The Forge Archives

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

----

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

- James

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

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

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

Chris Lehrich

Quote from: clehrichOn 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

Quote from: james_westOn 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).  

Quote from: james_westMore 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.  

Quote from: james_westI 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.

Quote from: james_westOn 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.

Quote from: John Kimthis 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

James,

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

QuoteOne 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,

QuoteTo 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

Quote from: clehrichIt'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

Quote from: james_westIt'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.

QuoteSaying 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?

QuoteYour 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

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

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

- Walt

Walt,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chris Lehrich

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

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

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

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

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

- James

Quote from: james_west...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."[/list:u]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.

QuoteIf 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.

QuoteCould 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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: RDU NeilThe 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.

QuoteThis 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.

Quoteis 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.

QuoteI 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.

QuoteCan 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?

QuoteAnyway... 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