From: markg@vulcan.anu.edu.au (Mark Grundy)
Subject: Re: Thematic Gaming
Keywords: thematic, new age, roleplay, characterisation, atmosphere
Organization: Computer Services Centre, Australian National University
Date: 29 Jul 92 05:09:56 GMT

        In an earlier article, mgb@sgi.elec.uq.oz.au (Michael Barlow) writes
    on John Hughes' comments about  ``thematic gaming''.  The articles  have
    been good 'n'  meaty, and  it's a  real joy to  see such  stuff back  in
    a.g.r.

        I don't know where this article is headed, but I'd very much like to
    say something here.  I think that my opinions differ significantly  from
    John's but it's hard to say because  John covered a wealth of topics  in
    his three-part posting.   I'd  like to  keep this  article pertinent  to
    Spike's questions and John's original article, but given the quantity of
    material involved, this may  be difficult.  I  apologise in advance  for
    any  distortions,   mis-quotes  or   mis-attributions  that   creep   in
    inadvertently.

        I'd like to divide John's idea of ``thematic gaming'' into two clear
    camps: subject matter and elements of style.  Subject matter means  what
    the game is  about, its  plot and  character conceptions.   Elements  of
    style means how the game is presented: from abstract issues like pacing,
    themes and motifs to more concrete questions like how many players, what
    sort of mechanics (if any) are used, whether props are used, whether the
    players move around, whether any  players have special control over  the
    direction of the game  (eg, are GMs),  how many of  them there are,  and
    what sort of control they  exercise.  All these  things are part of  the
    presentation, and are covered by elements of style.

        What  John  is  calling  ``thematic'',  ``new  wave''  and   perhaps
    unwisely, ``Sydney  style'' roleplaying  is a  mixture of  both  subject
    matter and elements of  style.  Although subject  and style are  closely
    interrelated, I  think that  it's a  mistake to  throw those  things  in
    together, and I'll try to explain why.

        Anytime we have something to say,  there are a multitude of ways  of
    saying it.   What works depends  on what the  audience expects, on  what
    they're equipped to understand, and on  what we're trying to say in  the
    first place.  Roleplaying has been a  young hobby for most of its  life,
    and for a long  time its stylistic options  were very limited.   Because
    most people played in only a single style, the subjects were constrained
    to those that worked  with that style.   Because the style derived  from
    wargaming, most stories were about violent conflict and problem solving.

        As conventions  matured,  people  were  able  to  consolidate  their
    experiences with those of others and in this way new stylistic  elements
    matured too.   With the  developing new  styles, it  became possible  to
    present new subject  material effectively.   Horror  games emerged  that
    weren't just monster bashes; comedy games emerged that weren't  in-jokes
    about dungeons.  In turn,  these developments motivated questions  about
    what other elements of style might work in roleplaying.

        Elements of style are just tools for expression.  The more you  have
    at your command, the more likely it is that you will find one that works
    well for your particular subject.   There's no right and wrong in  this,
    though  --  either  your   game  works  using   your  chosen  style   of
    presentation, or it doesn't.  Whether it works depends on your audience,
    and your subject matter.

        We are at a unique point in the development of roleplaying.  In only
    a few years, the number of stylistic tools available to us has increased
    by about two orders of magnitude.   This particular development is  part
    of a cycle though.  The cycle occurs in all expressive arts, and arises,
    I feel, because it is much easier to innovate the style than to innovate
    the subject matter.   While ever the subjects  are new and  challenging,
    stylistic innovation seems exciting and creative.  After a while, as the
    same subjects are treated  with an increasing  range of new  techniques,
    stylistic innovation begins to look gimmicky and unwarranted, and people
    lose interest.  Eventually though, a new subject emerges that challenges
    current stylistic standards, and the cycle begins again.

        I feel that we are currently  at a point where stylistic  innovation
    has outstripped  the  needs of  the  subject matter.    Increasingly  at
    conventions I see  essentially the same  old storylines of  a few  years
    back represented with the  latest in grabby gimmickry.   This is not  at
    all surprising,  given the  fact that  most of  our designers  are  very
    young, very prolific and  very insecure.  While  they slowly accrue  the
    experiences that will develop  their perceptions, they are  increasingly
    exhorted to follow the latest in  stylistic fashion or else their  ideas
    are disparaged.  I feel that this peer pressure to stylistic faddishness
    is very bad for maturing designers, and  this is why I think that it  is
    dangerous to clump new  subject matter and new  elements of style  under
    the same heading.

        It used to be that the retention rate for mature roleplayers was low
    because roleplaying was mostly adolescent wish-fulfillment.  Fortunately
    those days are  now past, and  roleplaying offers a  greater variety  of
    challenges and  rewards for  mature  players as  well.   This  has  also
    benefitted the hobby by providing a  wealth of new subjects to  explore.
    However, I  fear  that  if the  pressure  toward  gratuitous  structural
    gimmickry continues,  we'll  lose  our maturing  designers  to  burn-out
    instead.  The works of artists, actors, musicians, directors and authors
    develop slowly, over decades sometimes.  How is it that we expect  young
    roleplaying designers to mature in months?

        Roleplaying can only benefit through the discovery and dissemination
    of more tools, but a good tool needs a good subject to work with.  While
    ever some tools are associated only  with one particular subject, it  is
    likely that those who don't like the subject won't want to try the tool.
    Each tool offers its own separate potentials.  They should not, I  feel,
    come as part of a package  labelled ``New Wave''; they should be  tested
    and played  with separately  by  those who  are dissatisfied  with  what
    they've already got, or who want to continue developing their expertise.

        Roleplaying in Australia is no longer the narrow, rigid pastime that
    it was a few years ago.  Now  it is a vibrant hobby with healthy  levels
    of discussion,  dissent and  diversity  occurring at  practically  every
    convention.  The need to rattle  cages at conventions, I feel, is  past.
    There is  enough expertise  around  nowadays that  people can  learn  to
    rattle their own  whenever they  wish, and in  any case,  the racket  is
    starting to get unbearable :-)

        Spike asked what we think the future of roleplaying is; I feel  that
    it doesn't  have one.   Not  one,  in the  sense of  a single  trend  or
    direction -- a least, I hope not.   As our hobby continues to mature,  I
    expect that the  lines between  roleplaying, literature  and drama  will
    become increasingly fuzzy, but I don't expect roleplaying to converge to
    either of  those  arts.    Such a  stylistic  prediction  is  in  itself
    meaningless though, since it is the _insights_ in the stories we present
    that will be the  true measure of  the maturity of our  hobby.  I  don't
    know what those insights might be; I don't expect that anybody does.
-- 

 -----                                                             ---- ------
 markg@arp.anu.edu.au                                              Mark Grundy