From: markg@vulcan.anu.edu.au (Mark Grundy)
Subject: Re: Pt 1/2: Thematic Gaming 2 /3
Organization: Computer Services Centre, Australian National University
Date: 17 Aug 92 21:25:04 GMT

Tobomory.Womble@p2.f158.n633.z3.fidonet.org (Tobomory Womble) writes:

    > Well...  Since I  wrote that I have been  aproaced by a few people  to
      write an event for a trounement next year.  At first I was hesitant as
      I am  currently  writing three  freeforms  for 50  people,  hwoever  I
      grugenly excepted  the challenge.    The criteria  : The  game  should
      follow what was laid  out as thematic gaming,  byt John Hughes at  the
      Arcanacon seminar.  Well..  All be it reluctently I withdrew my as yet
      un written module.  Not on moral,  or social belifes.  However I  felt
      that I was generally uncabale of writting such a game.

        Wise move.  I can't think of a worse reason for writing a game  than
    to  deliberately  emulate  someone's   personal  gaming  style.     More
    particularly, a style that you're not happy with.

    > My  opion  as to  the  the nature  of  "Thematic gaming"  will  remain
      unchanged, however I feel that I  should, If only for my own  benefit,
      comment that I simply disaprove of  any game where players are  placed
      in a situation where there is a  danger of an issue hitting "to  close
      to home".  Terorisim is one,  and I aware of other including  abortion
      and euthenasia.  I personally play and write for fun.  I can, however,
      respect the wishes of others to play these games.

    > Well...  As  my time runs  out, and the ever  present threat of  being
      loged off looms closer I will invite you, and all "thematic" gamers to
      take time out  at conquest  next year,  and to  play "The  Illuminatis
      Trillogy" (Regretfulyl a game of almost the smae name is being run  at
      Necronomicon).  It is one of my  freeforms, for 46 people.  A fun  and
      relaxing game.   However many of  the characters must  engage in  what
      many would term as "Thematic Gaming".  It is a game which, unlesss you
      are  deply  embroyled  in  a  secret  society,  you  should  not  find
      objectinable, but will find fun.

        Hmmm.   I'm now  in  the unenviable  position  of having  to  defend
    something of which I don't entirely  approve either.  It's been a  weird
    month for me.  Tonio Leowald has called me avant-guard, and now Euan has
    said I'm a thematic gamer.  All I need now is for John Hughes to call me
    reactionary, to get me completely confused!

        Firstly, I don't think that ``What Price Liberty'' could be called a
    ``Thematic Game''.   If you  scrutinise my  previous articles carefully,
    you'll see that I was defending  the individual accusations, but that  I
    never agreed to the label.   To my mind, it  was a mini-freeform with  a
    lot of GM  interaction --  thass all.   It also  had scope  for lots  of
    player input in terms of plot, it had a great set of characters and as I
    recall, it had very broad player appeal.  But I didn't write it, I  just
    GMed it.

        Of the  games  that I  _have_  written,  I'm not  sure  which  you'd
    consider thematic.   My  first, ``Urban  Fantasy'', was a game  about  a
    murder mystery in Sydney, in which the investigators are a motor-car,  a
    pigeon,  a  brick  wall  and  the  murder  weapon.    It  was  hardly  a
    gut-wrenching treatment of anything, I thought.

        Since  then,  I've  written  one  straight-up  Pendragon  game,  and
    co-written a couple of other things: a Mafia game, a radio play game, an
    experimental game  with felt  badges  and such  like.   There's  also  a
    recently published game about a soccer-leg  that comes back to kick  its
    team-mates to death.  I dunno, Euan...  Seems like common enough fare to
    me...

        John Hughes says thematic gaming doesn't exist, but he likes to talk
    about it as though it does.  In my original follow-up to his article,  I
    tried to outline the confusion I perceive between style and subject that
    has arisen.   In a  nut-shell, what the  objectors seem  to be  worrying
    about most  is the  subject matter  and  the demands  it places  on  the
    players.  Fair enough.   However, that same  new subject matter is  also
    generating a  set  of  skills  and  insights  that  can  be  useful  for
    roleplaying in general, and I defend it on those grounds alone.

        It's particularly  frustrating  though,  to have  big  thick  labels
    applied to yourself as a player or  as a writer, when in fact the  label
    really only belongs to  some of your  works.  In  fact, it's worse  than
    that, since  many  of the  label-stickers  haven't actually  played  the
    work(s) in question,  but are  judging the game  on superficial  grounds
    like blurbs, entry-forms and hearsay.

        I'm sorry that I won't be at  Conquest this year to talk about  this
    more informally (I'll be up at Necro to GM.) I wish you the best o' luck
    for your freeform, and look forward to hearing some more from you on the
    net.
-- 

 -----                                                             ---- ------
 markg@arp.anu.edu.au                                              Mark Grundy
From: Brian.Taylor@f159.n633.z3.fidonet.org (Brian Taylor)
Sender: acsnet@csource.oz.au