Off the Wagon

[robotnik2004]

I've gone a couple of weeks without posting about RPGs, so I guess I can fall off the wagon now. Hell, I'm not even going to use LJ-cuts to spare the fainthearted. Watch me choke up your Friends pages with my geekiness! Moo ha ha ha haaa!

First, the following salvo from Ron Edwards, author of Sorcerer and Grand Moff Tarkin of the jargon-spouting indie gamers over at The Forge.

Why does role-playing culture not talk about its primary, defining activity? Oh, we talk about anticipating the experience, about buying and owning the games, and about playing them in the abstract, but rarely, if ever, about what we do while actually playing them—their content that we create. The literal act of role-playing is not a part of gamer culture, as we mainly discuss its trappings (the book, the system, industry gossip) rather than "what happened" during play.

Even when we do discuss the play itself, more often that not, the content is incoherent: "My guy did this, my guy did that," deep inhale, "and then he did this." Such talk may even turn into a litany of die rolls, punctuated by enthusiasm for what is, after all, a predictable outcome. ("And then, I got a 20!") If role-playing really were what it sounds like when described, it would be a worthless and pathetic thing.

This situation should change, if not in the overall culture, then at least in the experience of individuals. Role-playing is not perversion, we are not weird or fringe because we enjoy it, and frankly we should start behaving accordingly.

Comments, queries, cheers, jeers?

Comments

[robotnik.livejournal.com]

Yeah, you make a very good point. You're absolutely right about the weird prickly defensiveness of our little hobby. But I don't think the guy I quoted was calling for more socio-ethnic-economic-anthropological pontificating about gaming, or about spreading the faith to outsiders. I think (and I could be totally wrong) he was just calling for gamers to talk more to each other about gaming. About what they like and what they don't like. About what makes it fun. And I actually think there's something to what he says.

I wouldn't be surprised if coin collectors talk all the time about what how best to take care of old coins, and bocce players talk about how to—hell, whatever it is bocce ball players do. Just talking about the activity itself, in a concrete and constructive way. I'm not talking about anything more abstract or jargon-laden than, say, the other post I just made about the UA game, and your response. Which was very helpful to me; thanks for it. ... Hey, maybe we just proved Ron Edwards wrong. :)

[editswlonghair.livejournal.com]

Providing feedback on a session to make the camapign better and more enjoyable is always a good thing. But you run the risk of making it a debriefing in which a game is dissected, laid bare, and the hobby no longer becomes fun. It's homework. I've had that problem with the historical games I've run- they turn into research papers rather than fun little amusements. Which is why I like Adventure and Falkenstein so much... they throw me in a box, bang on the sides occassionally, and force me not to become the anal retentive, detail driven documentary producer I want to be.

That being said, having watched the Teddie Roosevelt doc last night has made me want to run somekind of turn of the century rootin' tootin' epic... :)