« RPG.Net Thread of the Week: Lousy Players and Lousy GMs | Main | Dogs Influences »
April 18, 2005
Swimming with sharks: Story now
I wrote a blog post recently called "Lasersharking my ass." I was very surprised to hear some pretty negative reactions in comments there and on another blog or two about the topic. So, I'm interested in taking a fresh approach here, and see what others have to say on the matter. I wrote about gaming culture's widespread fondness of fantastical tropes, powers, supernaturality, etc., and I referred to Ron Edwards' "rant" that he's done with creating games in which characters are "super powered." I sympathized with his viewpoint. I've talked to Ron about this, and I have plans to creat my own game that eschews any supernatural, fantastical, or other extraordinary elements. Now, for reasons that confound me, others have taken Ron's rant and mine as condemnation of genre. Ron can speak for himself (though I think I know his sentiments). But, I am bothered by any sense of me dismissing gamers who enjoy "genre" elements (by which I mean supernatural/superpowered elements) in their games. By all means, enjoy them! I certainly do. But, at the same time, I'm interested in designing games that have nothing to do with geekdom. I'm creating a game called Americana. It features protagonist characters that are ordinary people primarily in modern day or 20th century America. The game will encourage players to put those characters through challenging issues and confrontations to create a story. I think this is the same kind of thing Ron is aiming for with his project, Spione (he's making a "Story Now" game about Cold War spies in Berlin). I don't have any reservations about creating these games. I can already see they'll work as designs. What I can't see is how gamers will take them. Call it curiousity more than concern. I would find it sort of insulting as a designer to hear that someone actually played my Americana, then absolutely had to add ghosts! or a secret spirit world! or aliens! Ugh. Sure, those kinds of things might be just fine. I'm not disappointed to see such creativity. I'd be disappointed only if people can't play the game without lasersharking (i.e. injecting sci-fi/fantasy elements for whatever reason). Ron has said he believes the market for such games isn't gamers, and that it requires finding a new audience or community of customers. I'm inclined to agree with him. Broadly speaking, I think gamers as a whole won't get excited about this when they can choose something more fantastical and exciting for their tastes. That's cool. Have fun, fer chrissakes! Do what you like! I'm not worried about you having Wong Bad Fun. Why bother? Hell, I'm all for it! But, Lasersharking my ass apparently failed to explain this. I'm interested in finding those new communities, in finding groups of people who are interested in these kinds of games. What do you think? Do we need new people for such games to be playable? Will gamers, in general, not get excitied about a game in which they play "regular folks in regular situations"? (I'm using regular as "real life," not as "easy" or "unchallenging." )
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/102/2269586
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Swimming with sharks: Story now:
» Pessoas: Normais, o RPG from RPG Portugal
Hmm, mais leitura interessante e provocadora de novos pensamentos... Como seria um RPG sem quaisquer elementos fantásticos, sobrenaturais, de ficção científica, etc.? Apenas pessoas normais em situações difíceis:
Tracked on Apr 18, 2005 5:50:22 PM
» Lasersharking and the Honestly Extraordinary from IMAGinES
A half-baked dissertation on the concept of "lasersharking", how it applies to RPGs and how RPGs might work without it. [Read More]
Tracked on Dec 4, 2005 4:09:36 PM
» Update: Google unveils U.S. government search site from the White House,
content from a directory that covers not only government information but also other topics including business and sports. News [Read More]
Tracked on Jun 17, 2006 9:25:51 PM
» Promotional Staffing with a Professional 'Agency' Twist from models are everywhere.
contracts by professionalizing their industry. (PRWEB Jun 15, 2006)
Trackback URI: [Read More]
Tracked on Jun 19, 2006 8:47:24 AM
» Selling illegal immigrants the American dream from their new San
He was imitating the flurry of work his parents had put into the one-bedroom condominium over the past two... [Read More]
Tracked on Jun 21, 2006 5:05:30 AM
» Huge Offensive In Afghanistan from Taliban government,
have fanned out across four southern provinces believed to be Taliban strongholds. [Read More]
Tracked on Jun 21, 2006 11:21:42 PM
» Pregnancy timeline from to pregnancy
guide to pregnancy taking in how the baby develops, changes to the mother [Read More]
Tracked on Jul 31, 2006 10:49:23 AM
» Chicago Passes 'Living Wage Law' from Big-Box' Retailers
Big-Box' Retailers Like Wal-Mart Required to Pay Workers Higher Wages [Read More]
Tracked on Aug 1, 2006 4:51:00 AM
Comments
Please, people play "Host a Murder" all the time, and that is arguably more successful than many rpgs sales period. I think conflicts normal people can understand are the reason we have so many dramas in movies & TV, instead of the sci fi & fantastic. It's easier to dive into real situations.
What I think is the issue lies with gamers who -can't see- meaningful conflict without lasersharking. Few games deal with human issues, and mostly with lasersharking as the primary source of conflict- and now people believe no weird stuff= no conflict. And also no "empowered" protagonists.
What will be interesting is seeing how to break into these other markets, and how one goes about getting them interested in the game...
Posted by: Chris at Apr 18, 2005 1:12:01 PM
This post dovetails nicely with the Charmed & Harry Potter fandom thread on the Forge right now. I would be shocked if there's not an equivalent RP fandom for soap operas out there. Old-style gamers may never have any use for Papers & Paychecks, but there will be a lot of people out there who will, if, as Chris says, you can get the game in their hands and get them to try it.
Posted by: Ginger Stampley at Apr 18, 2005 1:37:20 PM
You can call it lasersharking, but I submit that adding super powers is no less plausible than the normal contortions required to maintain a soap opera for more than a few episodes, or a spy drama, or what have you. Real life is not filled with the required coincidences and so on. Almost all murders are pretty obvious who did it, and if not they aren't very interesting. Dramas in movies and TV are not at all real life situations, they are just "real-life-esque".
I'm in life, I don't need to play it, so I add some implausibilities. If they include magic, so be it. If not, I'll just add strange coincidences until the story snaps... thus making it pretty implausible anyway.
So I think railing against super powers is pretty shallow. If you want to make a game without them, cool! I won't buy it, and I doubt many will, but that's personal preference and I'd be interested to see it anyway. Actually, the realitic spy game I would buy... but don't present it as coming down from the moral high ground of realism. Whatever realism is in it will not survive contact with the story.
Posted by: Andrew Shultz at Apr 18, 2005 2:49:39 PM
Rereading, you technically do not invoke some sort of moral high ground directly.
It just comes off as though you are doing so, because you preface the whoel thing with the fact that you're tired of super powers and have made a derisive name for them.
Just drop the mocking of existing tropes and say "hey, I want to go in this direction, which is more like drama and less like comics" or something like that. You'll get a better reaction.
Posted by: Andrew Shultz at Apr 18, 2005 2:52:00 PM
First of all, non-geeks don't need our hobby. Not being rooted in the same subculture conventions, and thus needing the sort of rules we have, they've effortlessly moved on and generated all sorts of environments that facilitate roleplaying. The concerns of our hobby have little to offer them because they are already having fun. Whether Dawson Creek or some other show they are doing quite well on their own. Don’t believe me? Take a look at Yahoogroups sometime and see. It is actually quite a worthwhile endeavor because you’ll find very different priorities than the ones our hobby places, and by that I include anything that comes out of the Forge constellation.
Second, anyone who feels that soap operas aren’t filled with the fantastic has never watched a long running soap.
Third, whenever you introduce a derogatory term to refer to other people’s fun you are being insulting and shouldn’t be surprised when people get upset about that.
Posted by: Jere at Apr 18, 2005 3:32:44 PM
ARGH!
Matt, you just ruined a perfectly good term.
Lasersharking does *not* refer to genre elements. What it refers to is the incongruous taping of elements of one genre onto another (It's a western... with magic! It's a fantasy world... with space battles! It's a horror game... with high school hijinks!)
yrs--
--Ben
Posted by: Ben Lehman at Apr 18, 2005 3:42:55 PM
I have heard similar references to fandom "roleplaying" sites. How is this not Simulationism, as the Forge defines it, rather than Narrativism? Actually, I grant that we just can't know that.
But, it seems to me these kinds of communities sound like self-affirming appreciation of the thing (Dawson's Creek or whatever) more so than efforts to use the trapping and characters of Dawson's Creek to craft spontaneous and sound stories. But, I defer to those better informed. I'm only barely familiar with that concept.
That is, I suspect -- but can't know -- that the thing produced on those sites is rarely Story Now.
Also, what safeguards are there in these communities against dysfunction? I have no idea, I'm sort of musing aloud. I'm guessing there are knock-down, drag-out arguments on those kinds of forums from time to time. "Katie Holmes is the best, Fuck you!"
Oh yeah, who is talking about Soap Operas? I sure as hell am not. Soap Opera connotates some extreme melodrama. Sure, games can extend to that approach. But, I'm more interested in The Sun Also Rises than "Guiding Light."
On insulting: I made an ironical title to a post, with similarly humorous language in the writing. I guess I figure people have more humor and self-esteem than to take it so personally. I'd hate to be wrong about that.
Why do gamers seem to have such extreme sensitivity when they sense their right to fun being challenged? Cripes, folks, I ain't challenging you. Already, a couple people have said things like "You know, on second read, Matt, you didn't insult but . . . "
Well, but nothing. I didn't insult. Folks got insulted. It troubles me that we have to tiptoe around each other, avoid humorous language, all in the name of cherishing your right to fun. Who in the heck could I be to take away your fun? No one can do that for you.
Posted by: Matt Snyder at Apr 18, 2005 3:49:08 PM
One more comment...
No one will EVER get excited to play regular folks in regular situations. Let's review my weekend (I am a little more dull than some, but you can't dispute that the weekend was quite regular).
1) Cleaned toilets and sinks.
2) Vaccummed
3) Paid bills
4) Played some CoH
5) Went to the pound to look for a new rabbit.
I could have also gone out to dinner or gone to a party, but I was feeling lazy and didn't. See any gameable moments there? Even the sims is more exciting, but since I'm not a sim and can cook without lighting the kitchen on fire, my regular things are actually quite dull.
What you might want is regular people in uncommon but not entirely implausible situations. Then you could throw in the giant relationship arguements that happen to people sometimes, the burglar breaking in, and the relative with cancer. But none of those happen that often, or could be considered regular. And honestly I've had those things, bar the burglar, and have absolutely no desire to do them again - conflict based in real life is quite unpleasant in real life and isn't much more pleasant when it's in a game.
I think what you really want is more like the soap opera roleplay/fanfic scene that must exist. But those people are not regular, and neither are their situations.
Posted by: Andrew Shultz at Apr 18, 2005 3:51:35 PM
On the whole, I think most gamers are interested in playing their games with a fantastical or supernatural twist. That having been said, there must be numbers, like myself and the groups I game with, who are happy to play games without such elements. I have played, run and designed many games in which there is no supernatural element whatsoever. I love 'em and would like to see more of them. I have run a long-running 'Sharpe' style game and a friend has run 'Biggles' amongst others. My own Lashings of Ginger Beer (nosey kids in Idyllic England), 1940 - England Invaded (German Invasion of England in WW2) and Babewatch (yeah..you know, David Hasslehoff & Co) are other examples. There are (or have been)a very few commercial products out there - usually historical and often by FGU (Privaters & Gentlemen, Flashing Blades). I am just working on the design of a Deadwood-style rpg for one of my groups. So the idea is neither new nor is it isolated. Lets do some more!
Posted by: Simon W at Apr 18, 2005 3:59:52 PM
Andrew, I think people absolutely will get excited about regular folks in regular situations. ON that we apparently will have to disagree.
I'm not talking about cleaning toilets. I'm talking about cleaning closets -- the ones where we all keep our skeletons. The ones the regular ol' preacher sermonizes about on Sunday. The one that gets couples in screaming matches. The ones that keep you from telling your parents.
I'm not talking about "your" weekend, because you didn't tell me anything especially meeaningful. (Except for the rabbit, which interests me! And avoiding a dinner party! Ooh, social conflict!)
I'm talking about, oh, say the weekend in which I found out my fiance was miserable with the prospect of marriage and being tied down. Or, the weekend I went home to tend to my family's estate a couple months after my father died, and ran into my old classmates. Or, maybe the time I found out I got into medical school on the same day my brother got shipped off to Vietnam. And we never spoke again. Or, how about the doozie when I ran for mayor, hilarity and geriatric romance ensues.
Obviously, these aren't "my" weekends. I just made 'em all up. But, they're engrossing and interesting just in the same way a movie like, oh, Spanglish might be (to use a recent example of something I just saw).
Sure, it can veer into melodrama, but that need not be so. Any doubt? Go check out, say, the Indie film scene's selection of movies, or the new fiction releases at Borders.
Andrew, I think you're missing what I'm getting at here, or just find no interest in it. But, please, don't tell me what I "really want." Right now, you just don't seem to be close to what I'm after. This is so absolutely not about soap opera role-play/fanfic.
Posted by: Matt Snyder at Apr 18, 2005 4:14:33 PM
None of those are actually regular weekends. I mean, sure, they do happen, but they're pretty rare. And I think there will be people who go for that sort of thing, though I'm not one of them. But in all cases you are setting them up to be pretty gripping. Life rarely provides you that setup.
I stand by the idea that you don't really want regular people in regular situations, because you're not describing regular situations there, but I'll give that this is mostly a semantic distinction on the word "regular" so it's not worth discussing further. I do think if you want to sell the idea you need a better phrase. "Real Drama" maybe.
As for "I wasn't being insulting, but folks got insulted" I don't buy it. You were deliberately overdramatic with your title in a belittling way, and people got insulted, which is something that you should have expected or if not, taken with good grace when people called you on it. Compare calling the post "Magic and Realism" or "No More Super Powers". I really am not personally insulted, but the choice of phrase makes your whole argument seem much more petty than it really is, because it is an interesting discussion once you get past "lasersharking".
Posted by: Andrew Shultz at Apr 18, 2005 4:59:19 PM
Andrew, it's another agree-to-disagree moment. I was not belittling anyone; I simply don't see it that way. I'm not sorry for what I've written. I'm not trying to be an ass about it, either. If others take offense to that, I can't help out except to say that I never held ill will toward anyone in any way about this subject. People are seeing anger and negativity where there's only good-natured humor and wit. You're suggesting I not write a certain way because it appears to offend people. I'm not sympathetic to that suggestion. I think people should have a little more common sense and self-confidence about it, as I've already stated. And, I believe that anyone who knows me (some on this blog do), knows I'm a very agreeable person. (shrug)
You're right about the semantical argument of the word "regular." I don't think we're disagreeing there. That's exactly why I wrote that last parenthetical sentence in my original post above. I'm talking about situations that are "regular" because there are no ghosts, or vampires, or elves, or FTL drives, or the Matrix, or whatever (i.e. regular in contrast to fantastical).
Posted by: Matt Snyder at Apr 18, 2005 5:37:12 PM
The kids I grew up with in Edinburgh sort of play this way now.
I say "sort of" because they tend to play games in fictional settings, but games wherein the characters are lacking in "genre powers" and action-movie abilities.
For instance, my friend Tom has been GM'ing a long-running game of Everway. The characters are children growing up in a viking village in late-middle-ages Norway. The stories have included preparing for rituals of adulthood and dealing with the community's conflict with Christian missionaries. There haven't been monsters or battles per se. And although Everway encourages a certain amount of symbolism and there have been some "dream sequence" bits, there hasn't been "magic" per se, at least not in the "character powers" sense.
These games can be extremely satisfying to play in. I want to stay away from GNS terms, but they certainly satisfy at the immersive or "dream" level, allowing one to experience an Other Life, albeit one that is further removed from our personal concerns than the life of, say, members of the Weather Underground on the run from the law in 1969. To my way of thinking, the lack of "kewl powerz" actually *enhances* the immersion because they move the character one is playing away from being an enabling agent or "playing piece" and instead help frame them as a person to be merely for the experience of being there.
Sorry if this is all maddeningly vague, or if it still qualifies as too "lazery" for your tastes.
A while ago I posted a thread on RPG.net talking about a "non-genre" RPG, by which I intended "an RPG which, if it were a book, would live in the novels section of the bookstore, rather than in a genre fiction subsection":
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=179249
What I got for feedback was a lot of people telling me that you can't separate genre from non-genre in that way, but I personally think you can have a stab at it. Certainly, there is some wierdness in 'Gravity's Rainbow', but it's rather different wierdness from what you'd find in Deadlands: Wierd War II.
Overall, I think there are interesting things that can be done in an RPG that eschews "genre" situations, and eschews character power as a solution to problems. However, I think you're best to approach the problem by framing up what it is you *DO* want to support, rather than just talking about "everyday situations", which just leads us back to cleaning the toilet.
Good luck!
Posted by: Robert Ahrens at Apr 18, 2005 5:52:53 PM
I think the difference is face time. If a friend says something borderline to you to get your attention, you laugh, it's funny. Friends can belittle you good naturedly. On the internet most readers are not your friend and so treat you as a stranger, who gets a lot less latitude in what they say. I mean, if a friend tells you "man, that is one dumb-looking shirt" you can laugh and say "yeah, I bought it to be dorky". But a stranger who does that on the street gets a pretty different reception, even if you did buy the shirt to look dumb.
I'm not suggesting you not write that way. I'm just suggesting you not be surprised when people are insulted or don't get the joke (especially when you include "my ass" in your title). You come across as a pretty nice person when you're not deliberately pulling chains.
Anyway back on topic... I can totally see people buying games that are regular as you are stating there - non-SF, non-fantasy, just stuff that could really happen. I think you mean to go a little farther beyond just cutting out the explicit magic and kewl powers though, to exclude action movie type things as well?
I think those games will appeal to a very small part of the gamer market, or it will be sold to an audience that RPGs don't presently have that doesn't like dice. So a game like that would probably be pretty different from even stuff that's happening with indie games now.
But that's okay, because you don't have to appeal to the people who play games now and probably won't want to play through the situation where they get into med school and their brother goes to war unless they're playing elves.
Posted by: Andrew Shultz at Apr 18, 2005 5:54:09 PM
Robert, sounds like we're on the same page. Cool! I think of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, which fits what I'm after. Deadlands, not so much! So, yeah, right on.
Andrew -- very cool. I hear what you're saying. I'm extremely glad we brought it around to a friendly understanding and keep talking on this topic. Obviously, it's one I'm interested in!
Yes, I think we can, generally speaking, say I'm not interested in "action movie" material. Sure, action might be applicable, only as part of the human-issue-laden situation. We might have a hostage stand-off, as an example.
And, yeah, I think you're right about many gamers not wanting to play . . . unless as elves. That's ok; to each his own.
But, it leaves finding an audience a tough task. I've considered online writer's workshops as one avenue for marketing, for example. Ron has mentioned similar kinds of espionage-fan communities online.
Other ideas anyone?
Posted by: Matt Snyder at Apr 18, 2005 6:04:37 PM
Yesterday I was (as is my wont) listening to (unrelated to me) children on a playground. They had gotten balloon swords and balloon helmets. Two of them swooped down and shouted, "We're pirates!" A third jumped in and said, "I'm a _GHOST_ pirate." One of the original pirates changed his mind. "I'm a tiger pirate!"
It's not just gamers.
Posted by: MT Fierce at Apr 18, 2005 6:19:07 PM
Hey Matt -- few things --
* Is "Story Now" what the kids call Narrativism these days? :)
* Isn't Nicotine Girls already an example of this kinda game?
* How bout SOAP? (OK, arguably that's not precisely an RPG...)
* How about original (Merle Rasmussen) Top Secret, which tried hard to be about real, realistic spies? (But it was far from Narrativist...) That's where I learned the term "Spionen" (as in "Smiert Spionen"...)
I also have some vague thoughts about whether the distinction of "genre with powers/supernatural elemengs" vs "no powers/real world" is meaningful to me. I'm not 100% sure it is, but if it isn't, exactly why it isn't is an interesting question. Thanks for putting forward something to chew on. :)
Posted by: Ed Heil at Apr 18, 2005 7:51:17 PM
Hi Ed!
1) Yes, Story Now = Narrativism
2) Nicotine Girls is an example, absolutely. I recall a not insignificant level of noise regarding that game that it was "unplayable" and I read that concern as "I can't possibly play a teenage girl 'cause it's lame and gross" (or something) I was guiltly of similar, utterly ignorant criticism of the Wuthering Heights RPG a few years back. Pity.
3) Frankly, I don't know enough about SOAP to say confidently. I suspect it's in that vein, just don't know how well it achives Story Now, which is my particular ambition and focus.
Hey, if that distinction isn't meaningful, that's ok. Frankly, the line's pretty blurry. I made a reference to Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind earlier. That's a science fiction movie, right? But, it's about a human situation, and a profound question: Can we forget love? Can we truly leave someone we love behind? Great movie. Perfectly fitting situation for the kind of game I have in mind. (shrug)
Posted by: Matt Snyder at Apr 18, 2005 11:04:54 PM
Oops, forgot #4
4) Top Secret: Dunno. What I know of Top Secret (I had a box set way back in the day) was concerned with action, gadgetry, hit locations, etc. etc. That's distracting from things like "WHat does it mean to be loyal to your country?" Or, "Does love have borders?" Or, "How much is a secret worth?" and so on.
Sure, you could play Top Secret (the one I'm familiar with anyway) and answer some of those questions in profound ways. The system won't help you do it much, I think.
Posted by: Matt Snyder at Apr 18, 2005 11:07:15 PM
I think the best thing you can hope for with system and answering those profound questions is that it stays out of their way. Rolling vs. my "love of country 82" is not a satisfying answer to the question of what it means to be loyal to the country.
Posted by: Andrew Shultz at Apr 18, 2005 11:21:16 PM
Quite apart from parallels to genre/non-genre fiction, isn't one reason for the persistence of "people with super powers" games the fact that many gamers expect a direct correlation where super powers = character effectiveness = player ability to affect the game = fun ?
A lot of traditional RPGs essentially use cool powers to provide niche protection, to ensure every player gets a turn in the spotlight, to protect characters from getting deprotagonized, etc. If you have a group that can handle all those issues without the mechanical protection of PC powers, or a rules set that apportions narrative power in different ways, then you can begin to imagine gaming all sorts of other kinds of stories. But if you haven't had those gaming experiences it may not be easy to see how it could possibly be fun.
(Data point: Eternal Sunshine and movies of that ilk were of course the primary inspiration for our own recent PTA game Dungeon Majesty. There were no special powers in that game. And we're all gamers. And it was plenty fun.)
Posted by: Rob at Apr 18, 2005 11:57:29 PM
I think deeply linked into the idea is that you can't completely avoid meaningful human issues without some form of fantastic justification for conflict... That is, anytime you have groups of people(recognized as fully functional human beings) in conflict, a lot of issues pop up in regards to what is right and wrong, how far is too far, etc.
In order to avoid the human issue, the opposition needs to be dehumanized, perhaps as faceless minions, barbarians or nazis, as in pulp novels, or literally dehumanized as aliens, robots, or orcs. It is easier to explain the irrational behavior on the part of all the characters when one side is "evil", "mindless", or "inherently bent on destruction/murder/etc." In most cases, this is best done through elements of the fantastic.
On the flip side of things- if the primary conflict is about people, then no uber-powers are really going to help you. Being able to lift 1000 tons doesn't solve world hunger, doesn't make your ex love you, or deal with your insecurities. And the few games in which powers CAN help you with issues, the real question becomes a serious moral one, about how to use them and how far to go.
As I mentioned before- the human issues have been so neglected by the hobby that gamers are often unable to make the connection between the human issues and conflict and not the fantastic as the source of conflict. Even when you watch good movies with fantastic elements, they're usually symbolic of real human issues, instead of simply based on the fantastic as the sole source of conflict.
Posted by: Chris at Apr 19, 2005 1:17:05 AM
Hey Andrew, have you seen how traits work in, say, HeroQuest? Quantifying personality traits can be empowering of moral struggles rather than squelching them.
Posted by: Pete Darby at Apr 19, 2005 6:42:25 AM
Matt:
Well, at the risk of over-generalizing, I would say that the big elephant in the room you may be missing (or maybe not, but you don't mention it) is escapism.
Part of the appeal of gaming to me is escapism - and it's tough for me personally to get my escapist groove on without the super-natural element.
That's not to say there's not an audience for a game like the one's you and Ron suggest. Probably mostly the Merchant/Ivory movie crowd - but hey, whatever floats your boat ;-).
In reality though, couldn't your own PTA work as a StoryNow engine to tell the types of stories you're talking about? There's nothing in PTA that says you have to develop a show with supernatural elements...
-Jason
Posted by: Jason L at Apr 19, 2005 9:36:52 AM
Hi Jason!
First, Matt Wilson, not me (Matt Snyder) is the creator of Prime Time Adventures. Too many Matt's in this world as I'm sure Wilson will attest.
Second, I'm missing your reference to "Merchant/Ivory movie crowd." What am I missing there?
As for escapism, yes, I hear what you're saying, and I'm sure many people find that rewarding in their play. And, I think you're right -- somehow, escapism comes more easily when fantastical elements are involved. It creates a kind of comfort zone for some, I think. That's cool.
Posted by: Matt Snyder at Apr 19, 2005 10:06:22 AM
Well, I know that while I have support for fantastic genres in Unsung, that every time I've run it, it's been in non-fantastic genres: beat cops, SWAT, black ops...
That said, as another poster mentioned, these aren't mundane situations. They're still very over-the-top in many ways. But there is no supernatural elements or science fiction elements, and the games went quite well.
I think gamers, like anyone else, respond to drama. The supernatural can be a cheap way of adding drama, but there are other ways, and they work with "typical" gamers.
Posted by: Loki at Apr 19, 2005 10:35:04 AM
Matt (S), gonna question you here about dismissing soap opera as purely melodrama and not what you're looking for. Your weekend description stuff sounds exactly like a soap opera game to me. What's the difference between soaps and a Wuthering Heights game? Is this a genre/non-genre issue? Is it that you're looking for a more "literary" image (cf allusions to Hemingway and Charlie Kaufman movies)?
It sounds to me like one of the underserved markets for a game like what you're talking about (relationship-oriented drama) would be women. It's no skin off my nose, and I'm not personally insulted, but the way you blow off soaps, especially when almost all your positive game models are created by men, doesn't make for a good marketing pitch to women outside the geek/gamer subculture.
Posted by: Ginger Stampley at Apr 19, 2005 11:41:44 AM
Actually I'm running heroquest (well, a game using the system) right now, with personality traits and everything.
And the moment they get in the way of a great character moment, I'm ignoring them. I don't mind if someone has these things written down to help them think about their character, or to apply "loves princess 19" as a modifier when saving the princess.
But if we ever get to the point where instead of talking a dramatic question of betrayal and loyalty out we run a conflict "it's my ego vs. my id!", that's... well, wrong fun for me anyway. I don't think my players will do that though.
Posted by: Andrew Shultz at Apr 19, 2005 11:49:47 AM
Ginger, not dissing soap operas, nor their kinds of dramas. I meant merely that I didn't know whether SOAP the game was a Narrativist-facilitating game, or a game bent more on aping the genre without story as the emphasis. In other words, my comments were about system of that specific game, not about style or genre or whatever.
I'm right there with you, absolutely, that women might be a wonderful target for these kinds of games. I think they might even be accessible via marketing on things like fan sites, writer's workshop sites on which they participate, and so on.
Ideally, I'd want both sexes participating, but I don't think there's too much disagreement that men maintain the majority in this hobby to date.
Posted by: Matt Snyder at Apr 19, 2005 12:02:39 PM
Oops, my fault. Thought you were commenting on my reply to Ed there, Ginger.
Yeah, I dissed soaps. I'm dissing 'em not because I think soaps suck, or arent' fun. I'm dissing them because I don't want to create a game that, de facto, runs as a soap opera all the time. I'm hoping for something with more options, something that encourages more subtlety.
What I'm saying is that I don't want to make a "normal" game, and then people see it just as "Oh, that soap opera game. Bor-ing." That is, where "drama" maps 1:1 with "soap opera" in their minds, somehow.
It's the difference between, oh, a Danielle Steele miniseries on TV and, oh, Sleepless in Seattle. Both are about relationships. I just don't want to see people automatically see "Danielle Steele" and completely overlook the opportunity for Sleepless in Seattle. Making sense?
Posted by: Matt Snyder at Apr 19, 2005 12:07:48 PM
Thanks for the clarification, Matt. You have a fine line to draw, because the possibility of going to melodrama is going to be present in any relationship-oriented game. Emphasizing a list of your favored models, like Sleepless in Seattle, is probably the way to make your intentions clear while attracting the broadest possible audience.
Posted by: Ginger Stampley at Apr 19, 2005 12:33:01 PM
Matt wrote: QUOTE: I recall a not insignificant level of noise regarding that game that it was "unplayable" and I read that concern as "I can't possibly play a teenage girl 'cause it's lame and gross" (or something) ..."
What I said about Nicotine Girls was that I didn't find the subject matter intersting to play, much as I don't watch movies about the same things. I think the game is designed well (I'm biased, because I helped some), but it's just not a genre that interests me.
Americana is just a genre like any other, that which shows like "Seventh Heaven" have. You really can't avoid genre. What you are saying is that you're avoiding deliberately escapist genres. Which is fine.
Andrew, OT a tad, it's telling that HQ does not tell you when to do a contest, or that a player has to follow his character's traits in playing him. This is intentional. In allowing the player to use or not use these things, the game ensures that the power to create theme is in the players hands and that they can do it any way they like. Basically your fears are unfounded. What the rules do end up doing, however, is informing players that conflicts that they get into can be about morals, ethics, etc. As opposed to how the rules of, say, D&D inform the player that they are supposed to be thinking about killing things and taking their stuff.
Posted by: Mike Holmes at Apr 28, 2005 1:47:58 PM
As my TrackBack is stuffed at the moment, here's a URL to my thoughts on the general Lasersharking matter:
http://imagines.herstik.com/000467.html
Posted by: IMAGinES at May 1, 2005 8:07:21 AM
I'm pretty sure my fears are unfounded with my group.
But I'm very sure that there are groups out there that will play with the traits as written on your heroquest sheet, and make you roll your ego vs. your id when you try to restrain your "loves cookies 19".
HQ does not tell you you have to, but the numbers are there, and that's what's rated, so if you're the sort of group that Loves Them Their Numbers, that's what you'll do. Which is wrong fun for me, and right fun for you.
Posted by: Andrew Shultz at May 3, 2005 12:27:08 PM
I'll second the comments above about escapism, in a broader-than-just-genre sense. I like my life a lot (writer and academic). It's relatively low on conflict. I have ZERO NEED to roleplay the kinds of conflict I've been lucky enough to avoid, so I look elsewhere for other kinds of stories to play. And what attracts my attention? Things that are different and heightened in some way. I don't want to play a suburban housewife. Or a rebellious teenager. These are things I could be or have been. I want to go for the things I can't be -- and even then, there's a lot that doesn't interest me. I don't want to play a senator or a sports star, but a spy could be cool. Or a doctor. Or someone living in a different time period. These are in no way SF/F/H genre, but they're still escapism, I'd say, because they're radically different from the life I actually live. Not coincidentally, the pattern of stories/genres I'd want to RP parallels those I like reading in books/watching in movies and TV. Yeah, there's great literature out there about suburban housewives. It bores me stiff. It's just too similar to my own life.
There's a separate issue here, which is the use of RPGs as a way to explore the "human element" (instead of just Killing Stuff). Ain't no reason you can't do that regardless of genre; it's just, for whatever reason, that a lot of people don't. It's history and inertia; D&D founded RPGs as the medium we know, imprinting a vast percentage of what followed, and D&D is about Killing Stuff. Or at least that's what it's designed for. Me, I spent a hilarious seven-hour D&D session working through romantic conflicts, where the only rolls anybody was making were tongue-in-cheek Spot checks to see if you noticed that guy checking out your ass. The fantasy element was tangential; the half-dragon worried he might do bad things could as easily have been the son of an abusive father trying to not be an abuser himself, and the culture clash between the sun elf and the wild elf wasn't dependent on fantastic race. I just happen to be in a gaming group that ends up being more interested in the human element than in lopping off orc heads.
Rambling now, so I should stop. But I'd guess that the degree of success a "mainstream" game would meet will depend on the extent to which players view the situations in it as exciting and unfamiliar. An argument with their boss, they can have any day. And RPing one might start to feel a bit too much like psychological therapy.
Posted by: Bryn Neuenschwander at May 3, 2005 3:27:47 PM
[url=http://www.valleygroup.org/VG_disc1/0000008f.htm]blogspot.com fax loan no payday site[/url] blogspot.com fax loan no payday site http://www.valleygroup.org/VG_disc1/0000008f.htm http://www.dylanryanmay.com/_disc1/00000056.htm [url=http://www.dylanryanmay.com/_disc1/00000056.htm]payday loan store[/url] payday loan store military payday loan [url=http://www.comunitastattese.com/comuinitastattese3/_disc1/000000ce.htm]military payday loan[/url] http://www.comunitastattese.com/comuinitastattese3/_disc1/000000ce.htm [url=http://www.classicmullet.com/_disc2/0000248f.htm]money tree payday loan[/url] money tree payday loan http://www.classicmullet.com/_disc2/0000248f.htm [url=http://www.dfs-fuchsia.dk/_disc1/00004f56.htm]fax payday loan[/url] fax payday loan http://www.dfs-fuchsia.dk/_disc1/00004f56.htm
Posted by: fax payday loan at Jun 27, 2007 7:43:08 PM
[url=http://www.valleygroup.org/VG_disc1/0000008f.htm]blogspot.com fax loan no payday site[/url] blogspot.com fax loan no payday site http://www.valleygroup.org/VG_disc1/0000008f.htm http://www.dylanryanmay.com/_disc1/00000056.htm [url=http://www.dylanryanmay.com/_disc1/00000056.htm]payday loan store[/url] payday loan store military payday loan [url=http://www.comunitastattese.com/comuinitastattese3/_disc1/000000ce.htm]military payday loan[/url] http://www.comunitastattese.com/comuinitastattese3/_disc1/000000ce.htm [url=http://www.classicmullet.com/_disc2/0000248f.htm]money tree payday loan[/url] money tree payday loan http://www.classicmullet.com/_disc2/0000248f.htm [url=http://www.dfs-fuchsia.dk/_disc1/00004f56.htm]fax payday loan[/url] fax payday loan http://www.dfs-fuchsia.dk/_disc1/00004f56.htm
Posted by: fax payday loan at Jun 27, 2007 7:43:46 PM
[url=http://www.freewebs.com/casino-45/casino-2.html]online casino gambling[/url] http://www.freewebs.com/casino-45/casino-2.html free casino game http://www.freewebs.com/casino-45/slots-6.html [url=http://www.freewebs.com/casino-45/slots-6.html]free slots machine game[/url] free casino slots casino games [url=http://www.freewebs.com/casino-31/casino-1.html]casino gambling[/url] http://www.freewebs.com/casino-31/casino-1.html [url=http://www.sandycreekconservancy.com/SCIForum/000000a3.htm]fast payday loan[/url] fast payday loan http://www.sandycreekconservancy.com/SCIForum/000000a3.htm [url=http://www.bigbellyservices.com/_disc5/000006f0.htm]fast cash payday loan[/url] fast cash payday loan http://www.bigbellyservices.com/_disc5/000006f0.htm
Posted by: fast cash payday loan at Jun 27, 2007 10:35:36 PM
