Column Proposal for RPGnet

I have e-mailed a number of fellow-role-players to get feedback regarding the column I would like to publish on RPG.net. I have received a terrific response from these friends.

Here are the e-mails that have been going back and forth:




---

danio

Greetings!

I'm preparing a column I would like to write for RPG.net. A proposal is
appended. Please send me your comments.
I would also like to send individual articles to you before submitting
them, so as to get your input. You may also be interested in
contributing your own articles to the column. I will be preparing
guidelines for contributors. (Pour les francophones, si vous n'ecrivez
pas en anglais, je pourrais les traduire.)
This is very exciting work for me, and should lead to an article on
roleplaying games to be submitted to Performance Studies-related
publications - Performance Studies being my passion.

Thank you for being continuing supporting friends, and thank you for
all the wonderful times we've had roleplaying together, showing me the
power and potential of this unique activity!

danio


---
Column Proposal for RPGnet:

Perspectives on Roleplaying Games,
RPGs through the lenses of various subjects (provisional title)

This column follows the theory that all things are better understood
when apprehended under various lenses, as examplified in the story of
the six blind men and the elephant. (In this story, six blind wisemen
set out to investigate the nature of the famous elephant. Each in turn
describes it based on the part of the body they are touching – one
claiming it is like a tree trunk, another like a spear, or like a snake,
a wall or a rope. Each believing his is the only correct assessment,
they argue needlessly.)
http://www.noogenesis.com/pineapple/blind_men_elephant.html

Each article will approach roleplaying games from a particular field,
noting its properties, its strength, and its potential. While I already
have several fields outlines, this column would greatly benefit from
additional contributions, which would further expand our perspective on
this fascinating art/hobbie.

Perspectives include Performance Studies, Performance Practice,
Religion, Business, Sociology, and Pedagogy.

Jerome Delattre

I'm looking forward to read those articles ^^
I like the "organic" approach of the subject that I think will fit in the editorial.
For what I have seen so far, the articles in RPG.net are "Technical". i.e. stats (who cares about stats anyway ???), how to play, how to run a business. :o/
Nothing about what is happening really, what the game is about, the experience...

As for my perspective, I do think that the only real "Game" is RPG, and all other games are simulation of it. So, if RPG is already a simulation of the reality, it makes "no-RP" games copies of a copy; which generaly ends up very tight in boundaries. And boundaries is what the RPG should not be about. =]
Which lead me back to your proposal, its boundaries should not be tight(or told), but implicit.

"Peter L Winthrop"

You have a good start. You need to next explain why you picked those
perpectives to us before you begin sending out the articles.
--
Peter L Winthrop

"Shawn C. Harris"

I'd like to read some sample articles too, though if I were to hazard a
suggestion, it would be to see how far you can really take this idea. So
far, you are leaning toward the liberal arts and soft sciences. I think
this is natural given that we are dealing with roleplaying games.
However, bridging RPGs and quantum physics, RPGs and developmental
anatomy, or RPGs and zoology would be intriguing as well. And psychology
(especially cognitive psychology or psychology of the personality) would
present a unique angle as well.

danio

Thank you Jerome, Peter and Shawn for your feedback so far!

Jerome said,

"As for my perspective, I do think that the only real "Game" is RPG,

and all other games are simulation of it. So, if RPG is already a

simulation of the reality, it makes "no-RP" games copies of a copy;

which generaly ends up very tight in boundaries. And boundaries is what

the RPG should not be about."

That's an interesting perspective. I would definitely be interested in

hearing further elaboration.

Peter said,

"You need to next explain why you picked those perpectives to us before

you begin sending out the articles."

Shawn said,

"if I were to hazard a suggestion, it would be to see how far you can

really take this idea. So far, you are leaning toward the liberal arts

and soft sciences. I think this is natural given that we are dealing

with roleplaying games. However, bridging RPGs and quantum physics,

RPGs and developmental anatomy, or RPGs and zoology would be intriguing

as well. And psychology (especially cognitive psychology or psychology

of the personality) would present a unique angle as well."

The perspectives I listed are those with which I am familiar. They are

limited in scope, which is why I am hoping to draw on more diverse

contributions. Developmental anatomy and zoology sounds crazy! I'd love

to hear about that! If I have at least a handful of contributors in the

beginning, I'm sure some RPGnet-goers would jump on the bandwaggon.

I'll also take your advice and ensure that "guidelines" for

contributors are very open. Things like "Stick to one field (and

closely-related ones)", or "More focus on the practice of RPGs than on

design".

I haven't heard back from RPGnet yet, but I'll let you know when I do.

danio

"Peter L Winthrop"

> Jerome said,
"As for my perspective, I do think that the only real "Game" is RPG,
and all other games are simulation of it. So, if RPG is already a
simulation of the reality, it makes "no-RP" games copies of a copy;
which generaly ends up very tight in boundaries. And boundaries is what
the RPG should not be about."

How is soccer a simulation of a RPG?
While I will agree that games are a simulation and grew out of
activities that occurred in life, but putting RPGs before all of them?
Why even do that?
As to boundaries, well going by a different name rules are what
determines what the game is or to put it another way creates the world.
Well have all played games that had tight and loose boundaries and that
changed the experience of the game.

> Shawn said,
"if I were to hazard a suggestion, it would be to see how far you can
really take this idea. So far, you are leaning toward the liberal arts
and soft sciences. I think this is natural given that we are dealing
with roleplaying games. However, bridging RPGs and quantum physics,
RPGs and developmental anatomy, or RPGs and zoology would be intriguing
as well. And psychology (especially cognitive psychology or psychology
of the personality) would present a unique angle as well."

Zoology?
--
Peter L Winthrop

Jerome Delattre

Because RPG is about simply playing(simulating) a role (which is a representation of a character).
But a soccer game is an abstract representation of a situation(probably a fight) which is materialized by players on a field running, and using a ball for score. This is at least 2 layers deep of copies. Still in this soccer game, every players assume a specific role, but they are all stuck in a world with a lot of "boundaries" (you must stay on the field, the ball must not leave it, etc...).
I didn't(or wouldn't) say Soccer is less entertaining that RPG. It's a different way of "walking"; but by definition RPG is closer to reality that all the other games.
That's my perspective... You know I'm crazy... :P

"Brent Falconer"

NOTE TO ALL: I am not dead. I owe all of you phone calls. At least, those of you who know me. Heck, I might even owe some of you strangers phone calls.
It's hard to know until I meet you.

Ok, I'm in. I think my initial contribution is going to be to ask for
clarification on a few things regarding the proposal.

1) I understand that you want to make a column/article. I understand the significance of the fable of the blind men and the elephant. What I can't figure out is how the fable relates back to the project.

2) I would like some clarification regarding the following (quoting Danio, of couse): "Each article will approach roleplaying games from a particular field, noting its properties, its strength, and its potential." I agree with the principle involved, but I'm having trouble figuring out what it means in terms of concrete action, words and thought. In other words, what kind of action do you see us taking to accomplish this goal? HOW exactly do you approach roleplaying from the field of pedagogy, for example.

3) Because lists sound better with 3 points, as Danio knows.

"Brent Falconer"

Ok. I think I understand what you mean by a "copy of a copy"- that RPG's
copy life, and other games copy RPG's. I understand how that plays out
logically. What I would like to hear more about is your reasoning that all
other games copy RPG's. A couple of possible fallacies I can see with this
statement:

--RPG's haven't been around that long, unless you consider RPG's to be just
a form of play-acting (playing pretend), in which case you could argue it's
been around forever. In any case, even if you consider RPG's to be
play-acting, how do sports and board games copy play-acting/role-playing?
Aren't they all just some form of playing, acting or simulation with certain
deviations? That would put them all as peers, in my mind.

--I don't consider most RPG's to be a true "game", per se. Most RPG's don't
have such definate objectives as Sorry, Soccer or Go, for example. At the
conclusion of any of those games, a winner can be declared by objective
criteria. Not so with most RPG's. Most RPG's are really a hybrid of acting,
games, and life simulation. The thing that makes it game-like is the rule
set. But a traditional game almost always has a win, lose or tie mechanic
objectively built into the game. A winner can only be declared in an RPG by
mutual consent of the participants, which is a subjective criteria. In this
respect, RPG is closer to real life or performance art than a game.

-- I would also like to hear more reasoning about implicit vs. strict
boundaries, and how all of this ties back to the project. I totally agree
that this kind of article is needed on RPG.net- this "soft science" kind of
stuff will be like a breath of fresh air.

"Brent Falconer"

to respond to Shawn:

"if I were to hazard a suggestion, it would be to see how far you can
really take this idea. So far, you are leaning toward the liberal arts
and soft sciences. I think this is natural given that we are dealing
with roleplaying games. However, bridging RPGs and quantum physics,
RPGs and developmental anatomy, or RPGs and zoology would be intriguing
as well. And psychology (especially cognitive psychology or psychology
of the personality) would present a unique angle as well."

I agree that this is an interesting exercise to undertake. While it is
theoretically possible to tackle RPG's from any perspective, though, some
are bound to be more illuminating than others.

"Peter L Winthrop"

On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 00:56:40 -0600, "Brent Falconer"
said:
> NOTE TO ALL: I am not dead. I owe all of you phone calls. At least, those
> of
> you who know me. Heck, I might even owe some of you strangers phone
> calls.
> It's hard to know until I meet you.


HOLY SHIT!!! You Do exist!


> Ok, I'm in. I think my initial contribution is going to be to ask for
> clarification on a few things regarding the proposal.
>
> 1) I understand that you want to make a column/article. I understand the
> significance of the fable of the blind men and the elephant. What I can't
> figure out is how the fable relates back to the project.

Each blind main had a different frame of reference (POV) from which they
made their conclusion about the elephant. What I want to know is why
none of them moved around? This is a great example of how far science
has come.

> 2) I would like some clarification regarding the following (quoting
> Danio, of couse): "Each article will approach roleplaying games from a
> particular field, noting its properties, its strength, and its potential." I agree
> with the principle involved, but I'm having trouble figuring out what it means
> in terms of concrete action, words and thought. In other words, what kind of
> action do you see us taking to accomplish this goal? HOW exactly do you
> approach roleplaying from the field of pedagogy, for example.

Each should include the downside as well don't you think? I'll let dani
field the accually question first.

>
> 3) Because lists sound better with 3 points, as Danio knows.

I find the last part mildly scary for some reason. Maybe because I just
woke up.
--
Peter L Winthrop

"Peter L Winthrop"

Lost of stuff. Oh how I have missed this intellect.

Anyways, allot of what Brent has brought up goes to the definition of
"game" and "RPG". The purpose of this e-mail is to set out the
definition the currently exist, as they are written on Dictionary.com
since this is a source that everyone has access to and I have never
heard a complaint about its accuracy. The definition of what a game is
as taken from Dictinary.com: "game" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (gm) n.

1. An activity providing entertainment or amusement; a pastime: party
games; word games.

This definition includes all games and is a product of the great
expanse of the types of games that exist.

1. A competitive activity or sport in which players contend with each
other according to a set of rules: the game of basketball; the game
of gin rummy.

This is the older definition and the one in which Brent is basing his
statement. While the words "competitive activity and sport" might not
apply to all role-playing games, though I believe it might, the rest,
in particular "set of rules" does apply to all role-playing games.
Most interesting about this definition is that is introduces a sub-set
of game into the mix- sport. A sport, like role-playing, card game,
board game, and etc., is a particular type of game that can be set apart
from the rest.

Last: role-playing game n.

A game in which players assume the roles of characters and act out
fantastical adventures, the outcomes of which are partially
determined by chance, as by the roll of dice.

While the gaming industry and development has evolved to the point in
which dice are not always involved, this still seems to be a accurate
and encompassing of the broad differences of games. It might need
updating to include more of the varring types, such as live-action
role-playing. This definition does not take into account the personally
motivations and feelings that a person would have for playing, in
particular danio's sticks out in my mind, which is not a detriment to
either view.
--
Peter L Winthrop

"Orion McClelland"

Wow, the things that go on in my inbox when I'm not looking. Just thought
I'd add in my opinion. It's fun over analyzing trivial things.

First, as for the definition of a game. As some one in the games industry,
I tend to find Brent's definition is more commonly accepted than
dictionary.com's. I tend to see the requirements for a game including some
form of objective, and a clear rules set. For example, The Sims is the
highest selling game of all time, but most people do not consider it a game.


Second, I do think that reolplaying is probably one of the oldest and most
basic form of gaming. When you're seven, no one teaches you how to
roleplay, yet still you play cops and robbers, or my guys vs. your guys (or
for the young litegaters out ther my guys v. your guys). Further the art of
story telling has long standing significance as in many cultures it was the
primary form of passing down history. So it's old.


Third, I think most games have boundries where RPG's have definitions.
Definitions empower you, a boundary takes power away. In the simulation
that is soccer, you can only do what is clearly defined. In an RPG, the
only boundaries are set by the GM, thus the game is as open as one wants it
to be. Sure, there are things that you are "supposed to be doing" but how
many games have we totally ignored that and, oh, say, decided to travel back
to Earth ignoring all other plotlines? That's one game for those of you who
don't know.


Fourth, I do agree that RPG's are a simulation that are truer to life, but I
actually have trouble agreeing that all other games are an imitation of them
(which is actually counter to my original conclusion). I think Jerome's
original points where well stated. However, two things would cause me to
disagree. First is that in a game like soccer, you play a role in a
simulated battle. In an RPG you play a role in a simulated world. I agree
with Brent, that makes them peers. The soccer game has way more boundaries,
but still the same number of layers. Second, I think most RPG's don't
necessarily qualify as games by the definition mentioned above. In a game,
there are clearly defined goals and objectives. In Soccer, the only goal is
to score goals (hell, they're even called goals). You wouldn't for instance
find very much gratifying in kicking the ball out of bounds a lot. Your
team would probably beat you up too. In an RPG, you have perceived goals,
but really, that's just to give yourself something to do. I think the
Wraith game we played kind of exemplifies that since a lot of it was just
kind of hanging out while dead. Realisticly, most games we play have a
perceived goal, but how many times have we listened to a young maiden tell
us of how we're going to have to face a hundred guards to complete our
objective, only to say "screw that," and leave town instead? That's also
one game for those of you who don't know. So, in conclusion, I can see how
you consider RPG's the only true game cuz they are the truest, most open
simulations of life. However, I can't agree that most games mimic them, I
would be more inclined to consider them inferior peers (inferior because
they have more boundries).


Finally, no I do not have anything of value to ad to the actual topic of
conversation (danio's column), and non-bulleted lists look far more
sophisticated.

"Robert Falconer"

Well now! These are some interesting points and concepts. It is evident we have ourselves people who, though tied together by a common love, share drastically different views on how that love should be illuminated. Give thanks to our neighborhood bandana wielding french-men for his fine cross sectional choice of advisors! Before I get into my two-cents, I would request everyone hit the "respond to all" option, instead of just responding to danio individually. Personally, this makes me feel much more like this is a consultative action and I am taking part.

So, on to my two-cents.

I share sentiments with my fellow Falconer when he so nobley inquired as to the practical implications of our rather abstract musings. And, though the subsequential responses have been fascinating, they have, if anything, only painted a vauger picture. While my mind revels in such intellectual debates about a topic I hold very dear, my pleasure is somewhat dampened by the fact that I have no idea what is going on. The thought process goes like this: "Defining role-playing? Yes! Let us debate that! But what the crap is it for again?" This is followed by reading over all the e-mails again, putting on my concentration face, squinting very hard, and attaining an understanding which lasts all of two minutes.

I just don't see what we are trying to achieve here. I get that we are trying to add a "soft-science" aspect to an otherwise technical website. I get that this is very much a breath of fresh air for all parties involved, and I get that we all like role-playing a lot. Other then that, I seem to jump from point to point without a cohesive string to tie them all together. Just what are you asking of us dan-man? I could debate and expound on how I feel all day and all night, but it seems you are asking for something slightly beyond that. In what way would we directly contribute to this project? Indeed, what IS this project? All these questions and more swirl around my head, so numerous that I simply must ask them, when, really, all I want to do is hit "reply to all" and begin my e-mail with: "Sure, that is the mundane definition of role-playing, but HAVE you considered..."

Further explanation of the matter would greatly aid my sanity, and might just make the voices stop. Things like: Are we actually writing articles? How in the HELL does [Insert prefix]ology tie into roleplaying? What, if anything, would that look like with regards to the project? Have you merely assembled an elite team of advisors from which to harvest ideas when you write the column? Why do French hats make people look so silly?

And, finally, ninjas in the night my friends...ninjas in the night.

Dutifully typing too much,
Robbie

"Shawn C. Harris"

I'm sort of lost here too. I thought the original idea was to
contribute our ideas to a column danio will be writing for RPGnet that
links RPGs to very different academic fields. Danio presented mostly
liberal arts fields, and I added that you could also add psychology (of
several different kinds) and a few hard sciences. After thinking about
it further, though, I'm still a bit fuzzy on why we're making this link
and how we're supposed to use it.

Are we using roleplaying to better understand these other fields? The
other fields to better understand roleplaying? What sort of tangible
benefits are we looking for? How do you want your audience to respond
to this? Are you trying to interest people from different fiends in
roleplaying? Roleplayers in different fields?

How are you thinking about presenting and using these different fields?
Are you going off the basic principles of each field, or will you be
presenting specific bits of knowledge from each field? For instance, if
you're linking RPGs with physics, would you be more likely to introduce
what physics is and what it's about then apply it to RPGs, or are you
more likely to discuss the properties of waves and particles and apply
that to RPGs? Of course, you can do both and make both interesting, but
your decisions will definitely color the direction of the questions that
follow.

Robert Falconer wrote:

> Further explanation of the matter would greatly aid my sanity, and
> might just make the voices stop. Things like: Are we actually writing
> articles? How in the HELL does [Insert prefix]ology tie into
> roleplaying? What, if anything, would that look like with regards to
> the project? Have you merely assembled an elite team of advisors from
> which to harvest ideas when you write the column? Why do French hats
> make people look so silly?

"Robert Falconer"

Precisely Shawn, precisely. Any clarification would help, for me.

"Orion McClelland"

To address Robbie's point, you may be a bit confused because there are two

different conversations going on here. One being the one danio started and

one being an analysis of a comment made in passing, which is arguably a

debate over semantics which has gotten a bit out of hand. To bring focus

back to the original topic, my understanding is that in its simplest form

the column is just an exploration of a number of different points of view of

this hobby we all share. However, I don't think the ultimate goal of these

columns was clearly stated (or maybe it was, I miss stuff sometimes). I am

curious, what purpos do these articles serve? Are they just there for the

sake of people being able to say "that's interesting," or are they there to

some how bridge the gap between different roleplaying styles? Or have I

missed the point completly? Also, to reiterate a point that I'm sure

someone has made at some point, what exactly do you want us to do to help?

I'm down for whatever.

--Orion