From: mgb@sgi.elec.uq.oz.au (Michael Barlow)
Subject: Re: Thematic Gaming
Summary: A follow up and a few comments
Keywords: thematic, new age, roleplay, characterisation, atmosphere
Organization: Prentice Centre, University of Queensland
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 07:50:40 GMT

Rather than address each of John individual posts on "thematic" gaming I'm just
going to group all my comments on the three postings in this single reply
(which I promise will be shorter than John's :-)

I think its good to see people posting interesting, potentially controversial
and "theoretical" issues to a.g.r which has been a desert for the last couple
of years. Thanks John for what I hope might be a kick start to the newsgroup.

I need to qualify the following comments by saying that I'm not a convention
gamer though I do feel I can still grasp the concepts of "thematic" gaming. :-)

I have to say that I have found the posts very interesting and informative
and have given me some new perspectives on roleplaying (I particularly like
the idea of thinking about what roleplaying would be if it evolved out of a 
different area of human activity than wargaming). The cited example modules
sounds extremely innovate and inspirational to play.

The concept of character affects environment (traditional roleplaying) versus
environment affects character (new wave [new age? :-] roleplaying) is an
interesting classification though like all labelling systems an 
over-simplification. In fact that's the main problem I have with all this 
thematic gaming talk.  Don't get me wrong...its interesting and informative to 
discuss these things and to define techniques but the text comes across as 
preachy and self-indulgent at times (listen to me :-). As a Zen monk might
say: "To label something is to kill it."; meaning you lose the essential
essence of the object/thing and end up with a hollow label. Thats how a lot
of the talk about thematic gaming strikes me---roleplaying is a living,
vibrant activity which is at its best when experienced. Many things can
be learned when activities are broken down but to over categorise and analyse
destroys the beauty of the object under scrutiny.

I particularly like the explanation of how "thematic" gaming grew out of
horror. I just wish that the groups that I had played CoC with had seen
horror in the same perspective you have described; rather than another
genre in which to destroy the monsters.

I have a couple of questions about the 5 major characteristics of new wave
gaming (which I think are good goals to strive for for most games anyway).
Isn't realistic portrays of ordinary people overly constrictive? For example
you cite the Sundowners (a genre dear to my heart) as an example of new wave
gaming but these characters (Vampires) are hardly ordinary people. Isn't it
more realistic portrays of plausible people; rather than ordinary? Also
(forgive my ignorance) what do you mean by roleplaying "in the round"?

I particularly enjoyed the discussion of play; with which I agree 
whole-heartedly. I only wish my bosses also agreed :-).

The advice on module design I found particularly informative and I've already
"stolen" several ideas from there; as I feel these guidelines are applicable
to more than just Con module writing and in most cases apply to the design
of any game (e.g., campaign gaming). In particular the "every character
should have" was very interesting.

The third posting on Sensationalism and Responsibility I found surprising
in many ways. Surely the main theme---that writers should act responsibly;
is self-evident. I agree totally that accurate blurbs about modules are
vital and I think that the recent innovations in rating modules on a number
of scales to help player selection of games has been a good step. However
much of what is said about sensationalism sounds heavy handed to me.
Surely game writers are entitled to write what they wish (con organisers
don't have to accept them of course) and who is to judge whether an issue
or topic is too "sensationalist"...the important thing is how the issue is
dealt with not solely the topic itself. I apologise if I have misunderstood
but the feeling I get from the talk on sensationalism is that we/you/us/them
can somehow specify areas that should not be dealt with in roleplaying. I
don't agree with such an attitude.

I'm struck by the thought that "thematic" gaming--new wave gaming; is not a
new thing at all. Much of its attributes feel to me like traditional story
telling...no mechanics, intense mood, characterisation etc. etc. At least
thats how I see it.

I'd like to conclude by asking where people think roleplaying is going next
(and I don't mean what the next product from Steve Jackson is or whatever)?
What advances (what the hell are they!?) can be made in roleplaying; will
it evolve at all (as I see thematic gaming as having "evolved" out of more
traditional gaming), in what directions etc. etc.

Thanks for listening. Sorry it got so long.



								Spike
							    Bun Bu RyoDo
Newsgroups: aus.games.roleplay