From: john.hughes@anu.edu.au (John Patrick Hughes)
Subject: Thematic Gaming 3/3
Organization: Australian National University
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 06:38:03 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 SIDEGETTING 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 horribleyet sometimes justifiedpublic
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 influenceconvention 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 oneWhat Price Liberty?has done it very well. Im 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 preachoutreach'. 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
sessionthat should get a response out of them. Gosh isn't it
wonderful being so<<adult>> 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 doesnt 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 <<are>>> into sensationalism and some convention
organisers <<don't>> 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 andplayers.

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
abouthaving fun, being social, exercising our imaginations, engaging
our creativity and entertaining each other.


DISCUSSION WELCOME!!

John.
July 1992.
john.hughes@anu.edu.au
From: Lisa.Chevallier@f360.n632.z3.fidonet.org (Lisa Chevallier)
Sender: acsnet@csource.oz.au