thread: 2005-04-04 : Participant vs. Author?
On 2005-04-08, Vincent wrote:
Nope, that's step ... 5.
Step 3 identifies particular sorts of RPG procedures and particular shapes of RPG fiction. Like so:
Some RPG procedures, taken over the course of whole sessions, foster full participation from everyone playing, others cut people out of participation in various important ways.
Some RPG fiction has, in common with all good movies novels plays short stories and other fictional forms, a particular structure. I recite it like a litany: passionate character, turning point, dynamic situation, conflict across a moral line, a problematic human line, with fit opposition, escalating smoothly and inevitably to crisis, climax, resolution.
Consider now only the games where [i]procedurally[/i] everyone contributes to what matters and [i]fictionally[/i] the game has that structure. Those are games where the players create theme; the theme is defined by the problematic human line across which the characters conflict.
I have lots and lots to say about all this, of course. I'm just outlining.
Step 4 is a doozy. It says: people enjoy creating theme together, it fulfills them in an uncommon and desirable way, and it brings them closer together. It says: creating theme together makes spending time together meaningful - not just in RPGs, but in RPGs as well, and furthermore RPGs can be uniquely suited to creating theme together effectively, efficiently and powerfully. It says: we love and respect and take care of and are drawn to the people we create theme with.
Why? I have my random speculative explanation, involving the words "storytelling monkeys," but what really matters is that it's so, whatever the explanation. Try it and you'll see.
Step 5, then, the whole point, just draws the chain: the game designer creates the game design, which mediates the procedure of play, which gives shape to the game's fiction. When the procedure allows everyone meaningful participation and the fiction is thematic, the players grow together and interact functionally, inside the game and outside of it. Thus the game designer too is answerable to the group's social dynamics.
Or, if you're an evil game designer (like Eddie Izzard's giraffe) you can design games to alienate people and undermine their friendships. Generally when I see such a game I attribute its design to ignorance not malice, as you oughtta, but you never know.
