Bad Roleplaying? I blame Tolkien.

[ethan_greer]

So I think that there are numerous sources like you suggest, but they are secondary or derivative sources themselves.

Hmm.  While that may be (probably is) true, what about those folks who haven't read LotR, but have read Dragonlance (for example)?  Assuming they've engaged in bad play, Tolkien is only indirectly to blame... But again, I don't know how useful a discussion assigning blame would be... Suffice to say that emulation of fantasy literature in general can lead to bad play.  Why?  Perhaps, as Raven seems to be suggesting, because the things that make a good novel don't necessarily make a good game.  Tolkien can certainly be singled out as a major player in that phenomenon.  Likewise, as Dragonlance showed us, good play doesn't necessarily make a good novel. :)

[apeiron]

This, I think, falls into the realm of GNS. Good and bad are kind of dodgy terms. I would say it has more to do with appropriateness. That is, for some types of, say, narrativism I can see an emphasis on an equipment list would be counter productive to the goal and, thus, unreasonable.

@ Agreed.  The original post was written by someone who is clearly prejudiced toward N type games, whereas the first generation or two of RPGs were more G/S oriented.  Narrativist RPGs are a fairly new invention.  Storyteller is the first game that comes to mind that took some of the emphasis off of stats and put it on story and character.  Many of the games being made in the DIY mode are very N slanted, which i think is a reaction to G/S games being made by companies.  People who like G/S material are not put off by the issues he mentions, in fact they might see them as necessary or logical.

@ To me this is much the same as indie movies and music.  They are a response to the pop versions of their media.   Games like QuickDraw are almost deconstructionist in comparison to D&D.

@ The problem (i have) with the post is that it was how opinions were stated as fact, and were written by a 'hater'*.  For myself, i dislike Shadowrun.  The appropriate way to express that is "i find that combining magic and high tech in one setting to be redundant.  One would come to dominate quickly, and what is magic but technology that hasn't been discovered yet (read: explained by science)".  Valamir's approach was "Shadowrun is teh $uX0RZ.  If you run it you are teh $uX0RZ.  If you don't agree with me you are an 1D10T."  The other minor issue is confusing bad GMing with bad RPing.  Oh, and the spelling.

*Hater - One who dislikes something so much that they feel they must convert others to that hatred.  Usually inspired by something that is widely accepted or popular.  Usually the basis for the hatred is the popularity of the subject in question, not its merits or lack thereof.

@ Perhaps his post should have been: The Gamist Contrivances and Simulationist Detailism of first generation of RPGs might be the result of GMs trying to imitate LotR.  That might be a thread worthy of The Forge.

@ What would have been ideal would be a thread that offers or asks for help on getting away from details and contrivances.  How do you have the players get to where you need them to be without railroading them?  What are alternatives to inventories, marching orders and watch schedules?  

@ Problems are boring, solutions are sexy.  Any fool can rant/troll and point out flaws.  Asking for help takes courage, finding solutions requires intelligence and creativity.

[Bob McNamee]

Funny, I didn't get the idea that Valamir's approach was in anyway...if you don't agree with me you are an idiot...

Very much got the idea that the style of the professors writing wasn't much for him... but not so far as to not 'read' the works.

It didn't seem too hard to get the idea that the were strong parallels between what he read, and many early disfunctional gaming experiences...

A fun question really about whether some bad GMing could be due to trying to emulate JRR in the early days.

My opinion is that it is co-incidence, part from wargaming, and could happen trying to emulate other authors, but it is certainly interesting to consider whether some bad habits could have been inspired from such an popular source.

Certainly wouldn't be at all controversial if he had claimed that some of his best RPG experiences came as an direct inspiration from such source material.

I can see how the read could parallel bad play experiences... and personally I love the books.

An interesting thread from all angles, but certainly Ralph isn't some kind of Trolling thread monster...

[Valamir]

Quite right Bob.  I'm in no way a "hater" of Tolkien.  I've read the LotR and the hobbit at least 3 times (though not recently) and am currently working my way through the unabridged audio version.  I could have purchased the BBC dramatised version instead, but I specificallly sought out the unabridged version.  I would not have sat through nearly 20 hours of listening if I was a "hater".

I do believe that one can be critical of someones weaknesses and still be appreciative of their overall talent.


Further, Apeiron, Narrative play is by no means a new invention.  In fact, one could argue that it existed at the very beginning of the hobby in equal measure with other forms, until it was systematically rooted out during the 80s and early 90s.  

As your for suggestion to provide solutions...solutions to what?  I was postulating a likely origin for problems that existed in gaming decades ago (and served as the foundation for "what gaming is supposed to look like").  The solutions are already out there.  The style of play that was once standard is now much less so.  The thread was pointing out a area of historical interest, not a current problem that needs fixing (and least not anything that hasn't been addressed numerous times here anyway).

[contracycle]

With one minor caveat, I agree strongly with Valamirs proposition, and consider many of the objections to originate from the Sacred Cow Defense League.

As it happens, I wonder if marcher order, role specialisation and equipment fetishism arise from the military locus of much early RPG and a sort of emulation of the Long Range Patrol in Vietnam.  This gives us our pit and other traps, the importance of marching order etc.  Vietnam was roughly contemporary with early RPG.

But I think the central thrust is accruate; the main characters are continually deprotagonised.  Watching the films, I found myself steadily less sympathetic to the plight of the characters, who were pretty much victims throughout.  I also agree that the major NPC characters like Gandalf are basically plot devices; when one of the hobbits said "But we have the White Wizard on our side, that has to count for something" I remarked to my friend "You'd think so, wouldn't you".  But my view on this is that the hobbits are meant to be children, whose experience of the world is being dragged hither and yon by the inscrutable demands of arbitrary adults

What I think LOTR did for fantasy in general was give it a decent Sim basis arguably for the first time.  Certainly, as a nipper reading the books, what struck me was the sense of reality and place - as a childrens story, its a pretty radical departure from a fairy-tale constructed entirely to be moral homily.  It made a fantastic world a 'real' place, and that in many ways was what caught the imagination, certainly in my case.

From that perspective I would endores Valamirs claim that much of bad RPG arises from the LOTR, if for no reason other than the fact that LOTR as a work of such repute, such respect, such fame, that it provides legitimacy to a GM duplicating the perceived process of the books.  The argument that one of the doyens fo English literature, one of the most famous books, supports game play mode X is a very strong one and often unchallangeable.  LOTR does validate the Sim heavy attention to detail exhibited by the marching order and whatnot.  It does endorse the primary characters being at the mercy of more powerful secondary characters.  I don;t think Tolkiens dfead hand rached out and wrote GM's notes, but the LEGITIMACY provided by Tolkiens example was, IMO, a very powerful influence.

[Halzebier]

I [...] consider many of the objections to originate from the Sacred Cow Defense League.

I can only point to what Gordon C. Landis said.

(And while it's true that LOTR is a sacred cow, not every defender treats it as such.)

But I think the central thrust is accruate; the main characters are continually deprotagonised.  Watching the films, I found myself steadily less sympathetic to the plight of the characters, who were pretty much victims throughout.

I think this is an unusual and, I daresay, unnatural reaction, resulting from viewing a film as an RPG.

(I saw _Cliffhanger_ with Sylvester Stallone with my old RPG group just after we had introduced the mechanic of fate points. Just about every stunt was greeted with a chorus of "There goes another fate point!" or an incredulous "That must have taken five re-rolls, at least!")

First of all, you are bound to - unconsciously? - feel deprotagonised because as a viewer, you cannot make *any* decisions.

The average reader or viewer does not expect to be able to do this and hence does not feel frustrated.

Secondly, I cannot quite fathom why one would feel less sympathetic to a victim of circumstance or its plight. If anything, I'd expect one to feel *more* sympathetic.

[Edited out a defense of LOTR... Don't want to fall into the trap Gordon warned us about any more than I have to.]

Your personal impression is a valid one, of course - just as, say, my dislike of all James Spader characters is (on account of a brilliant portrayal of a scumbag, forever etched into my brain).

However, I do not think it is a valid criticism of the novel or the movie. It seems tied to your person (or an unusual roleplaying-related mindset) far too much for that.

LOTR does validate the Sim heavy attention to detail exhibited by the marching order and whatnot.  It does endorse the primary characters being at the mercy of more powerful secondary characters.  I don;t think Tolkiens dfead hand rached out and wrote GM's notes, but the LEGITIMACY provided by Tolkiens example was, IMO, a very powerful influence.

Amen.

[quozl]

But my view on this is that the hobbits are meant to be children, whose experience of the world is being dragged hither and yon by the inscrutable demands of arbitrary adults

Perhaps this is why there's such disagreement if we can't even agree on the basic tenets of the novels.  I totally disagree with this statement as Tolkien goes to great pains to make Frodo in his 50s before sending him out on his quest and is another reason I dislike the movies.  Why cast a teenager as a 50-year-old hobbit?

[Valamir]

Code Select Expand

Perhaps this is why there's such disagreement if we can't even agree on the basic tenets of the novels. I totally disagree with this statement as Tolkien goes to great pains to make Frodo in his 50s before sending him out on his quest and is another reason I dislike the movies. Why cast a teenager as a 50-year-old hobbit?

Tolkiensian minutia is way off topic for the thread.  But I did want to point out that Frodo's coming of age party was at age 33 (same time as Bilbos 111).  If this is assumed to be the equivelent of mid teens in human years (not an atypical age for being considered an "adult" in preindustrial society---and following the "tweens" of the 20s of which the impression is given as being adolescent)) then when in his 50s Frodo's age would be the equivelent of 20-something.   If we assume a more modern 21 for "coming of age" then by 50 he'd be the equivelent of 30 in human years...which given the small stature of hobbits may still look younger to humans.

In any case, Frodo was not a middle aged character.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

It may be time to close this thread and take any sub-topics to other, new threads. Ralph? Going once, going twice.

Best,
Ron

[Valamir]

There are some topics that have arisen in the thread that I think warrant some additional attention.  I hope their postulators will at some point start a thread on them (for instance, Gareth's aside on the possible link between Vietnam squad actions and party design is intriguing).  But I'm thinking that everything valuable that could be said in this thread has been.

[Ron Edwards]

All set, then. This one's closed.

New threads, everyone.

Best,
Ron