hardly dysfunctional, Ben. So how can you assume that it has anything to do with the people that Andrew might have been describing? Is there somewhere around here that people have been saying that your style is dysfunctional?

Mike

[Gordon C. Landis]

Hi Ben,

On "Our way or the highway" - it would be my hope (and I've seen it happen) that anyone who tried an "our way" approach about IDEAS here on the Forge would be soundly scolded and told we don't tolerate that kind of thing.

If you refer to an "our way" approach about style of discourse - well, I think that does exist, and is intentional.  Discussion about whether the IDEA of an "our way" approach to style of discourse is a good thing *is* allowed over in the Site Discussion forum - and adjustments to the style can and do happen as a result - but at a basic level, there is a way that is actively promoted and defended.  In theory, that actually ENCOURAGES people to post contrary ideas and know that they will be treated with respect and consideration, so . . .

Contrary (or otherwise) ideas about RPGs are always welcome.

Now, as far as fun and dysfunction go - I see a couple very interesting points in your post, the first of which which I'd phrase this way: fun and dysfunction are not entirely mutually exclusive, and both are scales rather than on/off switches.  My guess is that most folks accept these points implicitly, but it is worth making note of them, as it is possible to forget 'em when (e.g.) examining a particular dysfunctional game session, or whatever.

For example, as I look back over my last 10 years or so of gaming, I'd rate my play in two categories: mildly dysfunctional/mildly fun, and fully functional/quite fun.

The second interesting point I see has something to do with deciding how much fun (and presense/absence of function/dysfunction) is "enough."  I don't think there's any right answer to that question, but recognizing that these factors are a matter of degree rather than absolutes is an important part of making an individual analysis.  For example, one of the games I'm in right now is definitely, unquestionably, a lot of fun, and not dysfunctional in any apparent way.  Yet I'm still trying to increase the fun level - why?  Well, just because I want to, mostly.  Why not?  Well, a why not might be because too much talk about improving things might seem like complaints to some folks and thus creep things towards dysfunction, so I better be careful about that part of things.

So - as Mike said, I doubt there's a lot of controversy about fun & dysfunction (hell, I think there's a thread over in the Sorcerer forum about how even a fully dysfunctional relationship can have a purpose and value), but it is interesting (and valuable, IMO) to remind ourselves of some of the complexities here.

Gordon

[Thomas Tamblyn]

There is a very strong "our way or the highway" vibe at the Forge, and I don't like it particularly, mostly because I think it alienates new people.  I've had a couple of friends who are articulate and have a lot to offer on RPG theory (some of whom dart in and out of particular game forums), say that they do not post because they don't feel that anyone will listen to them.

I agree, but I don't think its a problem.

The forge was set up with System Does Matter as a philosophy, so naturally it attracted mostly people who actively supported that (and/or GNS).  So people who don't support it were/are less likely to come visit a place where they can look around and see noone likely to agree with them.

I posit that he forge has so few regular dissenters because its difficult to go against the flow and its easy to feel persecuted when everyone seems to disagree with you

On the other hand, time has shown that the forge is a very friendly place and more and more people are appearing who will challenge the prevailing wisom, making the entry of similar minded people more likely.

Long story short.  The forge started with a very unified character that made it difficult for newcomers to feel welcome.  However the friendliness of the people here is allowing new voices in and they in turn will (if I'm right) encourage more varied opinions to join the forge in time.

[Andrew Martin]

So how can you assume that it has anything to do with the people that Andrew might have been describing? Is there somewhere around here that people have been saying that your style is dysfunctional?

To help clear things up a bit, my comment was based on my own personal experience with the groups I've 'played' with (but no longer). It was NOT based on general criticism of "us/forgites" versus "them (name your minority here)".

[pete_darby]

Not to start making this sound like a mutual appreciation society, but I think as someone who's only recently "gone regular" here, and who has issues with some parts of GNS, I think I've got soemthing to say here...

Looking at the early parts of my participation with the Laser Shark thread, I think I can say that a fair few of my ideas were shot down. But, looking at who was doing the shooting, and the manner of the shooting, it was all constructive.

I'm starting from the assumption that I'm wrong, but want to find out all the fascinating ways in which I'm wrong!

The intimidating part wasn't the standard replies of "we covered that in this thread," or even "well, your wide generalisation doesn't cover our groups, which incidentally includes most of the industry figures you respect."

The intimidating posts were Bruce and Ron saying "That sounds interesting... go and try it!"