After reading a few threads, here and on RPGnet, about escapism and "genre", I've been thinking about something that I've rarely seen discussed about RPGs.

The goal of many "non-gamers" games is to facilitate socializing with friends and allow one to discover facets of one's friends personalities that would not show in everyday interactions. The canonical example would be Scruples, where winning means guessing the answers to your fellow players to moral dilemmas (exploration of character, so to speak, but not yours).

While RPGS have many similarities with that style of gaming (after all, virtual dilemmas are common in them), the social part is conflicting with the "escapism" part. Being "in the story" though a carefully constructed alter-ego is quite a solitary, if not narcissistic, past-time.

[Yes, I'm caricaturing]

Not to portray your post as a cariacature in response, but are you saying that RPGs are anti-social? Or that they just lack an interesting element present in other games?

Mike

It seems to me that he's saying that the "escapism" elements of RPGs sort of preclude it from being a social activity. I guess. I can see it if you consider it as a social activity where everyone pretends to be somebody they are not. Then who are these people?

I don't think this is true of every game, or if this is really something that happens or is worth discussing. But maybe it is. *shrug*

There's also the question of which facets of a player are represented in the character, and what it says about a player to portray a certain type of character. That can be pretty revealing, I think.

What I'm saying is, more simply, that the elements that appeal to the escapist might conflict with the elements that would be please the social gamer.

Yes, to some extent, the fun is in seeing what your friends choose for characters and what things they can come up with but I'm not sure that the rules encourage or facilitate this.

All RPG play is about escapism to some degree. Actually, all entertainment and any hobby is ultimately about escapism. Frex, anyone who reads a novel of any genre is participating in escapism.

So, I'm not sure what to make of this perceived distinction...that is, I don't see any value in it myself. Someone care to enlighten me?

I believe Thierry is refering to games that have, say, a lot of directorial power or metagame issues. Someone who considers escapism to be almost synonomous with "being someone else for a little while" might have issues with such games and not enjoy them. Social players would, on the other hand, like the more "OOC" interaction allowed by the metagame and directorial possibilities that let them get to know the players and not the characters.

While I see the distinction, I think varying moods and a mix of preferances may over-ride any value the distinction might have beyond self-knowledge.

-Chris

greyorm wrote: So, I'm not sure what to make of this perceived distinction...that is, I don't see any value in it myself. Someone care to enlighten me?

What I'm saying is, more simply, that the elements that appeal to the escapist might conflict with the elements that would be please the social gamer.

I think that most people play for both reasons. It's great to pretend to be a powerful wizard or Luke Skywalker for a few hours every week or two.

It's also a great way to hang out with your buddies and have a good time. IC, OOC, it isn't really important. What IS important is that you are playing a game with some friends, much like Monopoly or poker.

Roleplaying in a group is inherently a social activity. It's not really something you can do by yourself.

I would like to contrast this with online roleplaying games (if i may be a heretic for a moment). Everquest, is in my opinion, actually quite anti-social, and pure escapism. There is simulated contact with people, not real contact, and from what i've seen, most EQ players get so wrapped up in EQ that they will ignore all else around them, and will skip class/work in order to escape.

arxhon wrote: I would like to contrast this with online roleplaying games (if i may be a heretic for a moment).

It was not so long ago that I recognized, contrary to what is suggested here, that (real) role playing games are an intensely social activity. A group of people come together and relate to each other in the process of creating an imaginary group of people who also relate to each other. In some ways, the interactions of the one are a mirror on the other. In some ways each is a place in which people can experiment with social interactions. We can do things at the table which involve our relationships with each other; we can have our characters do things in the games which involve their relationships with each other. It is social interaction examining social interaction. I imagine many gamers have learned more about how to relate to people through gaming than they realize, both by testing such things in the game and by getting together with the friends with whom they play.

I know one guy who has been accused of using his games to psyche people, to figure out what makes them tick and how to manipulate them in real life. The social aspects of role playing games should not be undervalued.

--M. J. Young

Just to clarify a point. I'm not thinking of out-of-game chat etc. I'm thinking specifically of the (lack of) elements in rpgs that reward exploring each other's personality or group dynamics.

For instance, consider a simple example : each player creates his/her own character because "what fun would it be to play somebody you don't like ?"

But the other players might be interested in making you play someone different from your habitual persona, just to see how you do it, or how you would react to their ideas for you, etc. and they might also be interested in seeing what ideas you would come up with for them to play. So I can see the rationale, from a "social gaming" viewpoint, of allowing players to interfere with each other's characte'rs creation.

M. J. Young wrote: In some ways each is a place in which people can experiment with social interactions. We can do things at the table which involve our relationships with each other; we can have our characters do things in the games which involve their relationships with each other.

Tierry wrote: Just to clarify a point. I'm not thinking of out-of-game chat etc. I'm thinking specifically of the (lack of) elements in rpgs that reward exploring each other's personality or group dynamics.

Matt Gwinn wrote: Then there are games like Universalis that allow you to establish rules outside the game world, like being able to spend a token to make Mike go get you a pop.

Mike Holmes wrote: Certainly not good for those people who are looking to eliminate metagame as an impedence to their Immersion.

OK, let's posit that there are games which actively eliminate these sorts of elements. Is a game that has no elements that actively promote socialization anti-social? I'd say not at all. I've seen sewing circles where everyone was so into it that nobody talked or otherwise communicated for hours. But it's still social. Simply being in close proximity to other humans is social.

Forgive me if I've missed the point. If you aren't trying to make RPGs sound anti-social, what are you trying to do? Point out that a subset of RPGs has a certain substantive difference from a subset of non-RPGs? I'm not sure what the relevance is? Why bring it up at all?

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: Why bring it up at all?

Mike Holmes wrote:
I'm not sure what the relevance is? Why bring it up at all?

Emily Care wrote: Thierry, do you have any aspects of "social" games in mind that could be used in rpg to good effect?

Ah, Ok, now I get it. It's not "RPGs don't have this", it's, "how do I put this in an RPG?"

Well, that's a great question. An obvious suggestion is to design as an "I" game. As in Villains and Vigilantes where you play yourself in an alternate universe, essentially. Then you are perforce saying something about yourself with each decision.

Of course, I never played V&V that way...

Mike