Eh. I really don't have time for this. But....
So, I was reading this post by Mr. Maliszewski the other day, as well as its associated links. All things considered it feels a little disjointed which is (perhaps) understandable given his focus at the moment on his current writing project. I can dig that.
Still. It bears a response.
There are RPGs and there are RPGs. And in addition there is Dungeons & Dragons. I think it's important to understand how distinct these things are from each other...and from a fiction franchise like the ones described in James's article. Whether you're talking Star Wars or Game of Thrones or whatever, such things are simply settings designed to TELL STORIES. Specifically, to tell a particular story.
In the case of Star Wars (for example) we're talking about the "story" of Luke Skywalker, from his humble beginnings to his heroic triumph over the forces of evil. The setting of the Star Wars universe...including both its interplanetary geography, its history/timeline, its imagined "culture," its cast of characters, its pseudo-religions, etc....all exist specifically as BACKDROP for the story being told. They provide a rich and (for many folks) inviting tapestry that intrigues and engages the imagination, but they are only as important as they apply to the story at hand. That there is room enough in the setting to tell other stories (the rise and fall of Anakin Skywalker, for example, or the story of parental love and identity found in The Mandalorian series) is evidence of the broad consistency and richness of its fantasy landscape.
[I'd be tempted to say the same about the various book series set in the Star Wars universe, except that A) I've read almost none of them, and B) what I have read all seems to be filled/fraught with blatant "fanservice," in the same annoying fashion as most of the cinematic installments in the franchise history]
Similar statements could be said of Martin's ASoFaI series except that it is far more limited in scope, being (for the most part) medieval mudcore with extremely limited fantasy elements often subverted (especially in the teleplay) to visual porn (both of violence and sexuality).
[I say that as someone who is a fan of the series and who has found it fascinating in spite of its more prurient elements. In other words, not trying to hate, just calling it like I see it]
Franchises...whether you're talking Lucas and Martin or the ones created by Roddenberry, Herbert, Rowling, Tolkien, Clancy, etc....all have something in common: they have become a means of generating reliable income for their producers (either the creators or those who hold the IP) because of their built-in fan/customer base. Every installment of the franchise...whether it be a book, a movie, a TV show, or some example of lifestyle branding/signaling (t-shirts, merch, etc.)...becomes an investment destined to yield a rich return. When Disney allows some company to create coffee mugs with superheroes branded on it, you can be sure that they are reaping some sort of royalty return, even as they allow the cup company to make money themselves (and continue promoting their franchise). Every franchise is a money-making cash cow designed to milk fan loyalty. Pure and simple. This is what the capital behind the franchise is (excuse the pun) banking on.
But D&D is a game, not a franchise.
At least the D&D I play. Unlike certain RPGs that are based on specific, story-based IP (think: most Chaosium RPGs, many "trad" RPGs of the 90s, etc.) D&D invites players to create THEIR OWN WORLD...their own campaign...in which to play the game. Unless you're going to buy into a specific piece of setting IP (say, DragonLance or Greyhawk or whatever), the game you run is your own...with no story involved.
Which is important! Stories have beginnings and (generally speaking, Mr. Martin) endings as well. As such, they are designed to stop. That corporations (it is always corporations of some sort) decide to turn a story into a money-making franchise does not change this essential fact. Luke Skywalker's story is over, once it's told. So is the story of succession for the Iron Throne (once the matter is decided). It is a LOT harder to find reasons to create adventures in a setting/world for which the major events have already been chronicled.
Not impossible mind you. Creative minds will find a way.
But not all RPGs are created equally. Dungeons & Dragons doesn't come with a built in setting. Instead, it provides a set of rules for playing a game. Individual Dungeon Masters are the parties responsible for creating their worlds/settings. And with a focus on that (i.e. world creation) why would anyone ever tire of their campaign?
DMs are not storytellers. We are lords of creation. We are gods.
D&D is not played with an end goal in mind. Yes there are "win" (and "loss") conditions built into the system; yes, there are objectives of play. But these are of secondary importance to the experiential nature of play itself. DMs do not create stories; DMs create worlds. And then they run those worlds using the rules of the game.
Some might say that any confession that an RPG (especially one not tied to a specific setting or fiction franchise) could, eventually, be "played out" shows a distinct lack of creativity. As was pointed out to me the other day, a piano has only 88 keys, and yet people continue to find ways to create new music with those same keys, even after centuries of use. And that's only using two hands! How many more combinations of situations can one create with a Monster Manual and a blank sheet of graph paper? How many more iterations can you have with multiple human players, each bringing their own experiences and personalities to the table?
I am certain there are those who look at the game of AD&D...the game I've yet to tire of after 40-odd years...and say, what a boring game. What a boring premise. Killing monsters and getting gold. How long can that stay exciting? How long till that grows tiresome? I am certain of this because people have said as much to me...more than once.
And yet most of us have had the experience of having to "work for a living." Even those of us blessed with an exciting, fulfilling job/career/vocation have known days that were humdrum and boring, or challenging in non-fun ways...dealing with irate clients and unresponsive vendors and the fluctuation of markets affected by the stupid, stupid actions of an utterly corrupt and incompetent American president.
Isn't it nice to have an escape to a world where your problems can be solved with a sword or a magic spell? Isn't it fun to have some pulse-pounding, adrenaline surging excitement that doesn't end in real world injury...or even sore muscles? And for the creative individual, isn't it nice to have an ENTIRE UNIVERSE to shape and mold as you please, and to share that universe with our fellow humans, astounding them with pulse-pounding, adrenaline surging experiences?
There is a deeper game beyond the surface play one first discovers as a kid opening a boxed "basic set" of D&D...but one only finds it if they spend the time and effort to grow and develop their game. Just as we, humans, grow and develop ourselves. We need to stop selling ourselves short.
Go long.
Thanks JB, for stating what I (at least) feel and cannot verbalize. Sadly TSR fell right into the "world/story telling" trap early on IMNSHO. Just look at Tekumel and, as you stated, Greyhawk (and the sundry follow on adventures.) I think it is human nature to want to be led. Creativity and imagination can be hard and many folks are afraid to put themselves out there by way of their creativity. They might get shot down, mocked, humbled and made to "feel bad." It's easier to "buy in" to an established franchise that others like than to make your own. Hope that makes some sense? Your series in support of AD&D is really refreshing and inspiring to me. Your Basic D&D Companion book as well, you really captured what I felt the Expert rule book teased for that project. And despite our being polar opposites politically I'd still jump at the chance to play in one of your AD&D campaigns!
ReplyDeleteHaha. Thanks Randolph (and for the kind words about my book).
DeleteWhat you say makes sense insomuch as I mean that I understand where you're coming from. But I'm really not asking for much of a "leap" for people who have already decided to be a Dungeon Master for people who (presumably) are interested in playing D&D. Everyone coming to the table is already a BIG FAT NERD (in the conventional sense)..you're worried about being "shot down" or "mocked" by that? By people who are looking to be entertained (as players), rather than doing the heavy lifting (of DMing) themselves?
I think most DMs have a hesitation about starting their own world/setting because they feel it needs to be some sort of grand magnum opus of creativity and storytelling...far from it! In my experience, players don't give a rat's ass about that...about the history and politics and backstory of an imagined place. Not yours and not anyone else's "pre-designed" world. At least, the players who come to PLAY. The players who come to do story-building and "my guy" narcissism might have a different agenda. But there are games for those people (i.e. games that I don't run at the moment), and they are welcome to their type of role-playing. I guess. So long as they can stomach it.
As far as politics go, you're welcome at my table. My left-leaning politics are generally a matter of practicality: if you look back over the last, oh, 50ish years or so you'll see that our country (and much of the world) does better under Democratic leadership, and our country (and the rest of the world) goes in the crapper when the Republicans are in power. You certainly don't have to go my way, and I've gamed with folks who don't share my beliefs about any number of things, politics included. Hanging out with people of different points of view help broaden our own, and connecting over shared passions (sports, gaming, whatever) helps us remember we're all humans trying to get by on this planet, regardless of our differing beliefs and backgrounds. We need MORE connections, not less.
; )
Hi. I agree about that it is the experience of play that really matters and that world building is incremental. In fact Cook/Marsh Expert talks you through just that and then gives you the Known World as an example but with scant detail. Mentzer Expert muddies that quite a lot. While I've played a lot of MERP and consumed many of its supplements, I always found adventuring in Middle Earth to be far less satisfying than the books. Possibly because of this my 'world' is 20 3-mile hexes with a few small dungeons, one very large one, and a Tardis like fey forest where almost anything can happen. There's easily 2000+ years of history within that distance of my real house that I use as inspiration.
DeleteOn the politics. By coincidence Scotland had an election on Thursday, and with it being my daughter's first vote (she's 16) we were discussing the outcome earlier and she mentioned how she had been discussing the results with her pals this afternoon. I replied that I no longer talk politics outside of the family except with two close friends and that I notice how younger colleagues never mention politics at all. It's undoubtedly true that there's more polarisation and less mixing between people of opposite views. This is unhealthy for democracy and it wasn't always like this and I remember working 25y ago with people who were good at their job, good to talk to, very funny but were right wing. We'd swap newspapers at lunch and talk politics at the office and in the pub. Disagreements happened and people might have become annoyed but the falling outs never felt existential. Now nobody talks politics at work.
I have the belief that the polarisation is driven by commercial interests who want to establish a brand loyalty via algorithm so that we don't step back out of the bubble and buy from someone else.
While you each position yourselves as left- and right-wing, it's probable that you actually share very many of the same basic ideals. I'd contend that the following from US President FDR'S four freedoms speech would be a common point of agreement between the three of us and JB's readers more widely:
"For there is nothing mysterious about the foundations of a healthy and strong democracy. The basic things expected by our people of their political and economic systems are simple. They are:
Equality of opportunity for youth and for others.
Jobs for those who can work.
Security for those who need it.
The ending of special privilege for the few.
The preservation of civil liberties for all.
The enjoyment of the fruits of scientific progress in a wider and constantly rising standard of living.
These are the simple, basic things that must never be lost sight of in the turmoil and unbelievable complexity of our modern world. The inner and abiding strength of our economic and political systems is dependent upon the degree to which they fulfill these expectations."
I can't argue with any of those words 85y later, but it does seem very clear that today's politicians, both yours and mine, have.
Big fan of FDR, natch.
DeleteI think you're right about polarization being driven by commercial interests.
And that's about all I want to say.
This post encapsulates what I try to tell people when explaining why I don't want to run or play in middle earth even though I love and respect all of Tolkien's works(though not necessarily the adaptations).
ReplyDeleteThere's no reason you can't incorporate things you love from Tolkien into your own campaign. I definitely steal aspects of Moorcock's novels for my setting.
Delete; )
My experience is completely the opposite of yours.
ReplyDeleteWhen I play a ttrpg, D&D or another one, it doesn't really matter, there is always a point where we feel that we have reached an interesting end. I know that I can go beyond that, of course, but I know from experience that the end result will be unsatisfactory and the table will "bore out" of the campaign.
The sweet spot for me is around 10 to 20 game sessions. After that, it's time to move to the next project.
Interesting. And do you run your own campaign world that you have built?
DeleteIf you do not, I can see why/how you might be bored after 20-30 sessions. For one thing, it's a lot easier to "move on" from something that you haven't built yourself (once you start pouring your own blood, sweat, and tears into it, it's hard to abandon your world...especially to have to recreate it all again!). For a second thing, part of the joy of DMing is in the world-building process. For myself, I don't get tired of it, I simply want to "drill down" deeper INTO it.
And for AD&D, 20-30 sessions is a pretty small number. Even with a group of very solid, very serious players...and assuming a high degree of good fortune...20-30 sessions probably won't even see the characters hitting 9th level. Which means everything they're doing is going to be pretty "small fry." Not because they should be commanding armies and such (that's fairly possible at any level, actually) but because the breadth of challenge available to a DM is so limited at those low-mid levels. 8th level PCs are likely to get their clocks cleaned by anything tougher than a small dragon or a passel of hill giants, let alone extra-planar creatures with magic resistance.
Perhaps, though, your "opposite experience" from mine is based on the types and style of game you play. There's a reason I talk up AD&D as the "king" of games. Just sayin...
And those 10 to 20 to 30 sessions can vary in length dramatically. Are we talking 2 hour sessions or 12 hour sessions? I really think the RPG community needs to stop talking about sessions or weeks or years plated, but in actual hours played. A yearlong campaign of weekly 2 hour sessions can essentially cover the same ground as a campaign with 8 hour sessions every 2 weeks for 6 months
DeleteThat's a fair point, Lance.
Delete