Are we as cool as Shakespeare?

[Callan S.]

This is an old thread of mine in a similar vein: Being in the band and second audience

[Erling Rognli]

Watching sport or theatre performance won't affect you in the same way as participating will. The results of participating and watching are in fact profoundly different. If we are to discuss the values of roleplaying as a spectator event we must first form some hypothesis of how this would affect the audience. We cannot assume that the audience would receive the same, or even remotely similar, benefits from roleplaying as would the participants, not even the entertainment value, as the form of enjoyment conferred by participating and watching are also different in both sports and various forms of theatre.

I agree that if you define art in the ways Nathan does, it would apply to roleplaying. My point, however, is that whether roleplaying is art or not isn't a question of what roleplaying is, but of how we choose to define Art, which might be the most semantically malleable term in existence, and how badly we want roleplaying to be valuable and important independently of our subjective assessment. This gets me thinking that discussing in terms of art or not will not be very fruitful. I got the impression that Vincent, who started this thread, in a sense agreed, and rephrased his question to concern whether roleplaying does, or could, participate in society. I find this to be a far more valid and interesting question, because it could have an answer that can be disputed and discussed. The only valid answer I can see to the question "Is roleplaying art?" is "Do you think it is?" Discussions on those premises tend to lead nowhere, in my experience.

As an aside, I must note that I very much agree with the definition Nathan presented; in the sense that I think the phenomena his definition refers to is the one most deserving of the term Art and its related status. But that's just my personal opinion, and it cannot be said to be true as such. Furthermore (and in reply to a question) I believe that materials for roleplaying can indeed be art, and that the term in that case is far more relevant. But I still find it far more interesting to ask if it is a good roleplaying game than to ask if it is art or not. The former will tell me much more about things I want to know than the latter, which really amounts to making a judgment of absolute value on the authors work.

I think an important point in this case is that no medium or creative activity directly participates in society, or changes it. Mediums interact with people, and can provoke change in the ways people think. This can in turn change society, in the long run. Roleplaying can definitely produce insights that change a participants view or perspective and give her a more extensive understanding. This extended understanding can later enable her to widen the horizons of others through other forms of interaction. Roleplaying affects people, people affect others, and ultimately society. Roleplaying can produce insights that travel beyond the immediate group, but the fact that they travel is not by virtue of what roleplaying is, but because of how humans interact.

I think there is an erronous piece of reasoning that cause us to ask ourselves if our roleplaying is participating in society, perhaps feeling doubt about the importance of our creative actions compared to those of others. The error lies in comparing roleplaying with media with a much larger sphere of impact. Roleplaying by its very nature has a small sphere of impact, in that a single instance of roleplaying will affect a limited number of people. In comparison with media that can reach millions, like literature, we're bound to feel small and insignificant.

However, roleplaying does have two important redeeming factors; its potential force of impact, and the fact that it is self-administered. Roleplaying can provoke truly profound changes. After participating in PanoptiCorp, a participant ended up quitting his job in the Norwegian conservative party, because his changed perspective on election campaigning and political strategizing made it hard for him to keep working within those fields. Again, roleplaying didn't cause him to quit his job, but it made him see himself and the world differently, and he had the integrity to act upon the consequences of his views.

That a single instance of roleplaying has a small sphere of impact is offset by the fact that it is controlled by the individual. In principle, anyone has access to roleplaying. You are not dependent on receiving the input to provoke insights; you can create it yourself, together with your friends. That is a very powerful thing, and has a certain beauty, because it means roleplaying is very resistant to use for manipulative purposes, and that it cannot be controlled by illegitimate powers. They can burn your books and ban your movies, but they can't stop people from imagining stuff together.

I therefore really believe that roleplaying can, and indeed does, participate in society. But as I see it, this only becomes apparent when roleplaying is considered on its own terms and not those of fundamentally different forms of creative expression.

-Erling

[Walt Freitag]

An interesting but odd topic, this.

My wife and I frequently cook gourmet (IMHO) meals and invite friends and neighbors over. We also sometimes invite friends and neighbors to prepare a meal together, or to bring various dishes for potluck-style gatherings.

I don't think it would ever even occur to anyone to ask, "is that participating in society?" Baby, that is society.

That we don't publish cookbooks, videotape our cooking, record our dinner conversation, or retail our dishes at the local market is irrelevant to that question. Whether the dinner conversation is about the food, about what the kids and relatives are up to, or about weighty world affairs is irrelevant to that question.

I certainly don't see any reason why role playing could ever be considered any less "participating in society" than sharing a meal with friends and neighbors, and I see at least one reason why it could be considered more so (since, as others have pointed out, role playing more often involves shared examination of how to behave and human nature).

- Walt

[pete_darby]

Hmm... but, Walt, meals with folks don't have the emotional wall around them that the word "game" seems to bring to the table (along with "entertainment").

What I mean is, no-one will stop an interesting conversation around the table about the state of the world, or even the neighbourhood, during a dinner party by saying "Woah! Can we stop getting all heavy about 'issues', I thought we came here to eat!"

We've still got a predominant atmosphere here, which is as much a product of millenial western society as RPG subculture, that art =/= entertainment, that you can't enjoy yoursefl while addressing issues, that treating an issue seriously means frowning a lot, stroking one's chin and looking over the top of your spectacles.

You don't have spectacles? Dammit, how are you going to address issues properly without SPECTACLES!

But I'm trying to hammer away at the false dichotomy hiding in there, which is where good art settles. It entertains, engages and enlightens. Rule of thumb, I'd say anything created deliberately that does all three is art (and I only put the created deliberately part in to exclude the majesty of the universe as a de facto work of art).

More on thsi when I'm not supposed to be pretending to work.

[ffilz]

What I mean is, no-one will stop an interesting conversation around the table about the state of the world, or even the neighbourhood, during a dinner party by saying "Woah! Can we stop getting all heavy about 'issues', I thought we came here to eat!"

Oh, but they do. It's pretty rare, but I have definitely experienced times when folks decided to table a heavy conversation and get back to eating and lighter conversation.

Frank

[lumpley]

About replays: At GenCon, Andy Kitkowski did a fascinating little presentation on the Japanese roleplaying scene. He said - and correct me if I misunderstood, Andy - he said that replays are teaching texts, not unlike our own Actual Play forum. The point of 'em is to show you how roleplaying works and get you excited to do it yourself, not to passively entertain you a'tall.

Which seems smart to me.

About participating: I was watching Firefly last night, and that show is freakin' awesome, but I turned to Meg and said "this show is so freakin' awesome that I cannot wait to play Primetime Adventures."

-Vincent

[pete_darby]

Okay, now my big post on participation.

I've not been active here for a month or two, thanks to my being in the Canterbury production of the Mystery Plays. Now, apart from the interest of someone who's into Chris Lerich's ritual theory, something about this issue was brought into focus for me.

Amongst other parts, I played Abraham, and the Abraham of the mystery plays isn't the Abraham I got taught in school: he attempts to bargain with the Angel who tells him to kill his son. When he has just about reconciled his impending loss of Isaac, he nearly fails again when he remembers what it will do to his wife, lies to his wife, spends half the play in asides to god telling how his heart is breaking, and is only pushed to raise his knife (twice, he funks it the first time and asks god for strength) by the admonishments of his son to obey the law of God.*

It made for an incredibly powerful on act play, and I'm reliably informed that on at least one night, many of the audience were in tears**. So I'm sure the audience were moved, felt involved in the scene, identified with the protagonist's dilemma...

But of course, I was right inside that. Constrained by the script, my freedom of expression was in the delivery of the lines, the movement of my body inside the actions dictated by the script.

With the drama of the script and the setting (the crypt of Canterbury Cathedral), it wasn't difficult to produce a reaction in myself and the audience. What surprised me was when I "turned it up to 11" on the last night, how deeply affecting it was to me. The emotion didn't feel "faked" in any way, and I was genuinely grateful when the sound cue cut off my penultimate speech as I wasn't sure I could say it and remain upright.

Soooooo, all very nice for Mr Luvvy, but what the heck has this to do with RPG's as "art" or "socially relevant"?

Remember back when I said I had people in tears? That was from watching. Inside it, and it really felt at times like I was in "Being John Malkovich" and looking out of another body that I was manipulating like a puppet, it was vastly more affecting. But still, I had my lines, my moves... how much greater, then, could that have been if I were confidently creating that drama as well as presenting it, knowing and trusting the other players and the system we're working in that whatever is done is right, that the passion of the story will carry it through!

I tell you this, actors get more out of a play than the audience. I'm pretty sure directors do too. If I ever get any decent work of fiction finished, I'll know whether the joys of good writing beat those of good reading (I'm willing to guess that for all but the most masochistic of writers they do). How lucky are we then to have available to us a form that combines writing and directing and performance so perfectly!

So in play, when we're inventing stories or situations that we care about, we're in a fantastically priveliged position that is sabotaged by the mantra "It's only a game." And Jacob's Ladder is "only a movie", and one i love, but i can't sit through it in one sitting, because it works so well I am profoundly disturbed. I'm famous in my family for crying at the ends of movies not so much at sad endings, but at endings that are so emotionally right that I can't contain myself (yes, I've cried at perfect jokes in movies). I'm reading Robert Fagel's translation of the Iliad at the moment, and I am caught up in the drama of pride, hubris, blood, heroic death and senseless death. But it's "just a book". The Abraham and Issac play was "just a play", but a play that told the story of a faith that moved a man to the ultimate sacrifice, and that play moved me and the audience to tears. But it's "just a story."

Any artistic medium, heck, any communicative medium, is capable of entertainment (as in providing a change from the necessary activities of existence), engagement (as in engaging the mental and emotional attention) and enlightenment (as in providing insight, or information, or sartori or gnosis previously unrealised in the enlightened). In saying it's just a game, we're fighting shy of all but the first.

Frank: is the point of a dinner party to eat or to talk? I'd suggest the latetr, and the former is merely a delightful (hopefully!) way of structuring the evening. And humans being social and political animanls, how can any conversation be honestly devoid of social relevance, however abashed? What I meant was, can you imagine a dinner party where conversation was specifically denigrated in favour of eating? But still in RPG's, there is the idea that whenever any serious addressing of anything starts at the table, it should be stamped on, as "Hey, I thought we were here to have fun." Maybe intense character tragedy is my preferred entertainment tonight, but don't tell me I have to treat it as irrelevant in order for it to be fun. Them false dichotomies again.

*SPOILER: it was, of course, the weakest practical joke in the bible, but at least didn't involve dubious translations of the word rope, camel or indeed poisoner.

** the pathos of the scene greatly enhanced by having a 19-stone man with tears rolling down his face holding a bloody great sharp knife over a 7 year old boy who could have played his earlier part as an angel with no make-up.

[Callan S.]

The 'are we here for the food' question is sort of relevant to the 'Rapid deployment rpgs' thread ( http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=12633&start=15 )

In that Ralph, myself and I think one or two other guys have suggested that a flat out goal is needed.

This is much like the goal of gathering to eating food.

But the fun in both cases comes from the journey itself, rather than reaching the goal/finishing the meal.

I think men do have problems with multi tasking (to be more prescise, we don't focus on this skill). Thus we kind of either push hard for the goal, or we push for the contents of the journey (which makes that the goal...and you might see the problem there, since the goal is something that becomes not important).

The thing with food is that some people can eat while the others talk, then vise versa...you can nibble or gorge, depending on whether you've got something to say or just want to listen. The goal of eating is not disrupted by people talking.

How about roleplay? Well, given the medium you use to reach the goal is the way you primarily socialise, it does encourage the exclusion of other activities the journey could otherwise have.

How is this on topic? Well, excluding those activities excluded can actually be ones that enhance the session/improve the journey to the goal. Catching the penny, missing the pound.

But really, in terms of those rapid deployment games...if you don't set a goal, you wont even have a clear journey to pin a social occasion on.

Damn, I think I might be rambling though...

[Walt Freitag]

The thing with food is that some people can eat while the others talk, then vise versa...you can nibble or gorge, depending on whether you've got something to say or just want to listen. The goal of eating is not disrupted by people talking.

How about roleplay? Well, given the medium you use to reach the goal is the way you primarily socialise, it does encourage the exclusion of other activities the journey could otherwise have.

How is this on topic? Well, excluding those activities excluded can actually be ones that enhance the session/improve the journey to the goal. Catching the penny, missing the pound.

Let me try dropping the other shoe on this dinner party analogy, and see how it goes over with y'all.

That conversation that happens concurrently with the meal? The social communication that accompanies, or possibly interferes with, the eating? In role playing we've got a name for that. It's the Creative Agenda.

The analogy isn't perfect, but consider this: the dinner where you're all talking about the food is a lot like Simulationism. For instance, compare it to playing a Star Wars game with a focus on communicating and sharing your ideas about Star Wars (such as, the Star Wars universe or characters or plots/situations). Other topics of dinner conversation are more like other Creative Agendas. Not a whole lot like, because the analogy is imperfect, but a little bit like. For instance, "Oh, Larry, please don't get started on politics again" is a lot like dysfunction due to incoherence. And misconceptions like "Narrativists don't care about internal plausibility" are a lot like saying that people who converse about business ethics or the weather over dinner don't care if the food is bad-tasting or poisoned.

In my way of seeing it, which differs a little from the canonical presentation of the Big Model, Creative Agenda isn't the characteristic of an instance of role-playing that makes it worthwhile (or "fun") for the individual. "Worthwhile for the individual" is too varied and for the most part too hidden to infer or compare. Creative Agenda is the characteristic of an instance of role-playing that makes it social. So any answer to questions about the interaction of role playing with society (whether the immediate society of participants, or some larger group taking on an audience role) should fundamentally involve the play's Creative Agenda.

- Walt

[eef]

So:  How to communicate what goes on in an RPG session to others?

I think reading raw transcripts of RPG sessions would bore me to tears.  If RPG-inspired fiction was the way, then we'd all be pointing at the Dragonlance novels.

What might work, and I think this is interesting enough that I've talked myself into getting a group together to try this, is to have each character keep a running journal of the campaign, then edit _that_ together into a publishable novel.

BL>  Well, the Japanese seem to like exactly the raw transcripts but, more importantly, I ought to as why you think this is important?  I mean, it's not like movies are validated by their novelizations, or plays are validated by their movie forms.  Taking an artform out of its proper context generally causes it to suck.  Why should that be different with RPGs?  So therefore, it seems to me that the best way to tell a person about the contents of an RPG is to play it with them.

yrs--
--Ben

My apologies about taking a day to reply.  Life happens.

Watching a movie is the passive form of cinematic art; acting is the active form of cinematic art.  Reading is the passive form of literature; writing is the active form.  RPGs currently really only have an active form in playing; this suggested an unexplored opprotunity for a passive form.
To me, RPGs are about the internal experiance of the character.  I don't think that's going to go over well in a raw transcipt, but might go over in a more iterary form.

[Silmenume]

My quick pop in and pop out to let this topic continue without derailment.

Hey Walt,

Your example of "the dinner where you're all talking about the food" is the rough equivalent of baseline Exploration not Simulationism.  That baseline converstation is the carrier wave (the sea - to use a previous analogy) upon which the analagous CA equivalents of other-topics-of-dinner-conversation are modulated upon (or sailed upon).  I understand, like you said, that these are analogies and are imperfect, but the fit to Sim was incorrect.  If this post does violence to this thread, then I apologize and request that it be moved to a new thread before serious derailment settles in.

I now return this thread to its previous topic of conversation.

[Callan S.]

Hi Walt,

Just a bit of groundwork stuff to establish in relation to that, to see if it sounds right to everybody.

Now, the food tends to inspire talking/socialising.
Also, what the food inspires can be gotten into so intensly the food can end up being forgotten (atleast for awhile).
And if you have themed food...all italian food, for example, some (not all) of that talking will revolve around that theme.

Sound about right?

[pete_darby]

Man, I really want to take this metaphor out the back with a baseball bat and give it a good beating...

But: even if you go to a dinner party where all the talk is about the food, the point of the evening was the talk, not the food. Going to a dinner party where everyone tries to avoid speaking because it would get in the way of eating seems weird to me. But very much like many of my family get togethers.

So I'm with Walt in his last post. But what's this got to do with Shakespeare now, folks?

To get away from the metaphor and back to the meat of Walt's original reason for bringing up dinner parties, which I have no beef with: RPG's engage a social grouping in a creative arena in a form potentially "deeper" with greater involvement than any other form you could care to mention, apart from possibly group therapy. The created art is intensely personal to the group and socially relevant as much as you could care for by it's very nature of creation. (I'd certainly point to this thread for a textbook example of that).

Are we as cool as shakespeare? According to reaction in that thread, we're at the very least rivalling the best of network TV in it's native structure & modes, if not it's native media. Now, if you knew how good I thought serial TV was at the moment (Never better, in my opinion), you'd see that I think we can be cool as anyone. And as lame and goofy too, and that's our charm.

[Emily Care]

I thought Walt's first post answered a question Vincent posed--are we participating in society? We _are_ society.  The problem I perceive is that we often take or leave out the social and personal aspects when we game. Or worse substitute gaming interactions for social interactions, hence gaming codepence--sticking with a gaming group even though you can't stand the people so you can get your fix.  

I may be wrong--but it seems to me that if we've gotta leave our selves at home, then we won't be likely to address any hard questions cause it will be too hard for us to unpack them around people we don't trust or care about. And this may be different for roleplaying as compared to other forms (novel, film etc) since it is directly interactive, and fairly intimate.  Characters in a movie don't care if you bawl your eyes out, and the theatre is dark, so your neighbors might miss it. On the other hand, it's hard to be moved in a group of 3-4 people and have it be glossed over.

yrs,
Emily

[pete_darby]

The problem I perceive is that we often take or leave out the social and personal aspects when we game. Or worse substitute gaming interactions for social interactions, hence gaming codepence--sticking with a gaming group even though you can't stand the people so you can get your fix.

Well, I like to think that whatever we do to shut out those aspects, they leak through, or at the very least are conspicuous by their absence. I'd also think of gaming interactions as a subset of social interactions, and the continued assumption that they aren't impoverishes games no end.

(Please note, I'm not saying Emily has done this, but that the wording of her post led me to think about the general opinion that gaming and "social interaction" are two separate beasts).

In my experience, folks are a lot more able to handle being emotionally moved than they give themselves credit for, and than we give them credit for. But it only takes one out of a group of four to be emotionally defensive to make it awkward, admittedly.

But, I'll admit, I'm that guy that cries at anything (I choked back a couple while watching Shaun of the Dead, fer gawdses sakes), laughs too damn loud, and argues with the radio. I may be an exception.