Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.archives From: [john hughes] at [anu.edu.au] (John Patrick Hughes) Subject: PAPER: Australian Convention Roleplaying (part 3 of 3) Followup-To: rec.games.frp.misc Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1992 22:51:15 GMT PART 3 OF 3 New Directions in Australian Roleplaying Style, Innovation and Responsibility in Convention Roleplaying Thoughts on 'thematic gaming' presented by John Hughes at the Second Roleplaying Forum, Sydney, May 1991. Updated slightly for Arcarnacon X, July, 1992. Part One: Some Examples, History and Definitions Part Two: Practical Design and Presentation **Part Three: Sensationalism and Misuse of Modules PART THREE: SENSATIONALISM & RESPONSIBILITY THE UGLY SIDE--GETTING DOWN TO SOME SERIOUS DIRT Sexism and Violence Lets face it, roleplaying has a lot of catching up to do. Our hobby began in an exclusively male domain, and it has kept a lot of unnecessary baggage from that past. We've all suffered because of it. As a hobby we have a horrible--yet sometimes justified--public image. Lots of potential roleplayers don't get past the violence and sexism that they see as the prime image of our hobby in most games stores. Until someone comes up with a playable Sensitive New Age Roleplaying Game (??!!), we have to make serious efforts to balance that sexism and violence in the area we can influence--convention roleplaying. I'm not saying that certain styles of game should be banned, I'm merely suggesting that we need to watch how we market these games. When I see modules and even freeforms whose blurbs consist of little more than weapons lists or incitements to Kill! Kill! Kill!, I wonder if there isn't a better way. Tackling serious issues Some new wave modules have tackled what we might call 'serious' issues. At least one--What Price Liberty?--has done it very well. I'm not trying to put a wet blanket on such experimentation, but certain questions should always be asked. Just how much can you do in a game? Even serious modules have to be playable, and need to be enjoyable. Whatever else they are, they are first and foremost roleplaying modules. General theories of the theatre tell us that it is not a function of art to make a statement but to induce an imaginative response; the recipient receiving not an answer to a question but rather an experience. The point here is, 'don't preach--outreach'. Pose questions to your players by all means, but let them come up with the answers. Give them the freedom to use their own creativity. They won't let you down. Sensationalism and Player Sensibility 'Wow! Suddenly roleplaying has grown up. I can write a module about paedophile priests who support communism in South America, or show that Jesus was really an astronaut. I'll rape a character in the second session--that should get a response out of them. Gosh isn't it wonderful being so-<> in roleplaying.' Sensationalism is an easy way to get noticed that reflects badly on us all. The instances of sensationalism in convention roleplaying have been few, but they have been damaging. Players walked out of such games mid session. These modules worry me. They are not thematic gaming. They are not good roleplaying of any description. They don't work. The roleplaying contract depends on GM and players working together, trusting each other, assisting each other. It depends on giving each other freedom to characterise, and if appropriate, to demonstrate a response. It is not about pressing single emotion buttons which say, be shocked, be scared, be outraged. Hitting players with an emotional sledgehammer is the thematic equivalent of a 'Stone Wall' (a badly designed tunnel of fun). It doesn't work, it destroys the trust in each other necessary for a successful module, and it gives all roleplaying a bad name. You would think that playtesting and common sense would get rid of sensationalist ideas early on in the design process. However a lot of modules still aren't playtested, and many get finished only a week or two before the con. (No, not me. Someone else :-} ). I suggest that there is an obligation for convention organisers to screen modules, and to learn to say 'no' before any damage is done. As I've discovered in organising Necronomicon, if done in the right way, screening modules can be a lot of fun for all concerned, and a positive step in the design process. Designers don't mind people taking an active interest in their progress. A lot of good can come from it in a lot of different ways. I'm not an advocate of censorship. I am a strong advocate of self regulation and of taking full responsibility for what we create. Since recent experience shows that some designers <>> into sensationalism and some convention organisers <> have the knowledge or inclination to deal with it, I want to open the topic up for discussion. I suggest we need some sort of roleplaying code for designers and convention organisers. (Come to think of it, one for players would be a good idea as well). We need to avoid topics that are too close to the bone or that catch players unprepared. Some are obvious. Sexual violence, sustained obscenity or blasphemy, splatter porn, meaningless and graphic violence are out. (I would like to think that they have always been out.) Aping religious ceremonies in detail has a great potential to misfire and should be avoided. Designing characters around particular players and highlighting psychological or relationship problems through those characters (psychodrama) is just as dangerous. Modules that irresponsibly deal with explicit sexuality can threaten real world relationships among players. Now some modules legitimately deal with these issues in a serious and sensible way. Some don't; merely including them for shock value. Simply, if you are touching upon any adult, violent or psychological realm, it is your responsibility to make sure that players know exactly what they are entering beforehand. Prepare a handout to distribute with the character sheets, or better yet, put a warning with your module's blurb. Necronomicon uses a rating system that spells out module content. If you only discover that you have to deal with the rape of a player character when it occurs, (admittedly an extreme example) then its far too late. These things are as important and basic as building a sound plot and giving your players freedom to explore. Both sides of the equation -- the mechanics and the social -- are equally basic to sound module design. PLAYING THE GAME - SOME SUGGESTIONS FOR CONTINUING EVOLUTION There is a need for a sense of responsibility in all modules, with an onus on designers, convention organisers, gamesmasters and-players. In thematic games, there is a need to target and advertise particular audiences. There is a need to differentiate between adult and thematic and sensation-seeking and insulting. There is a need to recognise our ongoing need for balance, and for a broad cross section of design and playing styles. There is a need to discourage system snobbery from both thematic and adventure gamers. Roleplaying is big enough for all of us, and a lot more besides. Most importantly, there is always a need to remember what our hobby is about--having fun, being social, exercising our imaginations, engaging our creativity and entertaining each other. John. July 1992. [john hughes] at [anu.edu.au]