Ritual Discourse in Role-Playing Games

[Walt Freitag]

Hi Chris,

Thanks for addressing my question.

The comparison with random words was clumsy on my part and was not, honestly, meant to imply that your essay is or resembles random words. Quite the contrary: it's got a lot of thought in it and ideas that, like Neil, I would be eager to test and to apply. My problem is that if it cannot inherently be tested or applied, then how is it more useful than random words?" By analogy, if you handed me a bottle of wine and said, "of course, this wine will evaporate instantly if you open the bottle," I might ask "then how is it better than an empty bottle?" I'm more doubtful about the claim the wine will evaporate than about the claim that there's wine in the bottle. (After all, the bottle's not so opaque that I can't see some liquid in there.)

The first order of business, I would think, would be to test the claim that role playing is ritual. But I seem to be stymied right there.

"Here are A, B, and C characteristics of ritual that are/aren't observed in role playing."

"Means nothing, role playing, like all ritual, is individually unique and cannot be expected to share any given characteristic with other forms of ritual."

"Here are Q, R, and S characteristics of role playing that are/aren't shared with other activities not commonly regarded as ritual."

"Means nothing. See above about uniqueness, and anyway, those other activities might be ritual too."

"I modified X, Y, and Z characteristics typical of ritual to a role playing instance, and it did/didn't improve the experience."

"Means nothing. By introducing changes in your attempt to apply it you've made any conclusions invalid, as the thesis applies only to the pristine unmodified circumstance. And in any case, the thesis isn't intended to be applied that way, so any results of such testing are irrelevant to its validity."

I hope that I'm mischaracterizing your position somewhere, because the thesis that role playing is a mode of ritual behavior seems very interesting and I'd be disappointed if it turns out to be unfalsifiable.

- Walt

[clehrich]

Hi Walt,

Glad to try to clarify; thanks for the tough questions!

My problem is that if it cannot inherently be tested or applied, then how is it more useful than random words?

It depends upon what you mean by "test," and that's where we're getting stuck on the whole practical/impractical thing.  Here goes:

"Here are A, B, and C characteristics of ritual that are/aren't observed in role playing."
"Means nothing, role playing, like all ritual, is individually unique and cannot be expected to share any given characteristic with other forms of ritual."

No, this one I disagree with.  This is precisely what the comparison must be founded upon.  If there are not considerable overlaps in characteristics, then it's pointless to propose the model.  So this is where "testing" would have to happen analytically.

"Here are Q, R, and S characteristics of role playing that are/aren't shared with other activities not commonly regarded as ritual."
"Means nothing. See above about uniqueness, and anyway, those other activities might be ritual too."

My only objection here is "commonly regarded as".  James proposed Disneyland events as something not commonly regarded as ritual, for example.  In order to say clearly that it shouldn't be regarded as ritual, you'd have to have some model of ritual in mind.  I feel strongly that in this particular case, I could make the argument that some Disneyland events could very well be interpreted as ritual; indeed, I know of some people who work on just this sort of thing.  But that doesn't mean that everything is reasonably interpreted as ritual.  It's a question of having some sort of model, putting it forward explicitly, and then examining the value of imposing that model.

"I modified X, Y, and Z characteristics typical of ritual to a role playing instance, and it did/didn't improve the experience."
"Means nothing. By introducing changes in your attempt to apply it you've made any conclusions invalid, as the thesis applies only to the pristine unmodified circumstance. And in any case, the thesis isn't intended to be applied that way, so any results of such testing are irrelevant to its validity."

The first half of the hypothetical response I don't understand; can you clarify?  As to the second, I'd agree: let's suppose somebody said, "Okay, well, I made my game have a clear premise that we addressed, making it more Narrativist, but my game didn't improve."  Okay, so what?  Who said that Narrativist is better universally?  Similarly, if you make some changes to make your game more like some particular mode of ritual behavior, who's to say that this should make it better?

The question of testing really arises in a few specific places; here are a couple I'm thinking of off the top of my head:

[*]If RPG's are ritual, that explains the following seemingly-odd fact about RPG play, because in ritual that would be expected and normal
[*]If RPG's are ritual, that suggests that the following ought to be true about them; let's go look and see
[*]If RPG's are ritual, that suggests that the following types of theoretical models ought to apply; let's see what that produces
[*]If RPG's are ritual, that explains a certain thing we've been struggling with about such-and-such rituals, because in RPG's that very thing is made quite overt and is actually analyzed by gamers, giving us (ritual theorists) a useful handle for explaining what's going on in these other rituals[/list:u]Does that help?

The big problem, I suppose, is that "ritual" isn't actually a thing; it's a way of categorizing behavior, and since definitions slide around, there's no absolute way to say whether a given behavior "really is" ritual or not.  The only way to validate is to demonstrate that you learn something by applying models -- learn something about both RPG's and about the models.

Chris Lehrich

[RDU Neil]

To be very straightforward about this, let me ask this:
I have proposed an analytical theory about certain behaviors in gaming, based upon anthropological and other theoretical models usually applied in very different spheres. Do you think that I should now say, "Since I know all this stuff, and we here in the academy know more about ritual than you do, I have now figured out the right way to game. Do it this way, and it will be much better; if you don't, you're stupid and wrong"? Obviously that's an extreme, but my intent in separating analysis from synthesis is to avoid getting anywhere near that. Why is this objectionable?

The extreme above... no... but in making such an analysis, you are stating that such an analysis is useful/important/worthwhile... therefore you should NOT be held back from saying, "If you accept my theory that RPGs are a form of ritual, it is logical that exploring the ritual aspects of gaming, however you want to do that, and applying what you learn, however you want to do that, IS a good/right/important thing to do."

You aren't the missionary trying to force a culture to do it "your way" but you are trying to influence others to perform their own analysis and think critically about their own behavior as a valuable behavior change in and of itself.

If an analyst wishes to remain truly objective and without undue influence, then their analysis should never be released.  To remain separate from it all, you'd have to have said to yourself, "My research and observation indicates that RPGs are a form of ritual behavior, and this is an important insight into understanding behavior... but I must never tell anyone about it for fear of this knowledge changing that behavior."

I guess it was just the absolute sense of the terms analysis vs. synthesis, that bugged me.  I totally accept your "Change as little as possible" theory... which is practical.  

On another note...

f RPG's are ritual, that explains the following seemingly-odd fact about RPG play, because in ritual that would be expected and normal

If RPG's are ritual, that suggests that the following ought to be true about them; let's go look and see

If RPG's are ritual, that suggests that the following types of theoretical models ought to apply; let's see what that produces

If RPG's are ritual, that explains a certain thing we've been struggling with about such-and-such rituals, because in RPG's that very thing is made quite overt and is actually analyzed by gamers, giving us (ritual theorists) a useful handle for explaining what's going on in these other rituals

These questions are fascinating to me, and I would love to see them explored further.  What I need, though... is a further grounding in ritual theory, since I have no background, and couldn't tell a reasoned argument from a fanatical raving at this point.  Any "Idiots Guide to Ritual Theory" available?

Neil

[clehrich]

I guess it was just the absolute sense of the terms analysis vs. synthesis, that bugged me.  I totally accept your "Change as little as possible" theory... which is practical.  

Based on the previous paragraphs, I think we're on the same page.

These questions are fascinating to me, and I would love to see them explored further.  What I need, though... is a further grounding in ritual theory, since I have no background, and couldn't tell a reasoned argument from a fanatical raving at this point.  Any "Idiots Guide to Ritual Theory" available?

I tried to do some of this in my article, but of course it's limited and doesn't try to cover everything.

A general overview text?  Hmm.  Not that I know of, really.  Catherine Bell's Ritual: Perspectives and Dimensions does a lot of this, but it's not exactly a light read; the first section of her Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice is also a wonderful overview, but, well, if you think my article is a little dense....

Let me think about it.  I usually teach ritual theory by sort of frogmarching the students through a hundred years of selected reading, and I don't generally try to deal with things like practice theory.  Oddly enough, it has never really struck me before that there isn't a book like this aimed at someone other than a graduate student.  Of course, probably there is one, and I'm not thinking of it, but I'm not sure.

I'll get back to you -- but it's going to take a lot of thought.  If it comes to that, and this seems to be provoking a lot of interest, I suppose I could write an intro. for the purpose, but that's one hell of a task.

Chris Lehrich

[contracycle]

I'll volunteer to stand behind you with a club to make sure it gets done, though.

Seriously, I would really appreciate it if you could express some of your thoughts on the matter - partly becuase I'm just plain interested, and partly because my general feeling isnto agree but I can't defend it even to myself.  I certainly have not come across a primer on ritual theory, as it were, despite actively scouring the academic bookshops for such.

[clehrich]

I'll volunteer to stand behind you with a club to make sure it gets done, though.

Uh oh.  What have I gotten myself into...

Seriously, I would really appreciate it if you could express some of your thoughts on the matter - partly becuase I'm just plain interested, and partly because my general feeling isnto agree but I can't defend it even to myself.  I certainly have not come across a primer on ritual theory, as it were, despite actively scouring the academic bookshops for such.

Out of interest, is that "is to" or "isn't to", or something else?

Chris Lehrich

[contracycle]

"is to agree"

But only at the moment in the most general and ill-informed sense.  So I would really appreicate any discussion of the state of the art, as it were, that you can offer.

[clehrich]

contracycle,

Let me just test your resolve a second here.  The only way I can think of intelligently to set this out is to write up a (short) series of little articles about major steps and shifts in the development of ritual theory.  I think I could do it in 10 steps, although perhaps 12 would be traditional these days.  :)  Each would be long-ish for Forge posts, but chatty and (I hope) accessible.  There are lots of styles I can write in, and I promise I can make it readable, although it's not easy.  But there's absolutely no way in hell that I'm going to do this unless people actually want to read this stuff.  It would also take quite a while, like probably an average of more than a week per article.  I'd basically be trying to distill 100+ years of debate by some of the finest minds of the century into a teeny tiny space.

So what I need to know is, does anyone actually want to read this?  I mean, as in "is willing to read, think about, and debate a little bit to be sure they more or less get"?

It would actually be a fantastically useful thing for me to do anyway, given that I have to teach this stuff for the rest of my life, but it's sufficiently an odd thing to do on the Forge that I'd need prior support, if that makes sense.

Chris Lehrich

[james_west]

I'd read it.

[Emily Care]

Hi Chris,

Me too.

What I take away from your essay is that you see current theory as descriptive/taxonomic, and feel that it looks at rpgs as isolated from cultural context.  Identifying rpg as ritual gives it a place and function in society and people's lives other than "mere" entertainment.  However, your title issue (rpg=a form of ritual) gets a bit drowned out by the other.

Regards,
Emily Care

[clehrich]

Emily,

I seem to write this at you periodically, but bless you.  Nails, heads, and hitting seem to be involved, but I mean that in a good way.  :-)

Can I ask you to clarify what you meant about the title?  I didn't quite get that.

Chris Lehrich

[Gordon C. Landis]

Do you think that I should now say, "Since I know all this stuff, and we here in the academy know more about ritual than you do, I have now figured out the right way to game. Do it this way, and it will be much better; if you don't, you're stupid and wrong"? Obviously that's an extreme, but my intent in separating analysis from synthesis is to avoid getting anywhere near that. Why is this objectionable?

The only thing that's "objectionable" (though for me that's way too strong a word) is if you mean to preclude the ability to say "Hey, good point about this ritual stuff - so maybe it'd help improve my gameplay if I borrowed x approach from ritual?"  I mean, it's fine to be cautious about that kind of application, but if it's entirely excluded - why bother?  If we can't say "analysis leads to knowledege and knowledge is often useful", why analyze?

I happen to own an odd RPG called "Timeship", that lierally had a ritualized opening for each game session.  I should find and read it in the context of your article . . . .

Gordon

[clehrich]

Gordon,

You're right, that would be objectionable.  At that point it's just a negative version of telling the "natives" how to worship properly: you say instead that they shouldn't pay attention to that man behind the curtain, and keep doing their useless, superstitious practices.  Of course it's valid and legitimate for people to appropriate analytical theory for constructive, practical purposes.  I just have a problem with analytical folks prescribing what those they describe should do with their work, in either direction.

Chris Lehrich

[Gordon C. Landis]

Chris,

Got ya - being told what you should do is often objectionable.  Though this native has no problem with you saying what might be possible given your insights, nor with you speculating about what this could mean for RPG gameplay . . .

But the real reason for this msg is to add myself to the list of folks who'll read and comment on your proposed set of info-posts,

Gordon

[clehrich]

Jeepers H. Creepers.  Now I actually have to do this?

Okay, I'll get cracking.  Expect an outline within a week, anyway.

In the meantime, are there other comments or confusions about the article itself?  I mean, I wouldn't have thought it really required a lot of prior knowledge about ritual theory in general.  What about the critique of GNS, for example?  Or the stuff about feminism, social contract problems, and the social dynamic of gaming?

Chris Lehrich