The Forge Reference Project

 

Topic: Ritual Discourse in Role-Playing Games
Started by: james_west
Started on: 2/4/2004
Board: RPG Theory


On 2/4/2004 at 5:40pm, james_west wrote:
Ritual Discourse in Role-Playing Games

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

Message 9638#100509

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by james_west
...in which james_west participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/4/2004




On 2/5/2004 at 2:01am, clehrich wrote:
Re: Ritual Discourse in Role-Playing Games

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

Message 9638#100610

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by clehrich
...in which clehrich participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/5/2004




On 2/5/2004 at 2:38am, james_west wrote:
RE: Re: Ritual Discourse in Role-Playing Games

clehrich wrote: On the jargon issue, I disagree flatly


Words like 'crypto-synthesis' and 'semiotics' are also, I'm afraid, unfamiliar to most readers outside the ivory tower, and the social-sciences writing style itself is horrid (although this is a perfecly reasonable example of it). There's a reason no-one outside the social sciences writes that way ... This really seems like a trivial issue to argue over, but I do stress that this essay, stylistically, is very much denser than it needs to be. Get someone you know that isn't an academic, but is otherwise well read, to look at it.

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.

- James

Message 9638#100619

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by james_west
...in which james_west participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/5/2004




On 2/5/2004 at 2:38am, John Kim wrote:
RE: Re: Ritual Discourse in Role-Playing Games

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.

Well, I agree somewhat. It isn't complete. I also don't think Chris meant at all that this is supposed to be the final word on RPGs-and-ritual, with nothing left to be filled in. I think there is tons of room for further discussion. Aggregation is a good point for further discussion. Also note that the rites-of-passage is just an analogy. Chris isn't saying that RPGs are rites of passage -- he is drawing comparisons between one form of ritual (rites of passage) and another form of ritual (RPGs).

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.

Can you talk about those times? Note that all comparisons to other rituals are explicitly flawed because RPGs aren't the same as any other ritual. RPGs are different from rites of passage, just as rites of passage are different from Carnival, and so forth. I think you may be taking the premise to be more than it is. Chris isn't saying that RPGs match a particular other form of ritual. He's just saying that they are a form of ritual unto themselves, which are distinct from other forms.

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.

I think this is still an early stage to assert a definite meaning. For example, physics most certainly does have practical applications. However, I don't think that Copernicus had much if any practical applications in mind when he proposed that the Earth revolves around the sun. The same is true of Galileo when he was timing how balls rolled down slopes. The ultimate applications of these principles were vastly different than anything which the original thinker could have conceived, I think.

Message 9638#100621

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by John Kim
...in which John Kim participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/5/2004




On 2/5/2004 at 2:44am, John Kim wrote:
RE: Re: Ritual Discourse in Role-Playing Games

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.

Whoah. OK, 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 -- which is something that Ron frequently rails against.

Thinking about something too much isn't always the most fun. An analytical theory might tell us a cause for enjoyment, but that doesn't mean that the thing needs to be consciously thought about in play.

Message 9638#100624

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by John Kim
...in which John Kim participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/5/2004




On 2/5/2004 at 3:11am, james_west wrote:
RE: Re: Ritual Discourse in Role-Playing Games

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


No, but if you want Narrativism, you -do- have to have thought about it at some time, because it most likely isn't going to happen if you haven't thought about it.

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 use an example from the essay itself, LARP employs a very distinct separation phase. Presumably the LARP would suffer if the separation phase were eliminated or suppressed. The players of the LARP aren't explicitly thinking of it in ritual terms, but that makes no difference to the effectiveness of the techinique.

- James

Message 9638#100631

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by james_west
...in which james_west participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/5/2004




On 2/5/2004 at 4:10am, clehrich wrote:
RE: Re: Ritual Discourse in Role-Playing Games

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.
Again,
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.
It's not a question of "essential to" or "elements of" or whatever. I'm saying that RPG play is a mode of ritual behavior, full stop. It can't be made more so: it is what it is.

You, from within whatever interior perspective you choose, can evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the game; for me standing analytically, this would be like saying that Catholic Mass is better than Lutheran Mass because the doctrine of transubstantiation is a stronger ritual element. I don't have this right.

[Edited to add:
For clarity's sake, let me use the same example you've mentioned, that of separation in LARPs. Separation happens, in essence, because I have chosen to interpret the actual events within that framework, by drawing an analogy to a particular theory of passage-rites. The LARP group cannot eliminate this, even if they wanted to; we stand in different worlds. Supposing that they wanted to enforce separation more strongly, I suppose there are techniques by which they might do this. But why would they want to? There's nothing here about efficacy or power or whatever; it's simply a part of the process that human beings seem to go through in life-passages. I think you're inserting an evaluation criterion.]

Similarly, consciousness or intent has nothing to do with this analytically.

Finally, and on the same note, the changes that you call "enhancements" or "improvements" are, to me, changes. I can describe them, and analyze what impact they have had. I cannot make suggestions for good ways to "enhance the effect" of ritual, because I don't really know what sort of effect it is that you think the ritual is supposed to have -- if indeed it has any at all -- and I certainly am not going to suggest that you alter the ritual to make it have more of the same effects, nor in the process lend my support to one limited vision of what RPG's are "really" about. How do I know that this is a good thing? How could I possibly arrogate to myself the position of arbiter?

It's simply inappropriate for the analyst of religious behaviors to dictate what others ought to do. Similarly, a purely analytic approach to RPG's should be descriptive, not prescriptive.

This is part of why I am so insistent that we separate analysis from synthesis, which is ultimately the primary methodological point of the article.

Chris Lehrich

Message 9638#100642

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by clehrich
...in which clehrich participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/5/2004




On 2/5/2004 at 4:32am, james_west wrote:
RE: Re: Ritual Discourse in Role-Playing Games

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


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. Frankly, I think it is not possible to avoid evaluation criteria. If you claim you are, it's not because you don't have them, but because you don't want to vocalize them.

- James

Message 9638#100647

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by james_west
...in which james_west participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/5/2004




On 2/5/2004 at 4:46am, clehrich wrote:
RE: Re: Ritual Discourse in Role-Playing Games

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.
Perhaps so, but the analyst of ritual does not have the right to make this judgment. One of the basic principles of cultural analysis is that one must be exceedingly wary of making normative judgments like this, of saying that this or that behavior is better or worse. In essence, that boils down to an aesthetic judgment and has no place in analytic study; to assert it as fact rather than aesthetics is bigotry.
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.
You clearly have a definition of ritual in your head, but it's not clear to me what this is, nor why I should accept it as valid. One of the results of the last hundred-odd years of definition fights with respect to things like ritual, magic, myth, religion, and so forth is that there is no a priori reason to think that Disneyworld events are not entirely commensurable to carnivalesque rituals. Of course no Disneyworld event is Carnival -- I'm assuming you mean some particular ritual when you say "Carnival," not a general category -- but one may very well be reasonably comparable. Why wouldn't it be?
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.
The issue of game and ritual is horrendously complex, and not one I really want to delve into here; I think it's been kind of a dead-end for ritual studies for a while, and little of value has been achieved. I brought up the ritual/game distinction in Levi-Strauss -- with the caveat that it was not a legitimate general theory of either -- for a specific reason in the essay: to consider conjunctive vs. disjunctive effects at a social level. What's the specific comparison you're drawing here?

Chris Lehrich

Message 9638#100650

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by clehrich
...in which clehrich participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/5/2004




On 2/5/2004 at 4:52am, Walt Freitag wrote:
RE: Ritual Discourse in Role-Playing Games

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

Message 9638#100651

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Walt Freitag
...in which Walt Freitag participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/5/2004




On 2/5/2004 at 5:05am, clehrich wrote:
RE: Ritual Discourse in Role-Playing Games

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

Message 9638#100652

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by clehrich
...in which clehrich participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/5/2004




On 2/5/2004 at 1:45pm, james_west wrote:
RE: Ritual Discourse in Role-Playing Games

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

Message 9638#100690

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by james_west
...in which james_west participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/5/2004




On 2/5/2004 at 3:27pm, clehrich wrote:
RE: Ritual Discourse in Role-Playing Games

james_west wrote: ...to have you arguing, in essence, "No, d*mmit, my theory is completely useless !"
I'm not arguing that, because I do not think analysis is useless. Suppose I'm an historian analyzing the causes of the Thirty Years' War. I propose some solutions to why I think it happened. This doesn't really have any application to modern politics, since the Thirty Years' War was a long time ago. Why is what I've just done useless? That's the historian's craft, after all. Again, if I analyze Gravity's Rainbow in detail, and make some arguments about what's going on there and how Pynchon manipulates words, this isn't directly helpful to learning how to write good novels. If someone finds it so, good for them; that's icing on the cake. But is such analysis useless if it doesn't help anyone write novels?

This is my point about analyzing RPG's. I think that producing effective analysis of what goes on in play, as a mode of human behavior, is worthwhile for the same reason as producing effective analysis of Bororo kinship structures is useful. If it also turns out to be useful to game designers, that's icing on the cake, but I don't see that as essential.

This is what I meant in this admittedly somewhat opaque remark:

"If theory must face a practical proof-critique, then all analysis is already crypto-synthesis; logically speaking, there is thus insufficient distance postulated to ensure the validity of the analysis."

I didn't really think this would be a central bone of contention, so I didn't want to expand greatly on that, but essentially what I'm saying is this:

If every time someone does exterior analysis of RPG's, gamers can say, "Yeah, but if it doesn't help us make better games then it's useless," then what's being said is that all analysis has to be synthesis; that is, all analytical work has to produce constructive results within the hobby. Furthermore, it says that analytical work can only be produced by those who design games, for that purpose, which means that there's no way to stand back far enough from game design to produce valid results. This discards the possibility of pure analysis; it says that either (1) analytical modes like literary criticism or history are totally worthless, or (2) RPG's are different and special and can't be analyzed this way. I think both claims are dubious, even immoral.

[edited to add]As to the "crypto-" part, what I mean is that if it's true that all analysis has to serve practical construction ends, then even models and analyses that claim otherwise are actually constructive models in disguise -- crypto-syntheses. There seems to be some concern about whether this article fits that model, for example, and I'm saying that it doesn't particularly.[end edit]

There's more to it, from a logical standpoint, but that's the gist.
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.
It's behavior. If I seem to have said otherwise, I've not been clear.
Could you rephrase your thesis a bit, to clarify this?

The relevant thesis is: RPG play is a mode of ritual behavior.

Note that there are numerous others, particularly the points made in the final section, but this is the one that's so far been discussed.

Chris Lehrich

Message 9638#100708

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by clehrich
...in which clehrich participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/5/2004




On 2/5/2004 at 4:42pm, RDU Neil wrote:
Eh... wot?

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. :)

Message 9638#100717

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by RDU Neil
...in which RDU Neil participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/5/2004




On 2/5/2004 at 5:13pm, clehrich wrote:
Re: Eh... wot?

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."
Yes, that's about right.
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?
No, I don't agree there. I keep using the word "impractical," but this keeps turning into "useless." I mean that analysis of RPG's need not try to change gamers in order to be worth doing. Analysis of RPG's need not have the practical function of making gamers change their games; the validity of the analysis does not rest on whether it changes gamers' behaviors.

As to the second, about non-gamers not caring about RPG's, I'm not sure where you saw this; it certainly wasn't intended by me. Sadly, I do think it's mostly true, but there's no reason it should be. In fact, I'd like to see a lot more contact between the groups, but I admit that I don't see this happening any time soon.
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?
No, why would it be? I'm happy that you find the theory useful to you, and I'd love to hear about what you find useful about it. All I'm saying is that even if every actual gamer finds the analysis useless in a practical sense, that doesn't invalidate the analysis. But if you do find it useful, I'm pleased as punch.
I think this is highly valuable. but it WILL change my behavior. A change in knowledge MUST change behavior.
Of course it does. But let's temporarily divide the world into two groups: gamers and non-gamers. The former read the article, think about it, etc., and necessarily change somewhat. I do not know what their conclusions will be, nor how they will change their behavior, and I don't make a lot of suggestions about how they ought to do so. The latter read the article, think about it, etc., and also necessarily change somewhat. Here I make strong prescriptive claims about how such readers ought to change their thinking: they ought to think about gaming differently than they currently do. So I make prescriptive claims in one area, but not another.
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.
You can't entirely separate them, no. In the same way, one can't be entirely objective in analysis. But the fact that one can't be perfectly objective isn't a legitimate excuse for, let's say, bigotry. Similarly, the fact that separating analysis from synthesis is not perfectly possible does not mean that it's not worth trying.

The colonialism point is, I think, getting misread. It's not that anyone is trying to apologize for colonialism; it's a matter of not letting it happen again. This is basically the Prime Directive, in point of fact. When you study the natives, you should probably try not to change their lives. Of course you end up doing so, just by being there, but you should certainly try not to. On one extreme, let's put the very professional anthropologist who works very hard simply to observe as passively as possible; of course he effects changes, but because he's thinking ahead he doesn't do so too dramatically. On the other extreme, let's put the classic 19th-C. missionary, who writes a description of the natives' lives at the same time as his #1 purpose is to make them change those lives. The missionary is well-intentioned, but I submit that his analysis is at least problematic. What the separation of analysis and synthesis, or description and construction, is intended to prevent is proselytizing, intentional or otherwise.

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?
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. :)
Why would I be offended? I'd love to hear what your group has to say!

Chris Lehrich

Message 9638#100721

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by clehrich
...in which clehrich participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/5/2004




On 2/5/2004 at 5:48pm, Walt Freitag wrote:
RE: Ritual Discourse in Role-Playing Games

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

Message 9638#100727

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Walt Freitag
...in which Walt Freitag participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/5/2004




On 2/5/2004 at 6:15pm, clehrich wrote:
RE: Ritual Discourse in Role-Playing Games

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?
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

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

Message 9638#100733

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by clehrich
...in which clehrich participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/5/2004




On 2/5/2004 at 6:48pm, RDU Neil wrote:
RE: Ritual Discourse in Role-Playing Games

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

Message 9638#100740

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by RDU Neil
...in which RDU Neil participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/5/2004




On 2/5/2004 at 6:57pm, clehrich wrote:
RE: Ritual Discourse in Role-Playing Games

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.
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

Message 9638#100743

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by clehrich
...in which clehrich participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/5/2004




On 2/5/2004 at 7:14pm, contracycle wrote:
RE: Ritual Discourse in Role-Playing Games

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.

Message 9638#100747

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by contracycle
...in which contracycle participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/5/2004




On 2/5/2004 at 7:20pm, clehrich wrote:
RE: Ritual Discourse in Role-Playing Games

contracycle wrote: 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

Message 9638#100748

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by clehrich
...in which clehrich participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/5/2004




On 2/5/2004 at 8:48pm, contracycle wrote:
RE: Ritual Discourse in Role-Playing Games

"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.

Message 9638#100771

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by contracycle
...in which contracycle participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/5/2004




On 2/5/2004 at 9:42pm, clehrich wrote:
RE: Ritual Discourse in Role-Playing Games

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

Message 9638#100781

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by clehrich
...in which clehrich participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/5/2004




On 2/5/2004 at 9:57pm, james_west wrote:
RE: Ritual Discourse in Role-Playing Games

I'd read it.

Message 9638#100783

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by james_west
...in which james_west participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/5/2004




On 2/5/2004 at 10:03pm, Emily Care wrote:
RE: Ritual Discourse in Role-Playing Games

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

Message 9638#100786

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Emily Care
...in which Emily Care participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/5/2004




On 2/5/2004 at 10:07pm, clehrich wrote:
RE: Ritual Discourse in Role-Playing Games

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

Message 9638#100787

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by clehrich
...in which clehrich participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/5/2004




On 2/5/2004 at 10:20pm, Gordon C. Landis wrote:
RE: Ritual Discourse in Role-Playing Games

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?


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

Message 9638#100790

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Gordon C. Landis
...in which Gordon C. Landis participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/5/2004




On 2/5/2004 at 10:23pm, clehrich wrote:
RE: Ritual Discourse in Role-Playing Games

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

Message 9638#100792

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by clehrich
...in which clehrich participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/5/2004




On 2/5/2004 at 10:38pm, Gordon C. Landis wrote:
RE: Ritual Discourse in Role-Playing Games

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

Message 9638#100796

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Gordon C. Landis
...in which Gordon C. Landis participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/5/2004




On 2/5/2004 at 10:44pm, clehrich wrote:
RE: Ritual Discourse in Role-Playing Games

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

Message 9638#100798

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by clehrich
...in which clehrich participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/5/2004




On 2/5/2004 at 11:53pm, John Kim wrote:
RE: Ritual Discourse in Role-Playing Games

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?

I don't think Chris is saying that. In fact, I think that the analysis as ritual could suggest all sorts of techniques and insights for game play -- just as relation to narrative forms has lead to innovations like Egrian moral premise and relationship maps. Similarly, borrowing from ritual traditions could give us ideas like how to conduct the start and close of game play (parallel to separation and aggregation in rites of passage).

What the theory won't do is say whether or not any particular technique or category of techniques is good or bad. Rather, people just have to try it and decide if they like it.

Message 9638#100811

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by John Kim
...in which John Kim participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/5/2004




On 2/6/2004 at 1:08am, M. J. Young wrote:
RE: Ritual Discourse in Role-Playing Games

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.

Well, I don't know how things work in your school, Chris, but wouldn't having such a text be useful in your teaching endeavors? I know that in my Intro to Political Science class the professors had arranged to collect about forty essays from many different sources and had them bound and printed by the college printer and sold to students through the bookstore. If you don't have a text that does this, creating one for use in your classes might be an ideal start--and if you do it well, there are probably other professors in other schools who are similarly wondering why there isn't a short, simple text that provides such an overview on which they can build.

For my part, I am so swamped here that I'm several articles behind on my reading as it is (thinking of printing some out, but I've a stack of things I'm editing right now which make the bulk of my reading efforts outside forums and e-mail), so I can't commit to reading such a series however valuable it would be to me--but if there were a PDF, I would probably download it, print it, and add it to the stack. I can't guess what month it would reach the top, but (unlike you perhaps) I don't believe any theory that is true is impractical. Being so much a generalist, anything I can learn is good.

--M. J. Young

Message 9638#100818

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by M. J. Young
...in which M. J. Young participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/6/2004




On 2/6/2004 at 2:42am, james_west wrote:
RE: Ritual Discourse in Role-Playing Games

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


I didn't see you say much of anything very controversial about GNS (at least, it wasn't controversial in -my- opinion) aside from the following somewhat sly inclusion at the end:

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.


But even that isn't really all that controversial, to me. I agree with you that there is no objective reality to the GNS system, in the sense that there is no objective reality to division of vertebrates into fish, reptiles, amphibians, birds, and mammals. Both of them are useful constructions for a specific set of purposes, and no more except in the sense that people tend to mystify any classification system. This does not mean that there can not be other classification systems more useful for a different set of purposes (or even, theoretically, for the same set of purposes, although you'd have to argue that a little harder ...).

clehrich wrote: Or the stuff about feminism?


This bit I thought could be generalized a great deal. One of the fellows I used to game with objected strenuously to the presence of -any- spectators at a game. I think people object to the presence of girlfriends on the basis that they suspect that they are stealth spectators, and thus will break 'separation'. They are thus the same as avoidance of any outside influences (thus, similar to objecting to small talk). In any case, I generally see that if/when the girlfriend establishes her bonafides as a role-player, all of this disappears.

My point here is that I think this really has nothing to do with attitudes towards women.

Similarly, I'm not sure I agree with your section in which you claim that the freedom role-players are allowed mostly results in them reconfirming societal norms. This happens sometimes, but I think no more often than it doesn't. To mix my theories, to claim that we inevitably confirm societal norms rather says that narrativism as Edwards supports -never- takes place; the answers to the thematic questions are predetermined.

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


This, I thought, had by far the most interesting implications. It had, for me, a bit of the 'recognition of my own experience' feeling that makes me trust an argument.

A few of the things I particularly liked:

Separation as an explicit concept is very useful. I strongly recognize that most games, and my games, are a flop if it isn't accomplished. For just about every type of game, it is necessary to establish an appropriate mood among the players, or the game just doesn't work. Note that this isn't true for every game; it is perfectly possible to go bowling without having a separation phase (the thing with the shoes notwithstanding).

The idea of aggregation. This is something that's a little tricky, socially, and hasn't -ever- been explicitly dealt with. People deal with how to wrap up -in game- activities succesfully (denouement), but I've seen little explicit discussion of how you end a game -socially- (regardless of the point in plot). I see the possibility for useful ideas here.

The consideration of structures of authority and relationship external to the game intruding to within the game, even into the use of the rules. Not sure where to go with this, but it ought to be very interesting.

- James

Message 9638#100831

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by james_west
...in which james_west participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/6/2004




On 2/6/2004 at 3:50am, clehrich wrote:
RE: Ritual Discourse in Role-Playing Games

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

Message 9638#100840

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by clehrich
...in which clehrich participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/6/2004




On 2/6/2004 at 5:06am, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Ritual Discourse in Role-Playing Games

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

Message 9638#100851

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Ron Edwards
...in which Ron Edwards participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/6/2004




On 2/6/2004 at 5:32am, clehrich wrote:
RE: Ritual Discourse in Role-Playing Games

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

Message 9638#100855

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by clehrich
...in which clehrich participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/6/2004




On 2/6/2004 at 3:19pm, Walt Freitag wrote:
RE: Ritual Discourse in Role-Playing Games

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 first half of the hypothetical response was apparently a misunderstanding of your position. I was reading into it a case of a hypothesis untestable because any attempt to test would necessarily interfere with the identity of the thing being tested. A slight variation of the same idea of the wine that evaporates if you open the bottle; this would be wine that ceases to be wine if you try to taste it.

The idea of testing (as opposed to applying) an idea outside its intended applications being necessarily invalid is problematic if taken too far. Ideas have logical implications that can fall outside the originally intended applications, and predictions based on those implications can indeed be tested, and the results of those tests must be given their due. For instance, the fact that a candle will not burn in vacuum sheds doubt on the hypothesis that candle flames are immaterial spirits, despite any assertion that the test is meaningless because candles were not intended to burn in vacuum.

However, your point is well taken too. Testing in terms of "improving" isn't going to get us anywhere. A slightly (but only slightly) less perilous course for testing the thesis would be to attempt to remove all apparent ritual elements from a role playing activity and see whether or not the participants still recognize the activity as role playing.

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?


Indeed it does. The first and fourth items aren't useful for the skeptic because they can only be confirmatory (but there may be negative variations that would not be). The second and third sound completely reasonable and effective, as long as the results of the examinations are interpreted in an intellectually honest manner. (A lot of psychological research has demonstrated a tendency for people to give weight to confirming evidence and find excuses to discount contrary evidence; we must be careful not to do that.)

Sorry for the digression back to earlier issues. My questions have been answered and my caveats have been aired. Carry on.

- Walt

Message 9638#100911

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Walt Freitag
...in which Walt Freitag participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/6/2004




On 2/6/2004 at 7:55pm, contracycle wrote:
RE: Ritual Discourse in Role-Playing Games

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.

Message 9638#100957

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by contracycle
...in which contracycle participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/6/2004




On 2/7/2004 at 1:14am, chadu wrote:
RE: Ritual Discourse in Role-Playing Games

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

Message 9638#101043

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by chadu
...in which chadu participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/7/2004




On 2/7/2004 at 2:24am, Librisia wrote:
Point of Clarification

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

Message 9638#101055

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Librisia
...in which Librisia participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/7/2004




On 2/7/2004 at 3:15am, clehrich wrote:
Re: Point of Clarification

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.
First of all, I look forward to the article.

I have to go back and look at my exact wording, but I didn't really mean to say that White Wolf games are Neopagan games, as such. What I had in mind was that I think many of their games more or less consciously draw on themes and rhetoric common to large blocks of the Neopagan community, thereby targeting an audience more or less.

I don't know whether the authors are Neopagans, or anything like that. But if you look at the way they moved the background of Ars Magica, for example, you'll notice that over the course of the AM3 supplements-n-stuff runs, they "drifted" the Christianity of the medieval world. Initially, there was a kind of perpetual tension between Magi and the Church, primarily because of the Dominion effect. By late in the supplement series, the Church was actually more or less run by demons, and was out to get all women and relatively interesting people; you had shamans running around loose all over the place; the Faeries were pretty clearly the representations of nature; hedge witches were borderline nature-worshipers; and so forth. In other words, you moved from "This is an historical game set in the Christian middle ages" to (implicitly) "This is a game set in a fantasy version of how many Wiccans in particular talk about the middle ages and the run-up to the Burning Times."

I think you can also see this stuff pretty clearly in Werewolf; the rest of the WOD games fit, I think, but I don't know them so well, and I'm not absolutely sure how VtM fits in (I never liked it, so never read it carefully even once).

Does that answer the question?

Chris Lehrich

Message 9638#101073

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by clehrich
...in which clehrich participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/7/2004




On 2/7/2004 at 3:20am, clehrich wrote:
RE: Ritual Discourse in Role-Playing Games

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.
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.

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

Message 9638#101075

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by clehrich
...in which clehrich participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/7/2004




On 2/7/2004 at 3:26am, chadu wrote:
RE: Ritual Discourse in Role-Playing Games

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.


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.

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


De nada.

CU

Message 9638#101077

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by chadu
...in which chadu participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/7/2004




On 2/7/2004 at 3:57am, clehrich wrote:
RE: Ritual Discourse in Role-Playing Games

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]
This is true in a direct sense, but what the "practice" approach to ritual behavior suggests is that in fact authority and power is not nearly so strongly vested in specific and localizable authority figures and institutions as observers or participants would tend to think. In fact, a great deal of the power of such authorities is constructed, perpetuated, and in fact policeed/effected by those most affected by this authority. This really picks up from Durkheim's insights 90 years back, runs through a Marxist turn, and comes back around post-Structuralism ("post" in the sense of "after," not "cooler than").

So let me give you an example that has nothing to do (apparently) with ritual or RPG's, but which may be concrete and clear. Bear with me a sec.

You have, I assume, noticed that lately a lot of young women are running around with low-rider pants and high-rider shirts, exposing their belly buttons and often their butt cracks. More radically, some such women are also wearing high-riding thong underpants, the waistbands of which rise well above their belt-lines and into the exposed skin space. I mean, right now it's freezing cold, but you know what I'm talking about, right?

Okay. So I walked through an interpretation of this with my students last semester, and found that it explains the practice thing pretty well. Basically, here's the symbol: underpants (by metonymy, anyway -- it's literally a small part of the underpants standing in for the whole thing, but nevermind).

So what does the symbol mean? Sexuality, simply speaking.
How might it be read in a hypothetical conservative sense? Sexual availability: women who dress like this must be sluts.
Does it in fact necessarily mean this? No: no woman is "asking for" rape, for example, simply by wearing high underwear.
Do these women know that the symbol may be read this way? Yes, of course; they're not stupid.
So what's going on here?

From the women's perspective, consciously or otherwise (stay away from that division -- it goes nowhere good), the deploying of the symbol into the public sphere may express any of a number of related concepts:

I feel sexy, I look great, I am confident about my body, I think you will be shocked and that's tough, I am young (and you are old), I have to be one of the cool kids and this is what they wear, I need love and must offer my sexuality to get some.... (Now you roll your own!)

Okay, so one of the ideas that people get told is that if they do somewhat radical, socially disapproved things -- such as showing their underwear in public -- they will be downtrodden. Another thing they get told is that exciting, nonconformist people are the ones who take risks by doing just this sort of thing. Another thing is that the only way to break old-fashioned custom is to break the rules and get away with it. And so on.

What the practice folks would tend to emphasize is that absolutely all of this is true, simultaneously. The point is that "the system," i.e the cultural system which says that visible underwear = sexuality, is required in any case. If you're going to wear this kind of style, it is (and you are) empowered only if you and everyone else agrees that visible underwear = sexuality. Therefore, the only thing that really isn't true in a direct sense is that there's any hope of revolution here: in order for the style to have any effect, it must recapitulate and perpetuate the system against which it nominally acts. Let me put that directly: in order to challenge the system through symbol, i.e. through behavior or language or really pretty much anything, you have to perpetuate the system. If you try to challenge the system without perpetuating the system, you have to disempower yourself in the process; unless you intend to do this through violence alone, you can certainly alter the particulars of the system, but you can't alter it's fundamental structures: they are essentially invariant.

Consequently, the fact that any RPG game exists within a culture, with a history and a structure, both of the mainstream and most particularly of the subculture (the hobby), with its traditions (D&D, for example), means that everyone happily constructs their own "adept," their own "system" into which they insert themselves and to which they subordinate themselves. The authority against which they must struggle is precisely that which they project and set up simply by setting aside perfect liberty and independence -- in other words, the authority and the "system" here, against which all struggle and conflict occurs, is the basis of what 'round these parts is called Social Contract. Yes, we're fighting ourselves. And that's the way it always is; that's the human condition.

Does that help in any way? I kind of got rolling there.
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.
Yes, but I'd argue that this massive and serial conflict, as well as this deference and consensus, is totally necessary and will happen very rapidly; in fact, it will happen more smoothly the more socially mutually comfortable and compatible the players are. In other words, in a game with a perfect absence of dysfunction, total authority is constructed so seamlessly that it is naturalized and obscured, invisible to those who have displaced their own power into it in the name of cooperation.
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.
Yes, that was simplistic. Sorry. As I think you can see from the above, however, the point is that such subversion and exploitation occurs nevertheless within a sphere of deeper submission to authority; it changes the names and the faces of the authoritative structure, but ultimately it leaves their picture-frames in the same halls, and then tries to find new names and faces to hang there just the same. Of course change happens, even radical change, but ultimately an awful lot of the change ends up producing excitingly new forms of the same old misery.

Incidentally, I'm not entirely convinced by the practice approach which I've been trying to explain and defend here. But I haven't really fully formulated what I think about ritual in terms that I understand, so please don't ask me to explain it in terms that anyone else can understand.

Chris Lehrich

Note
If you want to get the "practice" thing, the best place to start is Sherry Ortner's article "Theory in Anthropology Since the Sixties," anthologized and reprinted about eight hundred billion times. Next, I like Catherine Bell's Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice, but I happen to like ritual theory as a particular issue. Some people love Pierre Bourdieu, Outline of a Theory of Practice, but I find it dense almost beyond belief; brilliant, but dense. I dislike Michel de Certeau's The Practice of Everyday Life, but some people find it a lucid introduction to the subject. If'n you ask me, I think you'd better also read Claude Levi-Strauss's The Savage Mind and be damn sure you understand the first 2/3 anyway, or you'll end up like some of these idiot grad-students one sees at conferences grabbing the wrong end of the stick and beating around the bush with it, to quote "Yes, Minister."

Message 9638#101080

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by clehrich
...in which clehrich participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/7/2004




On 2/7/2004 at 4:02am, clehrich wrote:
RE: Ritual Discourse in Role-Playing Games

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.

AMEN Brother Or Sister!

Sorry. Er, so would I.

I should note that I'm not particularly knowledgeable about these sorts of things, but boy howdy would I like to see someone who is take this stuff on!

Chris Lehrich

Note
Incidentally, for the catharsis thing, the best place I can think of to start in a specifically ritual direction would be to read Malinowski's Magic, Science, and Religion, then read some of the big guns in Anthro from, say, the 1970's and 80's discussing Malinowski (in retrospectives and such). Malinowski had a catharsis theory of magic and ritual, you see, but it was kind of unsophisticated by modern standards; I suspect you'd find Sherry Ortner, for example, would have a really sophisticated re-thinking of it for her own purposes.

Message 9638#101083

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by clehrich
...in which clehrich participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/7/2004