I was remembering playing on a MUD a few years back, when something occurred to me.

Although I had spent approximately 4 years on it as first a player, then a programmer, I had virtually no "meaningful" experiences from it, not even decent stories. The rewarded mode of play was clean out one area, move to area two, then area three, then back again to area one, which by then had regenerated.

And it came to me...has anyone ever deliberately made a "meanigful" RPG? By "meaningful," I mean something where your time spent is not just fun, but actually productive in some way. For example, the ideal "meaningful" Gamist game would be akin to Chess or Go; the "meaningful" Narrativist game would be some "high-concept Premise" thing, like the one that's rolling around in my head just now, "Cogs", whose Premise is, "Which is better, freedom or happiness?"; the "meaningful" Sim game would be...I dunno, something educational like GURPS Transhuman Space, maybe.

Anyway, I think this would be a good idea to explore. I certainly feel it would help bring new people into RPGs, which the public IMHO seems to deride as something purely geeky.

I don't see why an RPG couldn't have a message, like most other forms of art. Movies and books have messages, so why not RPG's? I suppose the message would come in 'exploring a theme'.

A gamist RPG would have a message by making 'winner' do what the message was, i.e. by modulating competition.

A Narrativist RPG would have a message by creating the type of stories that get the message accross.

A Sim RPG would probably be set in a historical situation that would emphasize the message.

I can think of a few. I remember there was one that was basicly a version of Assassins or Killer or whatever you call it (players sneakely shoot each other with fake guns) that had an antiviolence message through disturbing artwork and sarcasm in the 'claim to be a game' section.

This Thread describes the message of Trollbabe, which is pretty cool.

Honestly, I think a RPG has a toughter time having a message relative to other forms of art, because a RPG requires more effort on the part of the participants, thus there is a greater need for to be fun.

I have encountered a number of people who have attempted to create pedagogic RPGs, that is, games designed to teach something. I've been underwhelmed generally with efforts to incorporate this into a system. However, I have on a number of occasions used scenarios in a manner which is intentionally educational or explorative of serious issues. I'll toss a couple examples here.

• The Zygote Experience in Multiverser: The First Book of Worlds is a carefully detailed examination of the birth process and human growth and development. That's rather a focused subject, but is there a better way to learn about these things than to create a framework of an imaginary experience of the process?
• Post Sympathetic Man in Multiverser: The Second Book of Worlds quite intentionally raises issues about the foundation of morality in society, and what a society might be like were those foundations abandoned.
• Orc Rising, currently being given away in beta form for play and comment from the Multiverser site, places the players in a world in which slavery is seen as beneficial for the slaves, and I think helps a lot of players understand what the world was like when good people who believed in freedom were also slave owners, and how that mindset could be seen as not inherently contradictory. Obviously, it also raises issues about racism, all within a fantasy context. The race being so enslaved are orcs, and clearly not human--no more so than the elves or dwarfs who also enslave them--which tends to defuse a lot of the anger that ordinarily surrounds such issues while bringing the difficulties to the fore.
• Race Wars, one of the worlds tucked into our free demo version, similarly makes an issue of race in a setting that is divorced from our world. In this situation, a very small continent is populated by Neanderthals to one end and Cro Magnons to the other, and as populations have expanded they are running out of room. Each has reason to think itself superior. Both see the obliteration of the other as the only way to ensure the survival of themselves. The player characters are outsiders visiting this universe; what solutions do they offer? There may be lands beyond the oceans, for those who dare to explore. It appears that the two races are just that, races, compatible members of the same species who could (and in some cases have) produce viable offspring. Putting racial tensions in a context in which the players can't fully identify with either group over the other gives an opportunity to think about the solutions that might work in reality.


This doesn't include the fact that many games and settings teach quite a bit about history, and some include some solid lessons in science, and many players have improved their reading and math skills through their involvement in play, plus the social and communications skills that many develop. Many games have had "meaningful benefits" for players when they were merely intended to be fun. Some games have gone the extra distance to attempt to provide fodder for deeper play.

I'd be interested in seeing Cogs. That's exactly the sort of issue I would like to see done in a Multiverser world--but I promise not to steal it.

--M. J. Young

There is a large scale simulation type game that involves role-playing called the World Game. It takes place on a gym-floor size map of the world and participants take the part of portions of the world human population. There's a description of it here. I took part in it about 12 years ago, and it was a fantastic way to get a sense of world resources. The game encourages cooperative resolution of problems by giving people the experience of the alternatives.

--Emily Care

M. J. Young wrote:
• Orc Rising, currently being given away in beta form for play and comment from the Multiverser site, places the players in a world in which slavery is seen as beneficial for the slaves, and I think helps a lot of players understand what the world was like when good people who believed in freedom were also slave owners, and how that mindset could be seen as not inherently contradictory.

All depends on your meaning of "meaning" and "Productive". What's productive about a game of chess? Or what makes it more "productive" than a Gamist game of D&D? I think the MUD is more "productive" already than Chess.

These terms are so subjective that I think that you'll have problems with comeing up with examples. Or, rather, I think most designers will think of their game as meanigfully productive. I think that Sorcerer, for example, in looking at it's premise is a productive game and was designed to be "meaningful" (heck, that's almost the definition of Narrativist). Ralph amd I designed Universalis to create stories spontaneously, which I think is meaningfully productive.

Can you be more specific?

Mike

Palaskar wrote: For example, the ideal "meaningful" Gamist game would be akin to Chess or Go; the "meaningful" Narrativist game would be some "high-concept Premise" thing, like the one that's rolling around in my head just now, "Cogs", whose Premise is, "Which is better, freedom or happiness?"; the "meaningful" Sim game would be...I dunno, something educational like GURPS Transhuman Space, maybe.

Anyway, I think this would be a good idea to explore. I certainly feel it would help bring new people into RPGs, which the public IMHO seems to deride as something purely geeky.

I go away for a few days to work on my college re-application...and I find out I started a bonfire.

I'd didn't think of "meaningful" as "having a message" but that's probably a better way to phrase it than I did.

I included Chess and Go because they are deep strategic (tactical?) games that seem (to me, anyway) to be taken seriously by the public at large. If you say "I play chess", (IMO, anyway) people think you're smart. If you say, "I play role-playing games" people seem to stratch their heads until you explain, "You know, like Dungeons and Dragons?" at which point you are safely in geek territory.

I'll cut-and-paste the background from "Cogs" right here...I'm still working on the game itself, but that shouldn't take too long.

It's the 19th Century and you've just died and gone to Heaven. However, things there aren't quite as you've heard.

It seems that around the beginning of the Age of Reason, God became enamored of the concept of "Deism" -- that the universe is essentially a watch set in motion at the beginning of time by God, who then no longer interferes with His creation.

So, God began constructing a great Machine to run the Universe, with the soul of mortals as the parts of its mechanisms. You were to be one of these, a Cog in the great Machine, but a mysterious someone has intefered and sprung you, along with a few others, out of Heaven, leaving you mortal, alive, but without any memory of who you were.

So what do you do now?

Background

Heaven: Heaven is a place of pure, unadulterated, inhuman bliss. Each cog gives up its identity, its freedom, but in exchange for its part in the great Machine, the Cog is granted eternal bliss.

Hell: Hell is, to paraphrase a mortal philosopher, "Nasty, brutish...and eternal." Nobody is happy in Hell, but by the same token, no one tells you what to do.

Earth: Earth lies somewhere between Heaven and Hell in terms of freedom and happiness. It resembles our Earth during the height of the Industrial Revolution, but with one glaring difference: the notion of "liberty," of the basic human right of freedom, is nowhere to be found. On the Earth of Cogs, the American Revolution failed miserably, while the French Revolution never started. Earth is dominated by empires. The largest, the British Empire, controls most of North America, as well as India and various other colonies. The French Empire controls a significant portion of Africa, while the Spanish Empire dominates South America and the Phillippines.

Well, it is of the nature of my opinion that Role Playing Games are in it's infancy. This is especially true when you look at the persecution that other works have gone through. People burned books. It's only a matter of time untill RPGs come into society as something more than a trivial way to escape reality. People who wore glasses used to be geeks. People who read books used to be geeks. People who played computer/video games used to be geeks. I don't see a light at the end of the tunnel, but I hope it's their. And when I say a matter of time; remember, I think of time in periods of centuries.

About "productive"...what I'm really trying to do (I think, anyway...this is just like freeform chargen; you say one thing, but it's not what you really mean, you know?) is to get RPGs in general to be taken seriously by the public at large. "Meaningful" and "productive" are probably unuseful terms here. What I dream of...grr.

Well, it is of the nature of my opinion that Role Playing Games are in it's infancy. This is especially true when you look at the persecution that other works have gone through. People burned books. It's only a matter of time untill RPGs come into society as something more than a trivial way to escape reality. People who wore glasses used to be geeks. People who read books used to be geeks. People who played computer/video games used to be geeks. I don't see a light at the end of the tunnel, but I hope it's their. And when I say a matter of time; remember, I think of time in periods of centuries.

I believe the word you're looking for is respect. Be warned however, respected things are not always actually productive or meaningful. I'm sure there's tons of fans out there who take the words of NSYNC or Brittany Spears as life philosophies, as to the actual meaningfulness or productiveness, well...

A question though, why should the general public respect roleplaying? Like many other things that are now respected, jazz, opera, Picasso, Bach, these things were not repsected when they originated, usually not until they have been severly watered down and altered or long dead.

This is not to say that roleplaying shouldn't be respected, but more importantly, why does it matter to you, that it be respected? What do you hope to acheive or change with this?

Well, I can honestly say that there is a value to be gained from almost anything, although regardless of its "respect", people either learn from it or not based on their own ability. There's many philosophy and theology majors who are unsure about the nature of reality, unsure about right or wrong, and quite simply, not wise in any fashion. There are folks who learn a lot about life from even cartoons. It's all a matter of understanding what skills/values are being encouraged/shown and what value they hold.

If we take most industry rpg's out there, they encourage math, strategic thinking, understanding rules, etc. These things have use in the real world, especially in business, although that doesn't mean all roleplayers of those games become good businessmen. In the same light, chess is about strategy, although it doesn't take into account the factor of random odds, therefore has limited value as a strategic teaching tool. That doesn't invalidate it's use, but means that it is just one of many tools that can aid developing strategic ability.

Bringing it back to rpgs and design, if you want to design a meaningful game, ask yourself what you are trying to instill as the values/skills, and how can you encourage that? All games require and encourage certain skills. If you're talking about D&D, the stereotypical D&D player is that way because D&D encourages that sort of play. In order to get better at the game, you have to develop in certain areas.

Some questions to ask yourself in design:
•What is necessary to simply understand/use the rules? Math, social skills, good memory, resource management?
•What are winning strategies or activities that are rewarded? What's encouraged here?

Notice that being able to instill a value or a skill in a game has nothing to do with respect. In the case of taichi, the benefits are in the results. When you become an 80 year old man in perfect health, that's the benefit, not the respect given by society. If we're talking about a variety of things, ranging from religion, veganism, art, poetry, it ranges in the level of respect given by society, but it still has its value.

In the case of tai chi, it may or may not help you get a job. But then again, that's not what tai chi was designed to do is it? (although a martial art designed around getting a job would be kind of cool). In the case of roleplaying, it was designed for entertainment. If it does something above and beyond that, great, if not, that's fine too. If it fails even to entertain, that's when a game is failure.

So whatever it is you seek to add into gaming, that's great, just be aware of what, why and how you go about doing it.

Chris

I don't think it's petty to want respect for skill in a creative art form or craft.

Presuming you live in North America, you live in a society at present that is pretty disfunctional in its values overall. If it doesn't make money, it's not worth doing.

We have whole professions dedicated to teaching people how to have fun, value human interaction, relax, and move their bodies! It's very silly.

RPG's foster imagination, collaberative problem solving, math and logic skills. They reduce stress, provide social interaction, and provide emotional expression either overt or covert. They are a damn sight more respectible and healthy than television viewing. They ward off Alzheimer's disease.

Just think of it as another form of being a writer, m'darling.

It's all a matter of understanding what skills/values are being encouraged/shown and what value they hold.

It's only a matter of time untill RPGs come into society as something more than a trivial way to escape reality.

I don't think it's petty to want respect for skill in a creative art form or craft.

nipfipgip...dip wrote: I think roleplaying continues to be held back by the fact that, born in a more materialist time, many of its authors equate money to success. There is little art in most roleplay design exactly because respect seems to be attached to sales.

Alan wrote:

nipfipgip...dip wrote: I think roleplaying continues to be held back by the fact that, born in a more materialist time, many of its authors equate money to success. There is little art in most roleplay design exactly because respect seems to be attached to sales.

The core of role-playing is participation. When we play, we experience something that be recorded and transmitted to billions of people. Rules themselves may be judged as a print product, but it the nature of play the rules produce that give the rules artistic merit. If these sessions produce art, it is ephemeral. This may be another restriction on the spread of the role-playing hobby.

Palaskar wrote: I'd didn't think of "meaningful" as "having a message" but that's probably a better way to phrase it than I did.

I included Chess and Go because they are deep strategic (tactical?) games that seem (to me, anyway) to be taken seriously by the public at large. If you say "I play chess", (IMO, anyway) people think you're smart. If you say, "I play role-playing games" people seem to stratch their heads until you explain, "You know, like Dungeons and Dragons?" at which point you are safely in geek territory.

Wow, the thread didn't die. :-)

I think that for right now, the best or most interesting definition of "meaningful" here is "artistic" rather than "populist," as it's been throughly pointed out that although something populist may get you respect, it's usually not meaningful in the sense of being beautiful and lasting the centuries.

Just think of it as another form of being a writer, m'darling.

The core of role-playing is participation. When we play, we experience something that can't be recorded and transmitted to billions of people. Rules themselves may be judged as a print product, but it's the nature of play that the rules produce which gives the rules artistic merit. If these sessions produce art, it is ephemeral. This may be another restriction on the spread of the role-playing hobby.