My learned colleague Professor Inverarity has argued that the so-called 'narrativist' games emanating from the Forge design collective have as their cultural antecedents middlebrow kitsch. I propose here to examine several Forge games and test the truth of this thesis.

In the course of this necessarily sketchy study (necessitated by recent cuts in the faculty budget), I hope to also lay the groundwork for an analysis of how themes might be embedded in these games--and indeed, whether themes are embedded at all.

Firstly, the case of Sorcerer. Unless Prof. Inverarity would care to summarise his argument first?

I fear you suffer from a misinterpretation of the sources of tackiness and kitsch.

EDIT: ...but surely Pierce will give you a heads up.

Prof. Inverarity has yet to garner a tenure-track job, children. As such, he feels compelled not to burn too many brain cells on the infraweb.

Even so, the provisional syllabus for his class on Forge and Kitsch--to which you may apply during his regular office hours this coming fall--would surely include:

Clement Greenberg, Avant-Garde and Kitsch

Adorno/Horkheimer, culture industry chapter from the Dialectics of Enlightenment

Quote from: droogMy learned colleague Professor Inverarity has argued that the so-called 'narrativist' games emanating from the Forge design collective have as their cultural antecedents middlebrow kitsch. I propose here to examine several Forge games and test the truth of this thesis.

In the course of this necessarily sketchy study (necessitated by recent cuts in the faculty budget), I hope to also lay the groundwork for an analysis of how themes might be embedded in these games--and indeed, whether themes are embedded at all.

Firstly, the case of Sorcerer. Unless Prof. Inverarity would care to summarise his argument first?

So...wait...you're going to argue whether or not Forge games are the products of middlebrow kitsch or not? Or if themes are embedded in Forge games?

Wow..ummm..If I only had a brain...

One important addendum to the bibilography, what with the whole narrative thing:

Leo Bersani and Ulysse Dutoit, The Forms of Violence

My apologies for the delay. I was strangely unwell after the faculty dinner last night--undoubtedly there was something wrong with the wine I consumed.

Sorcerer[/size]

Sorcerer purports to be a game about the price one will pay to attain one's desires. "How far will you go to get what you want?" is the game's tagline.

It will be seen that this central premise is in the form of a question. Therefore, before a Sorcerer game is played, theme is in fact latent. Not until the game is finished will theme be clear, as it arises from the answers given to the question.

How does Sorcerer attempt to achieve its goal? It does so by personifying power, in the form of demons. Objectively, demons in the game are collections of powers. Characters may access power by summoning and controlling demons.

In accessing the power of a demon, the player risks his character's Humanity. Humanity is a game statistic that may either increase or decrease. Accessing demonic power may decrease the score. Denying demonic power may increase the score. If and when the score reaches 0, the character ceases to be the property of the player

Crucially, Humanity is defined by the group before the game begins. Demons are simultaneously so defined. Therefore, the forms taken by the question, as well as the answer(s), are determined wholly by local aesthetics and ideology.

I conclude that Sorcerer, as a game, cannot be meaningfully categorised as high-, low- or middle-brow. The sources listed are an eclectic brew of literary and popular. The play of the game is so bound to the specific group playing that little may be said about it without particular examples.

Quote from: droogI conclude that Sorcerer, as a game, cannot be meaningfully categorised as high-, low- or middle-brow. The sources listed are an eclectic brew of literary and popular. The play of the game is so bound to the specific group playing that little may be said about it without particular examples.

What of the sources that you would call literary as opposed to popular?  For others, the books listed are:

The Hellbound Heart by Clive Barker
A Personal Demon by David Bischoff, Rich Brown, and Linda Richardson
The Devil's Day by James Blish
"Lizzie Borden Took an Axe" by Robert Bloch
Medea by Euripides
Seductions, Darklings, and Crucifax by Ray Garton
The Tower of the Elephant, The People of the Black Circle, Hour of the Dragon and The Scarlet Citadel by Robert E. Howard
The Night Man, Dark Seeker and Mantis by K.W. Jeter
Adept's Gambit by Fritz Lieber
The Case of Charles Dexter Ward by Howard Phillips Lovecraft
Doctor Faustus by Christopher Marlowe
Elric of Melnibone by Michael Moorcock
Practical Demonkeeping by Christopher Moore
The Devil Wives of Li Fong by E. Hoffman Price
Thousandshrine Warrior by Jessica Amanda Salmonsen
Cellars and In Darkness Waiting by John Shirley
Night Winds, Bloodstone, Dark Crusade, Death Angel's Shadow, and Darkness Weaves by Karl Edward Wagner

I'm not up on criticism of most of these, but they all seem firmly in the popular camp to me.  There's a possible exception for the two historical plays -- they were popular at the time, but are now more often read rather than watched.  There are also some comic books, movies, and TV shows listed, but those are usually not considered literary either.

As for the embedded theme of "How far will you go to get what you want?" -- it seems odd to me.  There's a game-mechanical Humanity score, and if it drops to zero, then you lose control of your character.  So you don't really have the choice of going far to get what you want.  If you go all-out, then your character is taken away from you.

Euripides and Marlowe are not normally thought of popular literature. In any case, Sorcerer does not rest with much weight on its author's influences. The game is as described, and without seeing what is done with it locally, no judgement can be made.

Certainly Ron Edwards' reading list is firmly in the category of middlebrow, in Greenberg's sense of mass art that apes high art. I daresay most readers will have a pleasure or two in that list, but again it misses the point. Sorcerer, as a game, simply poses a question. There is, in fact, no embedded theme because the theme is formed by the answer(s) of the players.

Whether or not it actually achieves its stated aims is another matter, and one on which I have several graduate students currently working.

Quote from: droogSorcerer, as a game, simply poses a question. There is, in fact, no embedded theme because the theme is formed by the answer(s) of the players.

droog, how is this different for any other game ? Of course not all games pose questions...or rather maybe they do, but not in an overt manner.

Regards,
David R

Now, I believe that a central component of Professor Inverarity's charges is that the instructions to the GM of Sorcerer as to how to use the game are derived from a mass-market sensibility towards entertainment. Am I correct, Professor?


[Professor R, your query is irrelevant at this time.]

Quote from: droogThe play of the game is so bound to the specific group playing that little may be said about it without particular examples.

I agree with this -- system, after all, doesn't matter; people do.

That said, the list of sources John listed are pretty heavily middle-brow; nothing wrong with that: I much prefer a down-to-earth set of sources to a pretentious one.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.I agree with this -- system, after all, doesn't matter; people do.

That said, the list of sources John listed are pretty heavily middle-brow; nothing wrong with that: I much prefer a down-to-earth set of sources to a pretentious one.

Cheers,
-E.

It is, I suspect, an odd trait of from whence the elitism springs.

Essentially, it's about being "less geeky than thou".  An ironic situation in which, due to trying to differentiate themselves from what is basically a niche interest set, one attaches one self to influences that outside the subculture are extremely mainstream.

A lot of the pretention I have seen from Forge types, droog here being no exception, is the idea that somehow their tastes are more "normal" than the rest of us nasty geeks.

So you wind up with Primetime Adventures, a game about emulating crappy network TV.

Naming Dr. Faustus as a reference is as boring, tacky and intellectually shallow as it gets.

Quote from: J ArcaneIt is, I suspect, an odd trait of from whence the elitism springs.

Essentially, it's about being "less geeky than thou".  An ironic situation in which, due to trying to differentiate themselves from what is basically a niche interest set, one attaches one self to influences that outside the subculture are extremely mainstream.

A lot of the pretention I have seen from Forge types, droog here being no exception, is the idea that somehow their tastes are more "normal" than the rest of us nasty geeks.

So you wind up with Primetime Adventures, a game about emulating crappy network TV.

Heh. Yeah. I love it when I see people posting to esoteric role-playing boards about how they're not geeks; how they roleplay differently from those guys who pretend to be elves...

And how they wish, wish, wish the rest of the world would realize how normal and mature grown people sitting around doing lets-pretend with dice is, if you just pretend the right way.

Edited for clarity: I don't think there's anything immature about playing D&D, or pretending to be an elf, or anything else; I think it's all good stuff, and the distinction between AD&D and Primetime Adventures in terms of maturity or quality, or high/low culture is, I think, fiction. It's all what the players choose to make of it.

On topic: The Dr. Faustus thing; there are certain references that are so... over-used that instead of being "high culture" they become somewhat pretentious middle-brow. I think Yeat's the Second Coming (also brilliant) fits into this unfortunate description. Nothing against the original works, but they don't make the citing work an especially elevated piece of work.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: SettembriniNaming Dr. Faustus as a reference is as boring, tacky and intellectually shallow as it gets.

Magister Settembrini nailed it, droog.

The very foundational question of that game, "How far blah blah blah...," emerges from the background of a specifically postwar North-American, ballpark libertarian obsession with bourgeois subjectivity and the adequate realization thereof in face of an adversarial world (known to us--but not to its proponents--as consumer capitalism) that marks it as dated humanism circa 1955.

In short, kitsch.