I mentioned in my earlier post on issue #2 of Different Worlds that Steve Jackson said some very interesting things about roleplaying, some of which I reproduce below. Apologies for the length but I think it's sufficiently intriguing to justify it.
These five paragraphs offer so much meat that I could (and may) write many posts dissecting them. For me, it's his two anecdotes, the first about the Chivalry & Sorcery campaign and the second about Gimme the Dwarf, that resonate most strongly. In reading them, I found myself remembering Gary Gygax's fulminations against "amateur thespianism" and wondering whether either of these anecdotes would be examples of the kind of play he disliked. Regardless, I think Jackson, in his article, points to a longstanding fault line in the hobby – between those for whom RPGs are "just a game" and those for whom roleplaying is an opportunity to "become someone else" for a time.
I used to think this way (like Steve Jackson) about RPGs. I don't anymore, at least not with regard to Dungeons & Dragons.
ReplyDeleteI think the power of the D&D game comes from its immersive process and its capability of causing visceral reactions in the players through game play. It's NOT about "playing a character" (or being true to the character's motivations); it's about using the avatar/tool that character is to EXPERIENCE the environment of the game play itself.
And I write this as a person who was literally trained as a thespian (my B.A. from university is in acting) and who has had lots of fun "playing characters" in other people's RPGs (usually at conventions).
Yes, assuming a role is a way of having fun with an RPG and may even be the point of some RPGs (especially some story-oriented RPGs where the point of play is addressing a particular theme or premise). But it isn't the point...nor the power...of simply playing D&D as yourself in an elf or wizard or fighter "suit;" it does not generate nearly the thrill of coming together as a cooperative group in the face of unrelenting danger and challenge.
These days, with regard to D&D, I am much more in line with Gygax's poo-pooing of "amateur thespianism."
Hear, hear, I couldn't have said it better myself.
DeleteAt the same time, Steve's guilty of the tired and exclusionary "your way of playing is wrong" mindset himself here. I greatly prefer what EGG would undoubtedly have called "amateur thespianism" myself, but unlike Steve (a much younger Steve, admittedly) I'll never tell someone that approaching an RPG as a tactical challenge with only the faintest nod to getting into character is wrong. It's just different. Fantastic acting and staying true to your fantasy persona is *not* the only worthwhile way to roleplay no matter how much I prefer it personally.
ReplyDeleteIf the rest of the table (including the GM) enjoys playing thinly-veiled version of themselves in a fantasy setting I can work with that. I might not stay in that group very long if I can find another, but I'll give it a shot. Maybe I can show some of them that a bit more roleplay will enhance their game without disrupting things. Maybe I'll just relax and play what amounts to a game of Descent with more detailed rules for noncombat downtime. What I'm not going to do is tell them they're wrong for enjoying a very different playstyle than my usual one.
The divide you mention is certainly real, but it's only a fault line if you force it to be one.
One-True-Way-ism all the way, and from one of the hobby's luminaries, too. Appalling. We've come far, though: Despite this battle being fought over and over again in various forums, there are broader views - like yours - and tolerance to be found, too.
DeleteOn a lighter note, Howard Thompson (owner of Metagaming and Steve's employer at one point) had a reputation back in the day for being a bit of a jerk in person, especially about business related issues, and he's certainly sat on the vast majority of his long-defunct company's product lines for decades like a dog in a manger. He may not have been stretching all that hard playing Gimme the Dwarf, especially if he was grabby about treasure. :)
ReplyDeleteYour posts lately are so in sync with the discussions in "The Elusive Shift" it's a little uncanny you haven't read it yet.
ReplyDeleteMakes me all the more keen to read it!
DeleteGary had a talent for coming across like a total jerk. That's one of his classic obnoxious statements.
ReplyDeletePlay whatever you like, how ever you like it.
I am going to read "The Elusive Shift" soon myself. I find the different ways people take to this hobby amazing, and it's bizarre how people have tried to make it a question about right and wrong. Let a hundred flowers blossom, I'd say.
Putting on a character always seem a bit disingenuous, and a mechanism for distancing yourself from the experience. While I understand it can be a license to be outrageous and/or funny, I think it is also holding yourself above the action. It is the antithesis of immersion. It's "cool" in the sense of emotionally detached.
ReplyDeleteI tend to tag posts like this on my blog as "Hurting Wrong Fun." It's the idea that other people enjoying something you wouldn't must be wrong, or ignorant, or foolish, or what have you. Steve Jackson's examples sound like groups playing a game they all enjoy, but the idea that 95% of groups are playing badly because 95% of groups are playing game he wouldn't enjoy isn't a really helpful one, is it? If a game isn't for you, that doesn't mean it's not for anyone. Or that it's bad or wrong. Arguments about how games "should" be played and the "right way" to play them feel to me like a circular firing squad.
ReplyDeleteThis article helped me realize that I don’t personally like the thespian route. I enjoy immersing myself in the setting, events, and challenges and not in “becoming someone else.” Thanks for helping me see different ways people play the game. My way is not better, but it is the way I like to do it. I think I’d feel awkward constantly playing in a thespian game, and everyone would wish I’d lighten up, which would spoil the fun.
ReplyDeleteBack in 1990 I would likely agreed a lot with Steve Jackson sentiments. Although I wouldn't put as harsh as he would. But sometime soon after, I realized that what he describe is not needed. All I required to make what I do happen is for the players plays as if their character is there i.e. first person roleplaying. It can be a version of themselves with the abilities of the character. A far lower bar then trying to act as or immerse oneself into the character.
ReplyDeleteRunning a boffer LARP chapter, and running LARP events cemented my opinion about this. There are perfectly fine players who just don't like being actors. In the LARP they are clearly playing themselves but a version that lives in the fantasy setting of the chapter.
So ever since I am happy to have thespians in my groups, it not required or the lack of acting penalized. Again it is sufficient that you act as if you there whether it is a fantasy version of yourself or a unique personality.
Also I recommend the Elusive Shift. I just got to the part where Jon Peterson discusses my group, the younger gamers that swept in the late 70s and early 80s.
Easy: it's just a game where you (may) become someone else for some time.
ReplyDeleteI always liked the fact that you could play a part, and at the same time be "estranged" from your character.
It makes the character both "you" and "not-you", more like a thought experiment than a part you play.
I think this is especially true of D&D and rpgs that "lack" rules for the emulation of personal psychology or social interaction.
I am more in agreement with Steve's position than Gary's, but that may be due to how I ran many an RPG over the years. I enjoy the storytelling, creating interesting situations for the characters to deal with and endure, and making the event an evening of entertainment.
ReplyDeleteMy last RPG campaign was Hackmaster and I had from 5 to 9 players an evening, meeting once a week for about four, sometimes five hours. I had dozens of NPCs, each with a background, proclivities, and a a distinct manner of speaking, including accents.
Some of the NPC were very hated by some members of the group, others barely tolerated, and a few were seen as boon companions. When the friends died, and they did, the players were truly saddened and felt the loss. When the most hated NPC heroically saved the party on more than one occasion (he was a torchbearer and petty thief), there were moans but also cheers.
We get out of the experience what we put into it. I'd rather my players try to place themselves in the shoes of their characters than treat them as though the were cardboard counters from a boardgame.
I played a Dwarf of that sort in D&D 4E, Oredigger Orccrusher V, a Battle Rager from a long line of Orccrushers. He spoke like a hillbilly and loved killing, drinking, and fornicating. He actually considered Orcs good company, if they could be civilized, because they enjoyed the same activities he did. In battle, Oredigger's comrades pushed him out in front, and started hacking away with his axe, having a grand old time, while the others prepared their spells and feats.
ReplyDeleteI have usually had both types of players in the same group, and it has always worked well; I don't understand the need to suggest one way is better than the other. I personally like to roleplay character motivations, but I generally narrate it as opposed to act it out; particularly as a DM, if I had to do voices, I couldn't effectively portray a female character.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure this is what Gygax considered "amateur thespianism". At the very least, he expected you to roleplay alignment, and likely gender (although I hate to think what that looked like in practice); consider his comments on alignment change, or alignment drift by rangers and paladins, not to mention the cursed items that changed alignment and gender, or for that matter spells like reincarnation that changed race. Those weren't there for no reason.
I do somewhat object to melodrama and thespianism in AP videos like Critical Role. I know I have talked to younger people who came away from those episodes with an expectation that this was how the game was supposed to be played, and were either discouraged from playing or DMing, or felt pressure to emulate that playstyle even though they preferred something else. Of course, the players in Critical Role are *professional* thespians.
In my reading, there's a small difference between acting as the character would, and amateur thespianism. The first is more about facing and responding to situations as your character would. And the second is more about speaking dramatically in-character.
ReplyDeleteThe first one is cool as long as you don't be an *sshole to other players.
The second one is cool as long as you don't make people around you uncomfortable.
When I'm DMing I'm trying to squeeze the player's adrenal gland. I simply don't care about the character at all separate from the player. If people are slowing the action down to try to think about how not-them would react to what's in front of them, in my mind that's a drag; what should be a fluid game of ping-pong is reduced to "watch this shot".
ReplyDeleteWhen I'm playing every character is simply an alternate me; all are different because the branchings are different and reactions persist. So eventually they are distinct, in a way. But I don't care to "think up a persona".
The divide is real, and while I wish the other side no ill will, I do not want to game with them and I'm not particularly interested in catering to them in a game I run.
In my experience, its more difficult for a roleplayer to give up the affectation than they may believe in pre-campaign discussion. For many, even if they go in clear on what I do and what I'm looking for, even if they drop the instinct it's as if they're breaking a vow to a core belief.
Two different activities using the same tool.
Sentiments like what Jackson expresses in this article comprised almost 100% of commentary on the subject in the 20th century, with Gary Gygax as pretty much the sole advocate for the other ("avatar") approach, for which he was almost-universally mocked, derided, and vilified. Even within TSR he came off as a lone voice in the wilderness, increasingly at odds with what everyone else at the company was doing and advocating. And, of course, once he departed his point of view instantly and vanished with him and as far as I can tell was never heard again until the OSR c. 2005ish.
ReplyDeleteInteresting article, but the two examples Steve Jackson gives are (1) a weird fetishisation of suicide, and (2) excuses for obnoxious disruptive players. I'm glad I have neither sort of player in my game!
ReplyDeleteI concur with your second item 100%. This sort of thing is exactly why I refuse to play any D&D game with Kender as opposed to Halflings (or people who insist on playing Halflings as Kender) or Traveller with Vargr. I don't read the first as you do - my biggest deal with the samauri example is whether or not the GM actually gave the character a legitimate chance to regain the sword or not. I have no issue with the in-character suicide - I think that was well-played.
ReplyDelete