I've just read Lehrich's new article, "Ritual Discourse in Role-Playing Games."

The thesis of the article appears to be that Role-Playing Games are ritual in nature, that their primary social function is to reaffirm group identity, and that there is a need to put the hobby in a broader social/theoretical context. While there is an extensive caveat saying that the argument is descriptive rather than prescriptive, there actually are clear prescriptions, as when the author says that the narrow view leads to an inability to see problems.

Let me start what is otherwise probably going to seem like a relentlessly negative review by saying that in a lot of ways, the author is probably right, that the social and psychological functions of role-playing, and even many of the trappings, are more like ritual than they are like other activities. Further, this is a fairly original idea, and is perhaps helpful in understanding the social dynamic involved.

However, I have problems with this article on three distinct levels. On a trivial level, I think the author has not properly addressed his arguments to his target audience; the article is dense, and jargon-filled. On a substantive level, this feels like an early draft to me; the structure still lacks coherence, and several of the arguments are left half-finished. On a more fundamental level, the sort that has no possible resolution aside from agree-to-disagree, I've never much cared for the sort of approach, or indeed the entire academic discipline, embodied in this style of argument.

On a trivial level, this article is almost entirely unreadable. I have generally found that, even within academia, the more unsure an author is of the correctness of his thesis, the more obfuscatory the text. This text was difficult to parse for me; for an individual unfamiliar with the jargon, it would be entirely uninterpretable. At the very least, it could use a hypertext-linked glossary. How many of its intended audience know what bricolage in the context of social sciences means? It would be entirely possible to rewrite this essay to make it accessible to the only people likely to read it.

On a more substantial level, I think the author tries to cover far too much ground, which leaves many of the arguments half-made, and many others left as little more than dangling assertions. There are many well-meant examples of other cultural phenomena, which are only weakly linked to role-playing counterparts. It's as if the author laid the foundation of an argument, and expects the reader to go along and fill it in. For instance, at one point he presents an example of separation, liminality, and aggregation in rites of passage, but then seems to lose track of providing parallel constructions in role-playing games. I could find no mention at all of the role-playing equivalent of an aggregation phase. More generally, while sometimes role-playing seems to be a natural fit to the canonical definitions of ritual, there are times when the author seems to need some convoluted constructions and a shoehorn to fit it in. The need for these contortions make me feel like his central premise, that role-playing is not just -like- ritual, but -is- ritual, is flawed.

On the broadest possible level, though, I have a fundamental disagreement with any theory which claims not to have a practical application. Something I tell my students constantly; if you can't conceive of a way to functionalize your theory, your theory is wrong. In order for a theory to be meaningful, it must have a direct connection to observable phenomena. In actuality, I think this theory does have meaning, but I think it would be a better article if this meaning were to be explicated.

----

Sorry if this comes off as a bit harsh; as I said at the start, I think this is an interesting, and probably useful, theory; I just think it needs a lot of work, on at least two levels, to be ready for prime time.

- James

Well, obviously I don't entirely agree, James. I do want to respond to a couple of points directly, however.

For clarification, the issue of prescriptive vs. descriptive, or practical vs. analytical. My point is that this is an analytical approach; it says nothing, so far as I can tell, about how to write games. This is by contrast to (for example) the GNS theory, which has the dual purpose of analysis and game-design. If a purely analytical theory seems non-functional or necessarily impractical, however, that's a separate argument entirely. I hope this clarifies that I don't think the analysis or theory is useless; I only think that it's quite possibly useless for designing new games.

On the jargon issue, I disagree flatly; in fact, I find this really sort of annoying, I'm afraid. For example, you mention the use of the term "bricolage." Agreed, that is a piece of jargon (although it can't be replaced with a short phrase and is thus a useful piece of jargon) and no author can necessarily assume that all readers know the term. But that's why I spent several paragraphs defining it carefully. Anyway, that's just a minor annoyance.

Chris Lehrich

clehrich wrote: On the jargon issue, I disagree flatly

james_west wrote: On a more substantial level, I think the author tries to cover far too much ground, which leaves many of the arguments half-made, and many others left as little more than dangling assertions. There are many well-meant examples of other cultural phenomena, which are only weakly linked to role-playing counterparts. It's as if the author laid the foundation of an argument, and expects the reader to go along and fill it in. For instance, at one point he presents an example of separation, liminality, and aggregation in rites of passage, but then seems to lose track of providing parallel constructions in role-playing games. I could find no mention at all of the role-playing equivalent of an aggregation phase.

james_west wrote: More generally, while sometimes role-playing seems to be a natural fit to the canonical definitions of ritual, there are times when the author seems to need some convoluted constructions and a shoehorn to fit it in. The need for these contortions make me feel like his central premise, that role-playing is not just -like- ritual, but -is- ritual, is flawed.

james_west wrote: I have a fundamental disagreement with any theory which claims not to have a practical application. Something I tell my students constantly; if you can't conceive of a way to functionalize your theory, your theory is wrong. In order for a theory to be meaningful, it must have a direct connection to observable phenomena. In actuality, I think this theory does have meaning, but I think it would be a better article if this meaning were to be explicated.

james_west wrote: On the other issue, a functional result of this theory, if I were to believe it, leaps to mind. To the extent that role-playing games are ritual, and our satisfaction from them derives from ritual elements, presumably they would only be improved if these elements were more consciously included and refined.

John Kim wrote: this sounds like the idea that if you want Narrativism, then in order to improve it you have to consciously define and address moral Premise

James,

I do think that you're taking some of this in terms of evaluation, which I think is highly problematic. For example:

One of the central arguments of this essay appears to be that the ritual elements are essential to role-playing as an experience. If this is true, then presumably the experience would be enhanced by consciously reinforcing these elements.

To the extent that role-playing games are ritual, and our satisfaction from them derives from ritual elements, presumably they would only be improved if these elements were more consciously included and refined.

clehrich wrote: It's simply inappropriate for the analyst of religious behaviors to dictate what others ought to do.

james_west wrote: It's funny that you say this, because I was going to use as an example at one point the fact that the changes in Vatican II ruined mass for me, as an effective ritual.

Saying that RPG play is a mode of ritual behavior, full top, is ignoring an important point about rituals. I'm sure Disneyworld, or the like, has an event with many of the outward symbols of Carnival - but it isn't. It doesn't socially function as a ritual, it just appropriates a lot of the signs of one.

Your essay seems quite clear that scrabble is not ritual; the difference between role-playing and scrabble is a series of fine gradations. There must be some point at which the line is crossed, in your estimation.

Chris, is this ground rule of "analysis without synthesis" a temporary state of affairs (let's hold off on synthesis until we reach some particular milestone in analysis) or a permanent one?

If it's permanent, then, well, I really can't see any difference between analysis without the possibility of synthesis, and absolutely nothing at all. If applying (either actually or hypothetically) the analysis in any way toward altering the phenomenon that's been analyzed or to similar phenomena (which as far as I can tell is what synthesis means here) is off limits, then in what way is your analsyis more useful or meaningful than, say, a computer-generated list of random words? I don't mean to sound dismissive or hostile, though I realize that I do sound that way, but I haven't been able to come up with a way to phrase the question that doesn't sound that way. I assure you that I'm intensely curious about the answer.

- Walt

Walt,

An interesting question. I guess for me, looking at this from a more or less anthropological perspective, the slide from analysis into synthesis is fantastically dangerous, and ringed around with a number of horrible, inexcusable events in colonial history. So I'm naturally wary.

At the same time, folks like Ron Grimes have been arguing that ritual theory can and should contribute to ritual-ism, and he's worked on that within both theater groups like Jerzy Grotowski's Poor Theater and more traditional ritual organizations. So I do think there's the possibility of useful and constructive dialogue on both sides.

But I do see these as different projects. Trying to understand what "the natives" are doing, even if the natives happen to be RPG players, and even if the natives happen to include myself, is not the same thing as trying to come up with better ways for us natives to do what we do. The goals and priorities are necessarily different.

Think of it like the old (and problematic) wheeze of distinguishing between primary and secondary sources. I'm trying to do some preliminary analysis of RPG's that produces secondary sources; the constant pull in RPG theory is to produce good primary sources. I think that this is one of the (many) reasons that there is essentially no dialogue between the RPG community and the larger intellectual mainstream: in essence, RPG discourse talks to RPG-ers, and doesn't really aim to engage the interests or approaches of others. Since these are primary sources, there's no reason they should talk to anyone else, but one of the purposes of comparative analysis is precisely to effect such communication.

So is it permanent, to get back to your question? Yes, I suppose it is, although I would hope there would be cross-fertilization. That's why I posted here, after all, and haven't yet thought seriously about submitting to academic journals.

Does it produce random words only? No. And that's where I'm lost. The aim is to produce fine-grained interpretive understanding of what RPG's are, why people do them, and how they are part of a larger spectrum of human social behaviors. Why is that only random words?

Chris Lehrich

You know, I said in my very first post that the very issue we've been arguing about is one in sufficiently fundamental that no resolution is possible.

It still strikes me as amusing to have you arguing, in essence, "No, d*mmit, my theory is completely useless !" However, I knew from the start that your discipline requires you to say that, which is why I hadn't originally meant to get involved in this sort of argument.

However, this thread has produced a new, basic question for me. If it is neither behavior, nor attittude, nor a combination of the two that makes role-playing a ritual, it is entirely unclear to me at this point what is. In your original essay, you pick out elements of behavior, and show ways in which they're similar to existing rituals, which implies that this is not true; that specific behaviors are the basis for your judgement.

At this point, it's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with your essay; you've moved me to the point where I've really no idea what you were trying to say, or what your basis was for saying it.

Could you rephrase your thesis a bit, to clarify this?

- James

james_west wrote: ...to have you arguing, in essence, "No, d*mmit, my theory is completely useless !"

If it is neither behavior, nor attittude, nor a combination of the two that makes role-playing a ritual, it is entirely unclear to me at this point what is. In your original essay, you pick out elements of behavior, and show ways in which they're similar to existing rituals, which implies that this is not true; that specific behaviors are the basis for your judgement.

Could you rephrase your thesis a bit, to clarify this?

I appologize for sticking my newbie, totally NOT an acedemic, little head into this discussion, but let me see if I get this straight.

The idea of analysis free of synthesis is that "pure" analysis is helpful for "non-natives" to understand "natives" but may have zero usefulness to the natives themselves?

Synthesis would be the "natives" actually using this information to somehow modify their behavior in the attempt to "do it better."

This is all compounded by the notion that any analysis of RPGs is useless, because it is not intended to change actual gamers... and non-gamers don't give a shit about RPGs so would never find any value in understanding them. Right?


Ok then... is it a problem then, as a long time RPG player who has no desire to create an actual game system for publication, that I actually DO find use in the simple theory that playing an RPG is a form of ritual?

I find that notion very significant. It provides me a deeper grasp of what is going on every Thursday night in my basement amongst the Cheeze-Its and caffeine and movie discussions. I think this is highly valuable. but it WILL change my behavior. A change in knowledge MUST change behavior.

To think that any analysis doesn't effect change... which seems to be the big fear of the anthropological doctrine... is just crap. The observer can't help but affect the experiment. Any analysis can't help but change those who read it.

Can you really separate analysis from synthesis? That seems to be a delusion designed to comfort the appologists for "colonialism" and whatever other guilt our culture is supposed to carry around.

Even if all you want to do is create discussion, then your theory/analysis is creating change... it is affecting anyone who pays any attention to it... and we only pay attention to something for our own betterment. Either to avoid a threat or gain an advantage/improvement. Either way, analysis changes efficacy simply by existing.

Anyway... I may have completely misread this entire thread... so I'll just go back to lurking. If it offends you, I won't mention how our group discusses this whole "ritual" thing tonight, before we start shooting it out with Yakuza gangs in the streets of San Francisco. :)

Hi, welcome, glad to see you de-lurk!

RDU Neil wrote: The idea of analysis free of synthesis is that "pure" analysis is helpful for "non-natives" to understand "natives" but may have zero usefulness to the natives themselves? [And] Synthesis would be the "natives" actually using this information to somehow modify their behavior in the attempt to "do it better."

This is all compounded by the notion that any analysis of RPGs is useless, because it is not intended to change actual gamers... and non-gamers don't give a shit about RPGs so would never find any value in understanding them. Right?

is it a problem then, as a long time RPG player who has no desire to create an actual game system for publication, that I actually DO find use in the simple theory that playing an RPG is a form of ritual?

I think this is highly valuable. but it WILL change my behavior. A change in knowledge MUST change behavior.

Can you really separate analysis from synthesis? That seems to be a delusion designed to comfort the appologists for "colonialism" and whatever other guilt our culture is supposed to carry around.

Anyway... I may have completely misread this entire thread... so I'll just go back to lurking. If it offends you, I won't mention how our group discusses this whole "ritual" thing tonight, before we start shooting it out with Yakuza gangs in the streets of San Francisco. :)

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

Hi Walt,

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

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

"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."

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?

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

RDU Neil wrote: 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.

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'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.

contracycle wrote: 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.

"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.

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

I'd read it.

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

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

clehrich wrote: 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?

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

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

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

Gordon C. Landis wrote: 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?

Chris Lehrich wrote: 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.

clehrich wrote: What about the critique of GNS, for example?

clerhrich (in article) wrote: The natural upshot of such an endeavor is to reify the categories as ontologically legitimate, mystify their constructed character, and thus naturalize the authority-claims latent within such structures. .... Narrativist orientations do not differ from Simulationist or Gamist ones except insofar as we construct them so. Classification is the basis of comparison, not of truth or certainty.

clehrich wrote: Or the stuff about feminism?

clehrich wrote: Or the stuff about ... social contract problems, and the social dynamic of gaming?

So, to anyone nuts enough still to be following this....

Assuming you all read James's last post, which included a large number of important points, I want to ask a question. I'll get back to why I'm asking in just a second.

Skipping over the point about GNS, with which my disagreements are very trivial and can happen somewhere else if at all, James made several interesting remarks about the feminism, social contract, and so forth things in the ritual article. His phrasing was primarily (I think deliberately) oriented toward the constructive, i.e. toward how he would go and think about making use of such notions in game design or play.

So what I want to ask is this: do the ideas, as he put them, actually seem useful to you? Does that accord at all with what you thought reading those parts of the article (assuming you stayed awake long enough to get there)?

Now, why am I asking?

Well, after all this stuff about me providing a summary of some ritual theory, I notice that -- I think, I have to really process this very very slowly -- the points James picked up are all quite startlingly in accord with a particular approach to ritual theory; furthermore, the bits he doesn't seem to like are also ones those guys don't like either. This fascinates me, because this approach -- basically Grimes, Schechner, and maybe the very late career of Turner, for those who read this stuff -- is not one I like at all for most ritual work I do. This suggests to me one of several possibilities:

1. Cynically, I suppose it's possible that James is picking up on what I don't like and throwing it back at me. I think this is very, very unlikely. It doesn't seem like James, and I think he'd have to know an awful lot about ritual theory to pick it up with this precision for this purpose.

2. I'm for some reason presenting a theoretical approach I don't like exceedingly sympathetically, probably overcompensating in the interest of balance. I doubt this, but it is true that some of the way I split up the approach to John's binary model might support this.

3. Most likely, there's something about that theoretical model that fits RPG's rather better than it fits the sort of ritual material I usually work on.

I realize that I can't seriously ask you all to assess that question head-on; I haven't presented the theories clearly or coherently. (If someone out there has been reading this stuff in depth, I'd love to hear about it, but if not no worries.) So what I'm asking:

If after reading James's critical and constructive remarks, the ones in the last 2/3 of his last post, you more or less thought, "Yeah -- sounds right, tell me more," I want to know. Because the fact that I really can't stand Grimes and Schechner actually suggests to me that their theoretical models, while crap as general theories, may be strikingly helpful in a constructive sense to gamers.

...Which I think is something you'd want to know about, if true.

Anyway, that's my question.

Chris Lehrich

Hiya Chris,

My answer to your questions: I'm with James in all particulars, regarding your article. And it strikes me that he (and I) are simply approaching the concept of "ritual" in a way that leads to his points being very consistent with one another.

If that way is also consistent with a particular body of theory/approach to "ritual," then that's neat. The legitimacy of that body of thought seems, to me, to be relatively unimportant - if there are objections to it out there that really stomp it into the dirt, then maybe they could be laid out and shown to apply (or not) to James' points. But if your objections to that body of theory is ... well, "I hate it," or "It's not consistent with how I want to do it," then you have the usual multiple-subdisciplines issue going on, and we should all just embroider different banners and still be happy.

In other words, I guess I'm coming down in favor of the "consistent with the theory you hate" idea, but leavening it with "And so what, be happy."

Best,
Ron

Ron,

I think I phrased that last post badly. I was coming off of all that discussion of analysis and synthesis. What I'm saying is that if the various responses seem strikingly in accord with a sophisticated body of theory about ritual, albeit one I dislike, but about which most folks here don't particularly know much, then that body of theory might be constructively useful for game design, which seems to be what a lot of folks are sort of hoping for if ritual theory is going to be brought to the Forge table.

I don't want to prejudice the debate by much explaining the theory, or my objections, at the moment. I just want to collect data. If you find James's comments here parallel to your thinking, then that supports my suspicion that this sort of theory may be useful. The fact that I don't like it as general ritual theory is neither here nor there; this is now a synthetic and not an analytical question.

Of course, for me as analyst, it's quite interesting to see what modes of theory turn out to be of synthetic value, for quite other reasons....

Chris Lehrich

I know the thread's moved on, but for the sake of fairness I want to acknowledge Chris's response to my skeptical questions.

Chris wrote:

Walt wrote:
"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

Does that help?

I had a though on the reinforcement of social norms issue.

Unsurprisingly, I'm fully in agreement with the diagnosis of ritual as the obfuscation of social athorioty, the mystification of the origin of dictatorial legitimacy. I therefore I agree with the description of initiation rituals as carrying out this function. The point I wanted to raise is this: unlike an initiation ritual, RPG is largely conducted by peers, which robs the liminal space of an authority which imposes the local dogma. In this regard, RPG is like an initation ritual that is NOT lead by an existing adept.

One might think that the GM takes on this role, and they do to a degree, but they too have to fight tooth and nail for their vision of the social order to be accepted if it contradicts the expectations of other participants. Specifically here I am aiming at RPG as conducted by adolescents, which I feel throws the social norms issue into sharper contrast, because by and large these participants have little to no experience of the realities of adult life. When I started RPG, issues surrounding the running of a household were not just relatively uninteresting by comparison to smiting orcs, they were actually alien.

Therefore, I suggest much autonomously conducted RPG resembles the Lord of the Flies, in that the people constructing and enforcing the social norms are doing so from a very limited perspective. Because nobody is capable of adopting a genuinely authoritative position from which to impose a norm, nor has such as a goal of engaging in the activity, such a position can only be achieved by massive and serial conflict until deference and consensus emerge.

Lastly, a comment on the Marxist analysis of the ritual establishment and obfuscation of social authority. It is indeed the case that this view as to the nature and purpose of ritual activity is held, but it is not true to say that this view precludes ritual activity being subverted or exploited for revolutionary puporses. Dialectical Materialsim holds that A is not equal to A, and that the material implementation of a model inevitably and unavoidably introduces deviations from the model in abstract; this easily opens a gap in which a specific subversive activity can seize and exploit an existing hegemonic discourse to present an alternative discourse or an advocacy of a hegemony based on alternate principles. In addition, I disagree that there be a necessary division between the beneficiaries of such ritual systems and those arguably disadvantaged by them, as the argument rather is that the emotional need to construct such a authoritative structure precedes self-awareness or articulation of this need. While there IS a functional division, there is no need in this view for such construction to be engaged in deliberately or consciously.

Very interesting article. I support you wholeheartedly in the concept of pure analytical (rather than practical) studies of the anthropology of games. Your idea of RPGs as ritual is intriguing, and worth further work.

Personally, I think the document started to slack off when you started discussing social norms, feminism, degree of absorption into characterization, and suchlike. These thick and meaty subjects -- upon which gallons of ink or virtual-ink gets spilled monthly -- seemed like you walked through them pro-forma. I believe that you have made a nice sketch of the vague areas, but need to do deeper mapping.

Out of curiosity, have you read Gary Fine's Shared fantasy: role-playing games as social worlds?

http://isbndb.com/d/book/shared_fantasy.html

I don't recall seeing it in the sources.

Anyway, good start. Keep it up!

CU

Greetings and please 'scuse my newbieness.

I would like to ask Mr. Lehrich why he classifies White Wolf's games as Neo Pagan? I am about to post an article which may clarify why this seemingly tangential point of his article is of particular interest to me.

Thanks again,

Krista

Krista,

Welcome to the Forge!

And "Chris" will do fine, thanks -- no need for formality.

Librisia wrote: I would like to ask Mr. Lehrich why he classifies White Wolf's games as Neo Pagan? I am about to post an article which may clarify why this seemingly tangential point of his article is of particular interest to me.

CU [chadu],

I think the document started to slack off when you started discussing social norms, feminism, degree of absorption into characterization, and suchlike. These thick and meaty subjects -- upon which gallons of ink or virtual-ink gets spilled monthly -- seemed like you walked through them pro-forma.

clehrich wrote: CU [chadu],

chadu wrote: I think the document started to slack off when you started discussing social norms, feminism, degree of absorption into characterization, and suchlike. These thick and meaty subjects -- upon which gallons of ink or virtual-ink gets spilled monthly -- seemed like you walked through them pro-forma.

True enough, but I really wasn't trying to solve anything in these areas, if you see what I mean. That is, I don't see this as a complete model in any sense. I see it as a prolegomenon to a great deal of interesting work that could and should be done on the anthropology and sociology of RPG's. Thus in these particular areas my main point is to demonstrate that application of such models raises interesting questions, while at the same time fitting more or less kinda roughly pretty well.

clehrich wrote: As to Gary Fine -- haven't read it, but will soon. Thanks for the link.

Contracycle,

I think we're on the same page for a Marxist read of ritual, but I'll make my pitch and you can tell me where I jump the rails:

contracycle wrote: The point I wanted to raise is this: unlike an initiation ritual, RPG is largely conducted by peers, which robs the liminal space of an authority which imposes the local dogma. In this regard, RPG is like an initation ritual that is NOT lead by an existing adept.... [cutting discussion of GM as adept]

Because nobody is capable of adopting a genuinely authoritative position from which to impose a norm, nor has such as a goal of engaging in the activity, such a position can only be achieved by massive and serial conflict until deference and consensus emerge.

Lastly, a comment on the Marxist analysis of the ritual establishment and obfuscation of social authority. It is indeed the case that this view as to the nature and purpose of ritual activity is held, but it is not true to say that this view precludes ritual activity being subverted or exploited for revolutionary puporses.

chadu wrote: Fair enough; let me just state that I would very much like to read an analytical work -- rather than a practical work -- on women and women's issues (amongst other issues; some others of interest to me would be catharsis issues -- unconscious catharsis vs. conscious/direct catharsis -- and how those relate to game-derailing actions or players) in gaming.