The limits of cultural play...?

[pete_darby]

In this thread,

When it comes right down to it, we have to recognize that in spite of all of our aspirations in this forum, when it comes right down to it, the reason we play these games is because they're FUN.

The reason we're HERE, in the Forge, is to make our games MORE fun. By "our games" I mean both the games we run, and the games we write.

It's not like Literature (big-L literature) where not only entertainment is going on, but also the perpetuation of culture, education, faith... Roleplaying may someday take on these aspects, but I don't think it will be for a while yet.

Errm.... why not?

I'm sure I can spout a lot on my side of this argument, but I just want to hear... why not?

[Brendan]

I'm inclined to think I'm on your side in this, Pete, but in the interest of infernal advocacy:

Role-playing is nonreproducible.  When you write down or retell a story, handing it on to the next generation or next tribe over, it's only mildly lossy--the story might shift a little, but it's still essentially the same.  But when you attempt to put roleplaying into oral or written form, all the important things about it go away.  It's a rate of loss so high that all you can reasonably get out of it is a "that's neat" or "hey, this is an interesting point about the rules."

Can you reproduce role-playing rules?  Yes, but that's just literature all over again.

Role-playing can't retain culture, education or faith just like blacksmithing or bricklaying can't retain them.  They're not media; they're processes.

[Bankuei]

Hi,

I'd say non-reproducible events are culturally important as well.  Consider how much people will remember a certain party, or a football game- they're reproducible in the sense that they are a "type of" event you can do over and over, though the outcomes may differ wildly.

I'd say take a look at Vincent's blog on all the things roleplaying can be socially- that covers anything and everything Big-L literature, opera, music, or any other human artform can cover as a social experience.  Consider the rise of jazz or hiphop culture as initially non-reproducible experiences(granted, there was a shift to recorded materials later in both, but then both became very different sorts of cultures).

Chris

[C. Edwards]

I have to wonder though, if a roleplaying text was integrated with the same features that allow myth to perpetuate a particular culture, faith, and knowledge of practices important to everyday life, could you not reproduce with much less loss the same general roleplaying experience over and over?

-Chris

[Brendan]

Hi,

I'd say non-reproducible events are culturally important as well.  Consider how much people will remember a certain party, or a football game- they're reproducible in the sense that they are a "type of" event you can do over and over, though the outcomes may differ wildly.

I'd say take a look at Vincent's blog on all the things roleplaying can be socially- that covers anything and everything Big-L literature, opera, music, or any other human artform can cover as a social experience.  Consider the rise of jazz or hiphop culture as initially non-reproducible experiences(granted, there was a shift to recorded materials later in both, but then both became very different sorts of cultures).

Chris

Hmm.  I'll grant you that role-playing, like watching The Big Game or, er, attending a church service, can perpetuate faith--one of the three criteria Vaxalon cited.  I remain unconvinced that it can carry education or culture, although the latter term may be something we need to define more precisely.

Answers.com gives me:

a) The totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought.

b)  These patterns, traits, and products considered as the expression of a particular period, class, community, or population: Edwardian culture; Japanese culture; the culture of poverty.

I don't think role-playing can transmit culture as defined by A, but then I'm not convinced any medium or media can, so that's a wash.  B, meanwhile, can be carried by media like jazz or hip-hop--because they are forms of music, and even when they weren't recorded, they could have been.  Recording them certainly did change them, as any observation changes the object observed.  But again, recording role-playing is a pointless endeavor, unless we're critiquing the systems at work.

(I have been reading Vincent's blog, by the way, and that thread is fascinating, but I don't see how it supports your argument.)

I have to wonder though, if a roleplaying text was integrated with the same features that allow myth to perpetuate a particular culture, faith, and knowledge of practices important to everyday life, could you not reproduce with much less loss the same general roleplaying experience over and over?

-Chris

Hmm.  I'm not sure what you're getting at here.  Investing a role-playing text with the memetic features of myth would seem to me to be making it, well, a myth--a form of literature.  I'm not clear on how even a viral RPG would lead to repetitions of the same role-playing experience.  I think the reduction of choices and options necessary would mean severe deprotagonization, turning it into a formal ritual rather than a game.

[Bankuei]

Hi Brendan,

If we look at definition a, and consider issues such as social contract, dysfunctional & functional behaviors by habit- I'd say we've got a lot of socially transmitted behavior patterns going on.  Which is exactly what Vincent's blog also points to.

Chris

[Brendan]

Chris, I agree that the act of role-playing transmits certain patterns of behavior.  I don't think that those patterns are a significantly high portion of the A, which is the totality of patterns, arts, beliefs and institutions--but again, I don't think any medium is capable of reproducing all that.

Nor do I think that the SC or group CA of a few people together is particularly relevant to culture definition B; it doesn't seem to me that the way a group of geek kids behaves at game time is a strong expression of early 21st century Western patterns, traits and products, nor does it produce a lasting record of those.

[Bankuei]

Hi Brendan,

If not totality of behavior- we can definitely look to stuff like Dork Tower and Hackmaster as clear signs that there has been a cultural development of common behaviors and experiences shaped through gaming(primarily through D&D).

No one said the culture had to be "high" culture in any sense, but there it is.

Chris

[Eve]

Hi Brendan (and others),

Just a short note from my side: why can something only be "culture" when it produces some physical record? Think of the ancient Celts, of many Indian tribes or some other old culture. Many transmitted everything orally. But to say these weren't cultures?

Of course, it's not the way we keep the secrets of our religious system alive, but still, there are those ever circulating stories roleplayers specially share with eachother.

I think a nice one is of a boy, who thought D&D and the like wasn't realistic enough - as he thought roleplaying should be. So he just got hungry from time to time, had to go to the bathroom and - as will always be remembered - he thought up a coach, that ran over is leg: it was broken. Minor inconveniences and accidents: all part of the game according to him. Well, at least he was not a munchkin :)

[Brendan]

Hi Brendan,

If not totality of behavior- we can definitely look to stuff like Dork Tower and Hackmaster as clear signs that there has been a cultural development of common behaviors and experiences shaped through gaming(primarily through D&D).

No one said the culture had to be "high" culture in any sense, but there it is.

Chris

Okay, I'll cede that point too.  Role-playing has, in a sense, generated its own subculture with distinct memes, norms and practices; furthermore, the act of roleplaying is sufficient to propagate and perpetuate that subculture.

So you've proven to me that role-playing can transmit and enable faith and culture.  What about education?  I'm not talking about just learning the rules to a game, either.  I want to know how role-playing can be usefully educational right now, not just in theory.  After all, even Vaxalon said "Roleplaying may someday take on these aspects, but I don't think it will for a while yet."

I've seen and experienced role-playing as it passes on culture and faith.  Can anybody prove to me that it's didactic in a way that literature isn't?

Hi Brendan (and others),

Just a short note from my side: why can something only be "culture" when it produces some physical record? Think of the ancient Celts, of many Indian tribes or some other old culture. Many transmitted everything orally. But to say these weren't cultures?

Read more carefully, Eva:

Role-playing is nonreproducible.  When you write down or retell a story, handing it on to the next generation or next tribe over, it's only mildly lossy--the story might shift a little, but it's still essentially the same.  But when you attempt to put roleplaying into oral or written form, all the important things about it go away.

Nobody said anything about "physical records," or that a culture without them wasn't a culture.  The point I'm making is that in both literate and oral cultures, stories and mores can be spread by reproduction in some form.  You can tell or print the same story many times; you can't play the same RPG twice.

I'm afraid I don't understand the second part of your post, about the "boy."  Can you clarify?

[Eve]

Hi Brendan,

You can't play the very same game twice, but you can tell of your memories of the game. In that way, it's just like history: WWII might not have happened again or with a totally different outcome. But the stories still are part of our history, and culture.

The part about the boy was about some person with rather peculiar ideas on roleplaying. In my playgroups, his behaviour is pretty famous, though I never played with him. Just like the gazebo story from the "famous last words" I think, albeit not as famous.

[lumpley]

Are we as cool as Shakespeare? from last fall.

If I didn't think I was doing real art, I'd go write novels instead. Everybody here who doesn't think we're doing real art: why don't you go write novels (or whatever; choose your form) instead? Then you wouldn't be screwin' around wasting your time.

-Vincent

[Comte]

Just for kicks ladies and gentlemen:

Why the answer is no.

Roleplaying will never reach the status of capital L literature because to do so would cause an inherent schizophrenia within the very work itself.  Roleplaying games are desighned to be games that are desighned so that they mimic the archatypical structure of a story.  Even the most progessive of roleplaying games still adhere to the creation of story, dictated via the rules set out both by the book and the game master.  Even truely innovative titles such as, "My Life with Master" which attemtpts to break away from normal role playing games still adhere to the same basic principles of telling a story.  In fact MLWM rigerously enforces the aspects of the story forcing the player to reach a climax and a definate conclusion.  The games use of the endgame mechanic brings it closer to the aristotilian idea of the story than ever.  It even allows for catharsis assuming the players have earned it.  

However, how can we get capital L literature out of this roleplaying game in paticular?  We are left with two apparent methods, the text itself, or the stories it produces.  The text itself fails on the basis that there is not enough to work with.  As a peice of theory it is mearly a reiteration of Aristotle's The Poetics without Aristotle's reasoning behind it.  We are left with an empty frame work of how to write a story involving an abusive master, and some insane but talented servants, however aside from that we are left with very little that is worthy of study.

So we turn to the stories themselves.  Roleplaying games are the last vestiges of oral storytelling that has its traditions in the very roots of man kind.  Certainly there is something here that makes the "actual play" itself worthy of study.  However, the study of actual play is mired in problems.  Due to the collective nature of the stories being told deeper socio, politocal, philosphic, and literary concerns, become diluted as each player desires to serve thier own ends, which is usualy entertainment.  As a result any richer intelectualization vanishes as the players preform actions which they find entertaining not intelectualy stimulating.  Even if the all the players were devoted to creating an intelectualy stimulating game session, the work of the diffrent players would bring us right back to an inherent  schizophrenia.

The ideal game would form the link, it would allow players to be able to create a rich intelectualy stimulating experience, a game, and a source of entertainment.  We are left with three requirements which must be filled in order for a game to make the transendence into literature.

The problem is the schizophrenia and my killer example is the relationship between D&D and the G/S/N model.  D&D tires to cater to all three camps simutaneously.  It tries to be a game which you run around, kill mosters, and get stronger, a simulation so that there are rules for charecters getting hungry and starving, falling damage, encumberance, and an attempt at realistic fighting rules, and finnaly it is narrativist in that it attempts to allow the players to make a story that everyone finds entertaining and rewarding.  The combonation of these three elements is irreconcilable and what results is schizophrenia, this site, most of these discussions, and disatisfaction all around.  D&D can work when everyone is on the same page play wise but it can QUICKLY break down and fizzle away with the addition of seemingly innocent elements.  

To attempt to turn a game into literature you have a diffent three fold balancing act that you need to preform.  I will admit that there are game which come close to becoming literature, but they usualy fail in one or more area once all the chips are down.  Sometimes the game is very limited in terms of actual play, length of play, the stories it produces, or the expectations of the game desigheners are impossible.  

The solution the the G/N/S problem seems to lie on focusing on one aspect of the tri system to the detriment of the others.   However, tasks to reconcile the three usualy end in failure, on both the mechanical side of the rules, and the human side of the players.  As a result I would say that the transition from game to literature is nearly impossible because to much of the game would be lost in the translation.

Edit:  Note the question ask of literature and the idea of captial L literature which is where I focused my argument.  I ignored the idea of cultural value because I feel that it is  not germane to my point.  All the oral tradition in the world won't amount to much unless it is preserved either through writing or thru a continuation of the oral tradition.  HOwever rpg rules focus more on how to write your own story, not on making a story to be preserved through the ages.  As a result we do not really have very many surviing tales of what it was like to game in 70's or even early 80's even though I personaly would like to know.

[Bankuei]

Hi Lacan,

Huh?

So let me understand this- we can get stories that follow the Aristotle's story arcs, but we can't get them through games that structure on them?  I'm sorry, I don't see any difference between a game that produces a coherent story and a writing exercise in a creative writing class.  If it produces a coherent story, and possibly a damn good one, then that's what you've got.

Granted- there is no guarantee that any game will produce a good story(and yes, taking into account that good is a subjective term), just in the same way putting someone in front of a typewriter doesn't necessarily produce a good story, or giving them a video camera and some actors either.  But you have yet to provide a solid argument why it can't happen.

And intellectually stimulating can't be entertaining?  I really don't know what your definition of intellectually stimulating is then.   Because we certainly can't be talking about novels or anything else that hits Big L literature status, because a good deal of novels hit both, as much as any other art form.

And finally, the completely tangent issue:

The combonation of these three elements is irreconcilable and what results is schizophrenia, this site, most of these discussions, and disatisfaction all around.

Um, yeah.  "Games work best when they focus on one of the Creative Agendas"?  Basic theory man.  We're still exploring what Hybrids do, but if you look at most of the dysfunctional play issues, people are pointing that straight out.  Nothing new.  The D&D issue?  I think you're confusing what Creative Agenda is all about- the D&D book can't be any CA, it can support a CA better or worse- it's the actual play, by a particular group that makes any game into any particular CA.  D&D just happens to make it very easy to do Gamism, has minimal support for Sim, and nothing for Nar.  Let's take this to another thread if you want this issue clarified further.

Chris

[Comte]

I was just doing this for fun.  I don't believe in this really so I guess I didn't make certain points as clearly as I should.

And intellectually stimulating can't be entertaining? I really don't know what your definition of intellectually stimulating is then. Because we certainly can't be talking about novels or anything else that hits Big L literature status, because a good deal of novels hit both, as much as any other art form.

Good call.  That's a major blunder on my part.  I got my jargon mixed up.  So let me go back and explain.  First of all yes you can be entertaining and intelectualy stimulating.  Lets get that out of the way right now.  When I am using these words I am reffering back to the initial intension of the book.  Lets take just about anything written by Nietzsche as an example.  He is an exclent writter who can be very funny and entertaining at times.  He, however, did not set out to entertain, he set out to tell you about philosphy.  His little sideways jabs are just an added bonus.  To add a converse, the movie Die Hard is not meant to foster within you philisophic ideas.  It is meant purey as entertainment.  Now there is no hard and fast guidelines for defining these two terms that I just sort of made up.  There are many peices of work that try to be both, and there aren't many that suceed.  I do disagree with you there.

I am compleatly against trying to psychologise out an authors intensions.  However, for many people intelectual stimulation is a requirement of enjoyment, to a point where they will ignore other more inherent flaws within a piece.  When they suceed on both levels I do argue that it is more by acident, rather than something that happens on purpose.  To wrap up, "I will say that intelecutal stimulation, or enterainment always comes at the cost of something else."  I can give example and argue this point further but time issues forces me to move on.

Now then the next bit I am going to respond to:

So let me understand this- we can get stories that follow the Aristotle's story arcs, but we can't get them through games that structure on them? I'm sorry, I don't see any difference between a game that produces a coherent story and a writing exercise in a creative writing class. If it produces a coherent story, and possibly a damn good one, then that's what you've got.

and

And finally, the completely tangent issue:

Quote:
The combonation of these three elements is irreconcilable and what results is schizophrenia, this site, most of these discussions, and disatisfaction all around.

Yeah you are right that was poorly transitioned to where it almost looks like a seperate issue.  Man take one semester off from writting real papers and look what happens.  Sorry my fault.  Fortunatly you provide me with the tools to clarify.  Look up to the first quote.  The answer to the question is right in the language used.  The diffrence is, one is a writting exercise desighened to make a writer write something good.  The rpg is a game that happens to produce stories.  Should a good story happen to come out of an rpg session, the game itself isn't literature, the story it produced is.  Now the real bastard tricky question to answer (here is a weak point in my argument) is where the resulting story comes from.  You see once the author's pen hits the page the story starts to change and starts to become the work of the person writing the story.  So it becomes the game session itself that will be the basis for the final story, with the rules of the game becoming a distant third cousin.  

This is one way that it can't happen.  In this senario the actual play session becomes a story and the game itself is to far removed.  This senario is the equivalent of hearing a story, filling in some details, and then writting it down sometime latter.

Part of the problem with this argument is what becomes the literature?  We have two possibilities the rule books themselves, or the resultant game sessions.  I was really going after the fact that the basic rule books can't become literature due to thier very nature.  They are rule books for playing a game, not literature.  Violence is a rule book which is a brutal satire of AD&D.  However, Violence functions rather poorly as an actual game.  Literature?  Maybe.  But it isn't a fun game really. I will argue that the reason why it isn't very fun is that it spends to much time making fun of AD&D and not enough on the actual game itself.  Otherwise I could easily be a generic ruleset for urban games.  This is what I was going for.

Now as for the stories produced by the game...I think I will retract my original statments regarding that topic.  Some of the greatest stories ever penned were written by more than one person, paticularly scripts.  To argue about the nature of the stories resulting from rpgs is like trying to make a road map on how to hit the sublime.  It dosn't work trust me.

But I will retain my argument that the actual rule books themselves can not really be literature because then they will cease to be rule books.