TheRPGSite

Pen & Paper Roleplaying Central => Pen and Paper Roleplaying Games (RPGs) Discussion => Topic started by: Kyle Aaron on October 16, 2006, 08:05:43 PM

Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: Kyle Aaron on October 16, 2006, 08:05:43 PM
The first half of this post is context for those who don't read every thread that pops up. To get to the meat of it, scroll down to Levi's quote.

Quote from: fonkagarryFor the love of FUCK people. You got theory discussion in a humor thread.

Stop it.
Because of this, I started a new thread. This came out of a discussion (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2204) on the indiegamescene blog (parody of rpg theorists). I had said,

In case anyone think the indiegamingscene blog is pure parody, and exaggeration, take this recent comment (http://www.story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=1579&page=1#Item_19) on story-games. It was a thread about "your least favourite jargon terms." Other people mentioned "Narrativism", "shared imaginary space", okay, reasonable so far. Merten comes up with "fun." Fun? Yes, it's a word he doesn't want to hear!

Quote from: Merten"Fun" is something that's promoted as the central reward of roleplaying, the end result, the stuff why people play. "Fun" also indicates something that you enjoy, that you have fun, that is cool and exciting and all that. "Fun" is a misleading term, promoting light-hearted, funny stuff and misses a whole lot of darker, more emotional and in a sense, intense stuff. "Fun" can be used as a safety net for not going where the disturbing, psychological, emotional issues lay, or at least keep them at arm's length; players are having "fun" while their characters are not. It's not "fun" to be angry, jealous, to hate something, cry, cheat, or to have someone you care to die, but it's still very meaningful and very rewarding. "Fun" is a double misnomer because some games look into these issues and still talk about "fun".

"Fun" is also something connected to "everybody participates", "everyone gets the his place in the limelight", "everyone has an equal say what happens" which is then a whole another discussion because people think what's "fun" for them is "fun" for everyone, and no other kind of "fun" can exist.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenJimBob actually said it best, once, when he talked about fun, satisfaction, and other forms of enjoyment.

I can't find that post, but it was good stuff.

Which is why I'm baffled by his jumping at Merten.

"Fun", in the sense of playful, bantering, light-hearted stuff, isn't always what we're after.  And redefining words is a Dumb Idea.  So more words are good.
I use words the way people usually mean them. English is a language with a lot of words, it's rare that you really need to make up a new one to describe some idea.

"Fun" to most people means laughing, light-hearted.

"Fulfilment" means satisfying in a deeper sort of way.

So, a one-night stand or a fistful of McD's burger is fun, but it ain't fulfilling. Looking after your sick spouse, or waxing your car, ain't fun, but it's fulfilling.

When people talk about roleplaying, often they use the word "fun" to mean both "fun" and "fulfilling." So someone has a mindless hack through a dungeon, and they say, "we had fun!" Then someone else talks about his Dogs in the Vienyard game where they got some bloke to shoot his own son, and they say, "we had fun, too!" And the two people just stare at each-other going, "what the fuck are you on about, man?"

The mindless hack is best called "fun," and the deep-and-meaningful-and-stressful one is best called "fulfilling." Both fun and fulfilling are according to your personal tastes.

For example, I once had a game session where my character, in a postapocalyptic world, was asked by a warlord to go and whack some other warlord. I (my character) didn't really want to do this, but normally I'd have been a typical PC and said, "okay, whatever. How much cash for it?" But the GM had given me a thirteen year old daughter. So I was thinking, "wow, what will my daughter think of me if I whack a guy for cash?" I wanted to refuse. But then, I knew that the warlord was the kind of guy who'd say, "I will take your daughter hostage until you have killed this man." So I was offered a choice - between my daughter's safety, and her respect.

That wasn't fun at all. But it was fulfilling. My actions had real meaning in the game world, I cared what happened to my character, and to this NPC his daughter. Other people would hate that.

Merten isn't making that fun/fulfilment distinction. The two are hopelessly muddled in his post. He's basically saying that fun is for morons, and fulfilment is for mature people. Which is a load of old bollocks.

I say that there exist "fun", and "fulfilment". The two are not mutually exclusive, you can have both at once. Often, people are only interested in one or the other. That's fine. Where I get pissed off is when people present their personal tastes as being objectively good. For example, we've got a guy on rpg.net who offered us Four simple rules to identify good roleplaying (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=290986). He's another muddled guy, mixing up "good roleplayer" (portrays character convincingly) with "good player" (contributes to fun and success of group). And he tells us that if you don't roleplay as he does (somewhat immersive), you're not a good roleplayer, or maybe even not roleplaying.

I hate that sort of shit.

Thoughts? Unlike that bloke on rpg.net, or half the theorists, I post to hear what people have to say to me, not just enlighten the darkness of your ignorance with the brilliant light of my genius :p


Note: Wasn't sure where this thread should go. Is it general roleplaying talk? Theory? Craft? We might have to let it go a couple dozen posts and see where it goes.
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: Levi Kornelsen on October 16, 2006, 08:17:35 PM
Quote from: JimBobOzMerten isn't making that fun/fulfilment distinction. The two are hopelessly muddled in his post.[/I]

A lot of muddling is going on, subsuming everything into the word 'fun'.  Whether the two are confused for Merten or not, it's common in RPG discussion.

Hell, I've looked back at old posts of mine, seen myself doing it, and been forced to roll my eyes at myself.

(Which is tricky, by the way).
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: beejazz on October 16, 2006, 08:17:36 PM
What you're sayin' up there sounds alot like theory.

I'm a little bored by moral conundrums myself. Mostly, they aren't there. Are you seriously implying that you'd ever let a 40something warlord hold your daughter hostage? Respect be damned, let him try and I'll kill him and take his place as warlord. That's both fulfilling and fun, IMHO.

That said, I like both the darker worlds and the kicking of ass.
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: TonyLB on October 16, 2006, 08:33:10 PM
Quote from: JimBobOzHe's basically saying that fun is for morons, and fulfilment is for mature people. Which is a load of old bollocks.
Where?  I'm looking right straight at this post, looking for the thing you say is there.  I don't see it.  Point it out to me.
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: Kyle Aaron on October 16, 2006, 08:41:21 PM
Quote from: beejazzI'm a little bored by moral conundrums myself. Mostly, they aren't there. Are you seriously implying that you'd ever let a 40something warlord hold your daughter hostage? Respect be damned, let him try and I'll kill him and take his place as warlord. That's both fulfilling and fun, IMHO.
It would have been, however I was alone and unarmed in a room with four armed guards who were all bigger than me. If I'd flipped out at that point, I'd be dead, and unable to help my daughter. At this point, I was only a 50CP GURPS character, so there were limits as to what I could do ;)

Later, I... but that's another story!

But this just proves what I've said - everyone has different tastes in roleplaying. I liked that - not for every session, but for one session it was good. You wouldn't. If you were joining my game group, with me GMing, I'd ask you first what sort of stuff you liked, and ask everyone else, too. Then I'd try to give everyone a bit of what they liked.

There's no One True Way. GMing and game design would be a lot simpler if there were, but unfortunately, nup.
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: jhkim on October 16, 2006, 08:48:35 PM
Well, I'm not speaking for Merten, but I'll put in my two cents on the topic of the term "fun".  

I see an awful lot of stupid use of the word "fun".  Like "I play for fun, not for realism.  You guys prioritize realism over fun."  You can see the same accusations how people put "game balance" over fun, or "theme" over fun, or any number of others things.  

I find this to be moronic non-sequitor.  Because some people enjoy having realism, game balance, theme, or what-have-you in their games.  i.e. It's "fun" for them.  No one plays for things which they don't enjoy, so it's a stupid accusation.  

My impression was that Merten was reacting against this type of usage of the term "fun", but regardless, that's my feeling.
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: David R on October 16, 2006, 08:55:01 PM
Quote from: JimBobOzI use words the way people usually mean them. English is a language with a lot of words, it's rare that you really need to make up a new one to describe some idea.


You see Jimbob, you always post like you exist in that space in Pulp Fiction just before Jules waste that geek - "English motherfucker, do you speak it!"

I pretty much agree with the fun/fulfilment distinction. I also think that one of the reasons there is so much animosity towards some games, is that perhaps, certain games are more condusive for running fulfilment type games -although this is a generalization on my part - and the manner in which these games are presented rubs people the wrong way.

Regards,
David R
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: joewolz on October 16, 2006, 11:24:16 PM
Wow, JimBob.  Just...wow.

Quote from: David RI pretty much agree with the fun/fulfilment distinction. I also think that one of the reasons there is so much animosity towards some games, is that perhaps, certain games are more condusive for running fulfilment type games -although this is a generalization on my part - and the manner in which these games are presented rubs people the wrong way.

Regards,
David R

Also, not everyone gets fulfilment from the same thing...or fun, for that matter.
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: Kyle Aaron on October 16, 2006, 11:28:39 PM
Wow what? Explain yourself! :p
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: mythusmage on October 17, 2006, 01:05:35 AM
Being a contrarian I prefer to use the first definition for a word in a dictionary. Because that's the way most people tend to use it (with a few exceptions). So fun = enjoyment. Or in other words, "Did you have fun?" means "Did you enjoy it?"

And enjoyment is not necessarily finding it funny. Sometimes enjoyment means you found it engaging, intriguing, involving. Sometimes enjoying something means you found it enthralling, that it gave you a lift, a frisson of fear. Scary movies are fun because they scare you, not in spite of the fear.

Tricking someone who can kill you with a glance, that's fun. But people apparently can't get it through their head that tricking your enemy is a legitimate strategy. They think they have to kill the other guy in a fair fight, when all they really need to do is to achieve their goal.

Games stop being fun, stop being enjoyable when the GM and/or the rules limit how the game is to be played. I disagree with both Bergstrom and the :pundit: . Say neither yes or no. Say instead, "Give it a shot and we'll see what happens."

It's not your story to tell, it's their imaginary lives to live.
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: The Yann Waters on October 17, 2006, 06:54:46 AM
Quote from: mythusmageSay neither yes or no. Say instead, "Give it a shot and we'll see what happens."
Frankly, there doesn't seem to be much of a difference between that and saying "Well, yes: you can try..."
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: Balbinus on October 17, 2006, 08:35:43 AM
I think Merten may well have had a point actually, but I think he phrased it badly and so muddled it.

That said, he phrased it with a particular audience in mind and we are not that audience.  I think that is relevant also.

If the point was that fun is not the be all and end all and that there are other satisfactions in gaming too, then he's right, though I think it hardly merits a rant.

If he means that issues driven gaming is better than light hearted gaming, then he's wrong as he's ascribing value to an issue which is one of poor taste.

If he thinks fun is a term with a defined jargonised meaning, he's wrong.

But I think we're possibly overreading the guy.  I suspect all he is railing against is the way often in threads people come in saying "gaming is about fun" which strictly speaking is not necessarily true, certainly it's not true for everyone.

It is for me though, I game for fun.  But if Merten has other goals, that's his business and no problem for me.  If Merten wants to speak about his other goals and I come in saying "dude, lighten up, it's all about teh fun" then he does have an issue and I think that is really what he's talking about.

But I didn't really find his post clear enough to be sure.  Are we not maybe looking to be offended here though?  One guy on another site made a comment that can should one wish be construed negatively, so what?
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: Balbinus on October 17, 2006, 09:20:41 AM
Quote1) Fun (already done)

2) Because it's not why we play, not all the time, and it indicates a certain level of comfortable joviality must be achieved. I also feel that Fun is something which is applied continuously, but in fact many games have times of lag, of dissatisfaction, but they turn out alright in the end. And the other guys said the rest.

3) Satisfaction. Happens at the end when you can say "yes, that was right and proper". That's my reward, and my criteria for why I play a game at all. And it fits too.

That was a follow up post by another poster, put like that it seems pretty inoffensive to me and I think correct actually.
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: joewolz on October 17, 2006, 04:55:29 PM
Quote from: JimBobOzWow what? Explain yourself! :p

You helped me express something I didn't know how to.  Thanks.

Hence the wow.
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: Kyle Aaron on October 17, 2006, 07:44:50 PM
Quote from: joewolzYou helped me express something I didn't know how to.  Thanks.
Oh! Cheers, mate.

...

Does that mean you'll run a game for me? Always the bridesmaid, and never the bride... er, I mean, always the GM and never the player. I am hanging out... :(
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: joewolz on October 18, 2006, 12:11:44 AM
Quote from: JimBobOzOh! Cheers, mate.

...

Does that mean you'll run a game for me? Always the bridesmaid, and never the bride... er, I mean, always the GM and never the player. I am hanging out... :(

If you're ever in the States, I'll run a game for you...same goes if I find myself in Australia.  But then you'll owe me one!
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: Kyle Aaron on October 18, 2006, 12:22:01 AM
Quote from: joewolzIf you're ever in the States, I'll run a game for you...same goes if I find myself in Australia.  But then you'll owe me one!
There's always online! PbP suxxorz, but irc, IM, are all good.
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: Merten on October 21, 2006, 08:10:49 AM
Quote from: BalbinusIf the point was that fun is not the be all and end all and that there are other satisfactions in gaming too, then he's right, though I think it hardly merits a rant.

If he thinks fun is a term with a defined jargonised meaning, he's wrong.

These two are pretty close to what I meant. I dislike the the use of word "fun" as the central reward of playing and I dislike it because it's misleading, at least the way I perceive the meaning of it. I don't think it has a defined jargonized meaning which is part of the problem. A lot of games and threads about playing implicate that the most important thing in playing is that you (the players and GM, if present) are having "fun".

Nobody bothers to explain what this "fun" is. Is it the same thing for everyone? Does it mean that players are enjoying themselves, having a nice trip-in-the-park -kind of time, hacking orcs to pieces? Does it cover the example that JimBobOz presented in the first message of this thread? I wouldn't consider the scene to be fun, but I can certainly understand how it's fullfilling and meaningful.

Which, then, is the distiction I thought I was making, but there you go.

I'm not hot on putting value judgements on different kind of rewards from playing. A game of gung-ho dungeon crawling with a comical sidenote can be and probably is as rewarding as any other game.

I think it's worth a rant, but then again, I'm filled with semantic hate for the word "fun".
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: Sigmund on October 21, 2006, 08:53:48 AM
I can't speak for anyone else, but the feeling of fulfillment is fun to me. The actual execution of the process of waxing my car might not be fun in and of itself, but the feeling I get when I'm done and can view the results is quite fun, in that I enjoy it. I'm not currently finding the specific details of the current episodes of Lost comfortable, but I'm enjoying the hell out of the show anyway. IMO, it's perfectly valid to say "Gaming is all about fun". It's in the details that tastes vary and individuals and their values determine who likes what.

As an example, I find games that force "moral" judgments and choices on me to be trite. The "moral" choices are not truely moral because it's still a game. In the previous example, although it might still have been a fun challenge to overcome, the choice between my character's npc daughter's respect and safety is not a true moral test. It's fictitious. No one's safety or respect were truely in jeopardy. Choosing one over the other has no real consquences. Only in real life can my moral values truely be challenged. I don't mind the fictitious morality of my characters to be defined/challenged through gaming as a way of challenging me to RP and overcome obstacles. I despise games that believe they can actually challenge my true moral values and make those challenges central to the game. What I want games to fulfill in my life is escape from RL by using imagination, allowing me an outlet for my creativity, and social contact with people who's company I enjoy. Therefore, I am fulfilled by some games, which is fun for me, and not fulfilled by others. Therefore I don't play games that aren't "fun" (fulfilling).
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: RPGPundit on October 21, 2006, 11:12:27 AM
Quote from: MertenThese two are pretty close to what I meant. I dislike the the use of word "fun" as the central reward of playing

Yeah, we know, but its nice of one of you to come out and and admit it so bluntly.

Quoteand I dislike it because it's misleading, at least the way I perceive the meaning of it. I don't think it has a defined jargonized meaning which is part of the problem.

So you're clearing up your previous statements... by pointing out that in fact you don't think the term "fun" has been stratified and regulated ENOUGH??

:wtfsign:


QuoteA lot of games and threads about playing implicate that the most important thing in playing is that you (the players and GM, if present) are having "fun".
Nobody bothers to explain what this "fun" is.

Most normal human beings already KNOW what fun is, we don't need a pseudo-academic to come along and tell us.
I feel sorry for those of you who feel like you do.

QuoteWhich, then, is the distiction I thought I was making, but there you go.

I'm not hot on putting value judgements on different kind of rewards from playing. A game of gung-ho dungeon crawling with a comical sidenote can be and probably is as rewarding as any other game.

Oh yea, great, thanks. You just don't believe that our games are actually capable of doing anything other than "gung-ho dungeon crawling" in any competent kind of way, and you incidentaly don't think its "fun". Woo-fucking-hoo.

QuoteI think it's worth a rant, but then again, I'm filled with semantic hate for the word "fun".

No, you just hate the idea that RPGs could be fun in a way that normal people enjoy fun. You want RPGs to be above all that ghastly plebiean tomfoolery of "fun" and be dedicated to fulfillment by "artistic appreciation" or whatever.

We've got your number, buddy.

RPGPundit
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: Merten on October 21, 2006, 11:47:08 AM
Quote from: RPGPunditYeah, we know, but its nice of one of you to come out and and admit it so bluntly.

Anything for you, honey.

Quote from: RPGPunditSo you're clearing up your previous statements... by pointing out that in fact you don't think the term "fun" has been stratified and regulated ENOUGH??

Most normal human beings already KNOW what fun is, we don't need a pseudo-academic to come along and tell us.

I don't know what your definition of fun is and I have no idea what you get out of roleplaying. Likewise, I'm quite certain that you don't have a clue what kind my fun is and what I get out of roleplaying. Might be similar things, might be roughly similar, might be whole different things.

I'm not really intrested in telling you what your fun is, but neither I'm intrested in being told what my fun is.

Quote from: RPGPunditOh yea, great, thanks. You just don't believe that our games are actually capable of doing anything other than "gung-ho dungeon crawling" in any competent kind of way, and you incidentaly don't think its "fun". Woo-fucking-hoo.

I don't think I said such thing, and I don't know where you got such impression. Furthermore, I have no idea what your games are like. Sorry.

Quote from: RPGPunditNo, you just hate the idea that RPGs could be fun in a way that normal people enjoy fun. You want RPGs to be above all that ghastly plebiean tomfoolery of "fun" and be dedicated to fulfillment by "artistic appreciation" or whatever.

Well, I've probably done my share of RPGs that are fun in a way that "normal people enjoy fun", though I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that. I've done other kinds of playing as well. Can't really judge the experiences based on "fun" since they're rewarding in pretty different ways. I've enjoyed most of the gaming, though.
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: Sigmund on October 21, 2006, 12:01:27 PM
Let me aid the discussion real quick.

From the Compact Oxford English Dictionary:

fun

  • noun 1 light-hearted pleasure or amusement. 2 a source of this. 3 playfulness or good humour.

  • adjective informal enjoyable.


I would imagine that unless you haved enjoyed a game with a heavy heart, it would be safe to assume that, based on the official definition of the word, you have had fun playing any game that was enjoyable for you.
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: Merten on October 21, 2006, 12:08:06 PM
Quote from: Sigmundfun

  • noun 1 light-hearted pleasure or amusement. 2 a source of this. 3 playfulness or good humour.

  • adjective informal enjoyable.


I would imagine that unless you haved enjoyed a game with a heavy heart, it would be safe to assume that, based on the official definition of the word, you have had fun playing any game that was enjoyable for you.

Yes. But what if I have enjoyed a game with a heavy heart? If the game was such that did not have light-hearted pleasure or amusement, or playfulness or good humour? And if, during the gime, I did not find the scenes enjoyable but rather distressing? Even if, in the end, the game was meaningful and provided plenty of food for thought?

To twist the words a bit, the game could probably be considered enjoyable afterwards, when the experience is over. However, I wouldn't have considered it to be fun while I was playing it.
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: RPGPundit on October 21, 2006, 02:36:16 PM
Then you basically need to put down the roleplaying books, and go find Mistress  Severa to spank you roughly, because you are in fact a masochist.  

I mean what the fuck, who the hell gets "enjoyment" out of playing games where they, as a player, are all disturbed or upset or have a "Heavy heart"??

RPGPundit
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: Levi Kornelsen on October 21, 2006, 02:47:46 PM
Quote from: RPGPunditI mean what the fuck, who the hell gets "enjoyment" out of playing games where they, as a player, are all disturbed or upset or have a "Heavy heart"??

I've had a LARP run that way, once, and it was In-fucking-credible.

Never at the tabletop, though - but I have run games I wouldn't call "light-hearted", and enjoyed them.
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: James McMurray on October 21, 2006, 02:54:14 PM
I've enjoyed games that some might consider "distressing." If a dramatic portion of a game is strong / intense enough to burrow past my normal jaded nature and strike a chord I'm satisfied that I had fun.
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: Sosthenes on October 21, 2006, 02:59:17 PM
Stanford Prison Experiment: The RPG
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: Merten on October 21, 2006, 03:01:46 PM
Quote from: Levi KornelsenI've had a LARP run that way, once, and it was In-fucking-credible.

Never at the tabletop, though - but I have run games I wouldn't call "light-hearted", and enjoyed them.

I've done it with tabletop, with similar results. There are similar effects with movies and literature; you're not actually enjoying yourself, but the movie glues you to the screen and the experience is very intense.

I dunno, you could probably say that you're enjoying the whole experience after it's over, though you're not enjoying yourself all the time during it. But I wouldn't call the experience fun.

Which then brings us back to the original question: I don't want to judge what people get out of their gaming; my perspective is far too narrow to say anything about that. I just dislike the use of word "fun" to describe what people get out of playing. It covers a lot, but it doesen't cover everything. And people tend to have all kinds of assumptions about the meaning of "fun".
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: Christmas Ape on October 21, 2006, 03:03:08 PM
Quote from: James McMurrayI've enjoyed games that some might consider "distressing." If a dramatic portion of a game is strong / intense enough to burrow past my normal jaded nature and strike a chord I'm satisfied that I had fun.
I can agree with this. If I feel anything from a game other than amusement about playing that game, I'm pretty god damned impressed with the sheer strength of the roleplaying involved and the fact I'm that immersed (despite likely being GM). If it's grief, or joy, or sorrow, or empathy, if the contents of the game have produced an impact on me, it is a good game.

That said, I don't by any means go out looking to explore deep psychological and emotional themes in my gaming, but if one can get through I'm impressed.
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: Christmas Ape on October 21, 2006, 03:06:10 PM
Quote from: MertenWhich then brings us back to the original question: I don't want to judge what people get out of their gaming; my perspective is far too narrow to say anything about that. I just dislike the use of word "fun" to describe what people get out of playing. It covers a lot, but it doesen't cover everything. And people tend to have all kinds of assumptions about the meaning of "fun".
Honestly, I think the bulk of RPG players out there - not on the internet, but actually playing games - really are playing for fun. They enjoy it the way they enjoy video games, or comics, or a pick-up game of sports, or whatever else they do with themselves as a group. Some people you like, an activity you enjoy, and something to snack on; let the kick-ass begin. Killing dragons with swords is pretty kick-ass, which is why D&D sells well.

My half-hearted theory about fun.
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: Merten on October 21, 2006, 03:21:23 PM
Quote from: Christmas ApeHonestly, I think the bulk of RPG players out there - not on the internet, but actually playing games - really are playing for fun. They enjoy it the way they enjoy video games, or comics, or a pick-up game of sports, or whatever else they do with themselves as a group. Some people you like, an activity you enjoy, and something to snack on; let the kick-ass begin. Killing dragons with swords is pretty kick-ass, which is why D&D sells well.

Most probably. And it's not like there's something wrong with that; if it produces the rewards they want, they're doing something right.

But if we want to cover the whole spectrum of the hobby, we'll have to cover the other areas as well. Wheter this is worthwhile or not, depends on the task at hand. With theory jargon, it's probably good idea to cover pretty much every angle. For lot's of other things, probably not.
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: James McMurray on October 21, 2006, 04:54:22 PM
Quote from: Christmas ApeThat said, I don't by any means go out looking to explore deep psychological and emotional themes in my gaming, but if one can get through I'm impressed.

Ditto. I've done enough soul searching in my time to not need to seek it out at the game table, although if a session happens to head that way (which is rare) I won't jump up and run away screaming The Forgies are Coming! The Forgies are Coming! Lock up your women and put gaurds on the Fun!
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: Sigmund on October 21, 2006, 05:29:00 PM
Quote from: MertenYes. But what if I have enjoyed a game with a heavy heart? If the game was such that did not have light-hearted pleasure or amusement, or playfulness or good humour? And if, during the gime, I did not find the scenes enjoyable but rather distressing? Even if, in the end, the game was meaningful and provided plenty of food for thought?


If you told me you played a game that had you feeling truely heavy-hearted, I would not believe you. If you then convinced me I would then recommend therapy. Yes, subject matter in a RPG can be thought-provoking, even intellectually challenging, and even mildly emotional, but to feel deep, meaningful emotion over a fictional game is IMO wasteful and silly. St. Jude's Children's Hospital gives me a heavy heart. The war in Iraq gives me a heavy heart. Genocide in Africa, crack babies, and thinking of my still-born daughter (who would be 4 years old now) give me a heavy heart. An RPG doesn't even come close. If you are finding deep emotional experiences in RPGs I would say you need to get out and live a little more.
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: Sigmund on October 21, 2006, 05:36:27 PM
Quote from: Christmas ApeIf I feel anything from a game other than amusement about playing that game, I'm pretty god damned impressed with the sheer strength of the roleplaying involved and the fact I'm that immersed (despite likely being GM). If it's grief, or joy, or sorrow, or empathy, if the contents of the game have produced an impact on me, it is a good game.

That said, I don't by any means go out looking to explore deep psychological and emotional themes in my gaming, but if one can get through I'm impressed.

I agree with you here very much. I'm not saying I don't feel any emotion at all while playing RPGs, but to call it "heavy-hearted" is way to strong a label for anything I've ever seen in a fictional medium. Why would anyone deliberately depress themselves? It makes no sense at all. If, that is, it was true depression, and not just mild sadness moderated by the knowledge that the source is fictional.
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: Merten on October 21, 2006, 06:10:36 PM
Quote from: SigmundIf you told me you played a game that had you feeling truely heavy-hearted, I would not believe you. If you then convinced me I would then recommend therapy. Yes, subject matter in a RPG can be thought-provoking, even intellectually challenging, and even mildly emotional, but to feel deep, meaningful emotion over a fictional game is IMO wasteful and silly. St. Jude's Children's Hospital gives me a heavy heart. The war in Iraq gives me a heavy heart. Genocide in Africa, crack babies, and thinking of my still-born daughter (who would be 4 years old now) give me a heavy heart. An RPG doesn't even come close. If you are finding deep emotional experiences in RPGs I would say you need to get out and live a little more.

I think I've seen my share of living and frankly, I'm not too eager too meet heavy-hearted stuff in my real life. I don't think the issues I've been dealing with roleplaying can even be compared to the stuff you mentioned, but it's a good medium to explore some emotional and rough issues. I wouldn't call it wasteful or silly, I'd call something similar but a bit more involving that watching a movie with emotional and rough issues. It's also a good medium to explore positive emotions, and adventure and whatever.

What's rewarding and meaningful to someone is a matter of taste. I get my kicks from mixing relationship stuff, dialogue, emotions with what ever other stuff there is in roleplaying. Some people want other stuff, as do I, from time to time. That's that.
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: Sigmund on October 21, 2006, 06:12:23 PM
Quote from: MertenWhat's rewarding and meaningful to someone is a matter of taste. I get my kicks from mixing relationship stuff, dialogue, emotions with what ever other stuff there is in roleplaying. Some people want other stuff, as do I, from time to time. That's that.

So you're saying this is fun for you. Sure, I can buy that.
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: Merten on October 21, 2006, 06:27:21 PM
Quote from: SigmundSo you're saying this is fun for you. Sure, I can buy that.

We'll end up comparing semantics if we go down this path. I wouldn't call it fun, but hell, it's not an issue worth debating in a long thread.

Edit: Semantics, not sematics.
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: James McMurray on October 21, 2006, 07:02:08 PM
thousands of counselors across the country (and probably world) use some form of role playing (sometimes with dice, sometimes without) in order to explore deep and meaningful issues with individuals and groups. I doubt they'd agree with you calling it wasteful and silly.
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: Sigmund on October 21, 2006, 07:45:08 PM
Quote from: MertenWe'll end up comparing semantics if we go down this path. I wouldn't call it fun, but hell, it's not an issue worth debating in a long thread.

Edit: Semantics, not sematics.

No need, I understood you perfectly.
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: Sigmund on October 21, 2006, 07:47:54 PM
Quote from: James McMurraythousands of counselors across the country (and probably world) use some form of role playing (sometimes with dice, sometimes without) in order to explore deep and meaningful issues with individuals and groups. I doubt they'd agree with you calling it wasteful and silly.

Dice or not, that is not gaming, that is therapy. I'm very familiar with it, as I've done it myself.
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: James McMurray on October 21, 2006, 08:34:43 PM
Nah, it's still gaming. Maybe not your particular brand of gaming, but gaming nonetheless. It's possible to have "mindless" fun and think deep thoughts in the same evening, sometimes even the same minute.
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: Kyle Aaron on October 21, 2006, 11:24:44 PM
"Roleplaying" with a therapist is therapy, "roleplaying" with a game is a game. They are two different things with some superficial similarities.

"All roleplaying is group therapy" was said, I believe, by Clinton Nixon (one of them Forgers, anyhow). Guess what? He ain't a psychologist.

It would be bad for a psychologist's patient to think of the roleplaying they're doing as a "game" - an activity purely for amusement. It'd also be bad - and unhealthily dangerous - for a bunch of gamers to think of the roleplaying they're doing as "therapy."

It's like comparing butchers with surgeons. They have some of the same skills, and there are superficial similarities, but the different aims they have give them different results, and those aims are incompatible. I would not let a butcher attempt surgery on me, nor would I ask a surgeon to portion up a side of beef; likewise, I would not let a psychologist tell me to start rolling dice to decide what to do next (nobody quote The Diceman, for fuck's sake) and still less would I let a gamer try to use roleplaying as therapy on me.
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: Levi Kornelsen on October 21, 2006, 11:50:38 PM
Quote from: JimBobOzIt'd also be bad - and unhealthily dangerous - for a bunch of gamers to think of the roleplaying they're doing as "therapy."

As a point to back this up...  Catharsis as entertainment has a long history.

Some of that history is very good.  Some of it is seriously fucked up, and did the audience no good at all.  Roleplaying as a hobby ranges from "totally fun" to "really boring and annoying, possibly a haven for social maladjustment".

So, by making that change a group fails to raise the "good" end of the bar to any significant degree, while dropping the "bad" end of the bar right through the damn floor.

Not a tradeoff I dig.

A game that, by it's quality of play, moves me, that's fucking awesome - ditto for movies, and other forms of entertainment.  A game engineered to step wholly outside of the realm of entertainment, whether you call it 'fun', 'satisfaction', or 'ansa dansa mo go fop', is a dumb idea.

I have never seen nor read such a game, and hope that I never will.
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: Sigmund on October 22, 2006, 08:01:04 AM
Quote from: James McMurrayNah, it's still gaming. Maybe not your particular brand of gaming, but gaming nonetheless. It's possible to have "mindless" fun and think deep thoughts in the same evening, sometimes even the same minute.


It's not gaming, no matter how much you want it to be.

"Mindless" fun and thinking "deep thoughts" would be mutually exclusive I would think. Anyway "deep thoughts" and "heavy hearts" are not the same thing. As I previously posted:

Quote from: SigmundYes, subject matter in a RPG can be thought-provoking, even intellectually challenging, and even mildly emotional

Thinking isn't the issue, feeling is. I would go so far as to say the whole point of RPGs is thinking. It is a thinking person's hobby, I would say. There is really no problem with feeling even, during a game, but to say you're gaming (as in Roleplaying Gaming, with friends, at one of their houses, with pizza and sodas on the table) with a "heavy heart" (aka deep sadness, depression) is either sad or silly. RPGs might provoke in me a mild empathetic feeling for my (or someone else's) character, and maybe even an npc in a well written and gmed adventure. The feeling will quickly be replaced by absolute joy when I notice my 1yo son has discovered the comedic potential of bonking mommy on the knee with an empty soda bottle, giggling like a little fool all the while.

Since you brought it up, I can say from direct experience that even RPT (roleplaying therapy) does not, in and of itself, provoke real emotion. It is simply the finger pointing at the moon, designed to highlight the real emotional issues and bring them to the surface so they can be identified and addressed. It is conducted by a trained therapist, in a safe environment for the patient. Calling them the same is either ignorance or blatant deception.
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: David R on October 22, 2006, 11:37:25 AM
I've seen some gamers use rpgs as a distraction, which is the closet to rpgs as a therapeutic device I've witnessed - which depending on the problem they are experiencing, is not necessarily a good thing.

Even as a distraction it's always been about the fun, which I assume means they are deriving some enjoyment from the whole process which is a temporary reprieve from their problems.

To be honest, in my games, if my players are coming for something other than entertainment, I'd be a little worried.

Regards,
David R
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: James McMurray on October 22, 2006, 01:47:17 PM
Quote"Roleplaying" with a therapist is therapy, "roleplaying" with a game is a game. They are two different things with some superficial similarities.

A therapist whois good at this will incorporate the concepts of gaming and slip the therapy in, preferably unnoticed. I'm not talking about "roleplaying" along the lines of "Ok Jimmy, you be your dad, Dad, you be Jimmy." I'm talking about playing an actual RPG (in my case it was D&D). Perhaps in your experience it wasn't gaming, but your experience is not universal.

Quote"All roleplaying is group therapy" was said, I believe, by Clinton Nixon (one of them Forgers, anyhow). Guess what? He ain't a psychologist.

So? I'm not Clinton Nixon (whoever he is), nor do I care what his credentials are.

QuoteIt would be bad for a psychologist's patient to think of the roleplaying they're doing as a "game" - an activity purely for amusement.

I play for enjoyment, which is not the same as amusement. YMMV.

QuoteThey have some of the same skills, and there are superficial similarities, but the different aims they have give them different results, and those aims are incompatible.

The aims are only incompatible when doone poorly. Even using the Surgeon / Butcher comparison (which isn't a good one) you can have someone trained as both. Under a different legal system then here it would be possible to surgically remove something and use it as food, combining surgery and butchery just fine. It wouldn't be very efficient, but that's one of the many points where your comparison falters. Good, enjoyable, DMing combined with good therapy (subtle if needbe) can be incredibly efficient as it allows the counselee to enjoy himself while exploring issues, something that is often the opposite case.

QuoteI would not let a butcher attempt surgery on me, nor would I ask a surgeon to portion up a side of beef; likewise, I would not let a psychologist tell me to start rolling dice to decide what to do next (nobody quote The Diceman, for fuck's sake) and still less would I let a gamer try to use roleplaying as therapy on me.

Certainly not, and neither would I. But you're looking at them as seperate and irreconcilable, which they're not.

QuoteIt'd also be bad - and unhealthily dangerous - for a bunch of gamers to think of the roleplaying they're doing as "therapy."

I never claimed otherwise. I'm talking about trained professionals, not Joe the GM and his living room couch.

QuoteIt's not gaming, no matter how much you want it to be.

Where's this Official Gaming Dictionary you're using, or is that your personal definition?

Quote"Mindless" fun and thinking "deep thoughts" would be mutually exclusive I would think.

At the same point in time, sure. But gaming sessions generally last longer than an instant. Over the course of several hours it's possible to experience all sorts of different things while gaming, two of which can be deep thoughts and mindless fun.

QuoteSince you brought it up, I can say from direct experience that even RPT (roleplaying therapy) does not, in and of itself, provoke real emotion.

Roleplay Therapy and Roleplaying Game Therapy are two seperate things. Roleplay Therapy is of the "switch places Jimmy and Dad" type (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=role+play+therapy&spell=1). Roleplaying Game Therapy uses RPGs to explore issues(http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=psychologist+dungeons+and+dragons+therapy). Maybe that's the difference we're experiencing in the discussion, a matter of definition.
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: Sigmund on October 22, 2006, 04:33:35 PM
Quote from: James McMurrayWhere's this Official Gaming Dictionary you're using, or is that your personal definition?

Neither. Many people would say it's a combination of experience, intelligence, and common sense. You can call it whatever you want.

QuoteAt the same point in time, sure. But gaming sessions generally last longer than an instant. Over the course of several hours it's possible to experience all sorts of different things while gaming, two of which can be deep thoughts and mindless fun.

Yeah, ok. We can have "mindless" fun and think "deep thoughts" in the same game session. Ya got me. Completely irrelevant to the point of this thread, but ok.

QuoteRoleplay Therapy and Roleplaying Game Therapy are two seperate things. Roleplay Therapy is of the "switch places Jimmy and Dad" type (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=role+play+therapy&spell=1). Roleplaying Game Therapy uses RPGs to explore issues(http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=psychologist+dungeons+and+dragons+therapy). Maybe that's the difference we're experiencing in the discussion, a matter of definition.

They are not two separate things, they are two methods of doing the same thing, which is attempting to heal the emotionally wounded. Despite your attempt to prove otherwise, all your google links accomplish is to prove my point. In Wayne Blackmon's case, the RPing wasn't even practiced by the therapist. It was just discussed during therapy sessions, where the therapist used discussions of the game to guide his patient to talk about more meaningful issues. Wayne did not begin playing to deal with those issues. He played because he wanted to have fun with other people... it was the only setting in which he felt comfortable enough to interact with other people.

The article by John Hughes talks about how RPing is used by a patient to bolster self-esteem and compensate for percieved short-comings. Let me quote from "Malori", the patient in Hughes' case study.

QuoteI had begun roleplaying in 1981. I was really thrown in the deep end. After playing just a few months we attended a roleplaying tournament. There were a hundred and fifty entrants, and I won. It came like a bolt out of the blue. I discovered I was very good at it. Initially this was my prime motivation for roleplaying. I think that time was the beginning of my depression - I was at university. It raised my self-esteem enormously. I was good at it, I knew I was good at it, I had proved I was good at it, and I was going to prove everyone else that I was good at it."

"I enjoy it on a very different level now. I noticed that when my illness was first diagnosed that when I roleplayed, I had no symptoms! I wasn't depressed, I wasn't physically ill. I was happy, I was strong. The difference between when I was roleplaying (especially when I was playing Jack) and when I wasn't was really quite strange. On one hand I was extremely ill, and on the other I was bouncy and energetic and having fun. I thought it would take drugs or intensive counselling to get that much relief from the sickness."

The patient herself tells us that her roleplaying was fun for her (especially while playing "Jack"). It made her feel good. So, even though she was doing it for the wrong reasons IMO, she still played because she was having fun. Wrong again sir.

DnD is used by therapists because it is fun for the patient. It allows them to relax, to be in their comfort zone and open up to the therapist. So not only is RPGing when used by a therapist in sessions not actual gaming (as all of us refer to it here on the internet), it's still fun for the patient despite it actually being therapy. Also, I doubt very seriously if Merten is talking about RPing as part of formal therapy sessions, and if he is then his rant against the word "fun" is even sillier than it sounds already. I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume it's just plain old ordinary silly.
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: James McMurray on October 22, 2006, 10:07:20 PM
"Not actual gaming?" So then playing an RPG, because it's fun, is not gaming. Interesting. I guess it's one of the milions of things that people all over the world agree to disagree about. :)
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: RPGPundit on October 23, 2006, 05:00:31 AM
Most people in the world actually agree with this. Only a few tend to want to have it another way.

RPGPundit
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: James McMurray on October 23, 2006, 01:01:26 PM
Your point? My own personal experience is all I've got to go on, so what the rest of the world thinks they know falls kinda flat when it bounces up against the evidence of my experience. Luckily "what is gaming to you" is a very subjective question, so they can have their answers, I can have mine, you can have yours, and they can all coexistent despite not agreeing.
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: Merten on October 23, 2006, 01:27:57 PM
Quote from: SigmundAlso, I doubt very seriously if Merten is talking about RPing as part of formal therapy sessions, and if he is then his rant against the word "fun" is even sillier than it sounds already. I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume it's just plain old ordinary silly.

I'm not and I don't have experience of roleplaying and therapy sessions - and I'd rather leave the subject to the professionals.

Disagreeing about the silly-part, but that shouldn't be news anymore.
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: Sigmund on October 23, 2006, 04:14:53 PM
Quote from: James McMurray"Not actual gaming?" So then playing an RPG, because it's fun, is not gaming. Interesting. I guess it's one of the milions of things that people all over the world agree to disagree about. :)

Are you actually reading the posts, or just skimming for stuff you can quote in order to be argumentative?
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: James McMurray on October 23, 2006, 04:30:12 PM
Reading, why? The question doesn't seem to fit the quote you put it under, unless "I'm done with pointless arguing over a matter of opinion" a.k.a. "agree to disagree" somehow equates in your mind to "I want to be argumentative."

Just because I don't reply to every last tidbit of your post doesn't mean it wasn't read. Heck, there were a few things I could have disagreed with, but I decided that since we're so far apart on our views I'd just wander off with the comment that we aren't going to agree. I've made my points, you've made yours, and because of the differences of background we've arrived at different conclusions.
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: Sigmund on October 24, 2006, 06:52:23 PM
Quote from: James McMurrayReading, why? The question doesn't seem to fit the quote you put it under, unless "I'm done with pointless arguing over a matter of opinion" a.k.a. "agree to disagree" somehow equates in your mind to "I want to be argumentative."

Just because I don't reply to every last tidbit of your post doesn't mean it wasn't read. Heck, there were a few things I could have disagreed with, but I decided that since we're so far apart on our views I'd just wander off with the comment that we aren't going to agree. I've made my points, you've made yours, and because of the differences of background we've arrived at different conclusions.

I started posting in this thread because I agree with Pundit, and I don't believe anyone who says they don't play RPGs for fun. I do believe that they might not want to call it fun for some reason, one which I would probably find silly, but that's beside the point. Then you come and post some BS about RPGs used in therapy and try to say that's gaming without fun. I show that for the BS it is and you take a small part of one of my posts, use it out of context, then make up your own meaning for it. I'm saying people play these games to have fun. It's entertainment. Now ya'all are trying to tell us all here you play for some deep, meaningful "higher purpose" shit, and I ain't buyin it. You, specifically, are trying to say with this RPG therapy BS that those people aren't playing for fun (which is the point of the thread), and I say that's bullshit. Prove me wrong. I gave you direct quotes countering your erroneous point and you can't even be bothered to address them, just post some smartass twist on a small part of my post taken out of context. What this says to me is you're just screwin around in this thread, and I just wanted to know where you're coming from so I can respond appropriately, so I asked. Unless you can actually make a point I'll be moving on, have fun gaming :) .
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: James McMurray on October 24, 2006, 07:23:11 PM
I never said anything about gaming without fun. I've mentioned "deep thoughts" and "mindless fun." Those are just two points on the spectrum of things that can happen while playing an RPG.

I can't "prove it" beyond what I've already said: my experiences with RPGs as therapy were both fun and thought provoking. The reasons for playing at the time were varied, of which "fun" was a part. How about this: you say it's impossible to have therapeutic fun: prove it.

As I've said all along, my opinion is based in my personal experiences. Your opinion is based on yours. As such, our opinions differ, and that's o.k. If for some reason it isn't ok with you that someone disagree with you, perhaps you could use some therapy. I'd sugest a good, fun RPG for the session. ;)
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: Sigmund on October 24, 2006, 09:00:05 PM
Quote from: James McMurrayyou say it's impossible to have therapeutic fun

Where'd you get this idea?

Quote from: SigmundDnD is used by therapists because it is fun for the patient. It allows them to relax, to be in their comfort zone and open up to the therapist. So not only is RPGing when used by a therapist in sessions not actual gaming (as all of us refer to it here on the internet), it's still fun for the patient despite it actually being therapy.

This is what I actually said. You then took only the "not actual gaming" part out of my post and started in with I somehow said therapy patients weren't having fun when gaming when in actuality I said the exact opposite. When you posted this:

Quote from: James McMurraythousands of counselors across the country (and probably world) use some form of role playing (sometimes with dice, sometimes without) in order to explore deep and meaningful issues with individuals and groups. I doubt they'd agree with you calling it wasteful and silly.

(text in quote bolded by me)
It was in response to a post I made about how I thought trying to extract deep meaning and emotional depth from a RPG was wasteful and silly, when real life is so much more important. My point has always been that RPGs are games, their purpose is entertainment. Nothing in any of the links you provided in a later post has contradicted that.
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: David R on October 24, 2006, 09:38:59 PM
I think it's strange all this talk about therapy and rpgs, considering the fact that some folks who game are in obvious need of the former....going by the Creepy Gamer thread on TBP and the Pundit's rantings about Lawncrappers :D

"Lawncrappers. They freak me out, man"

Regards,
David R
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: James McMurray on October 24, 2006, 09:59:00 PM
Sorry, I misremembered, and hence misrepresented your stance. What you said was that gaming in a session wasn't actually gaming, as "all of us" refer to it. As I've already said, my experience puts the lie to that statement. But also as I said, it's pure opinion, so you're free to disagree.
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: Sigmund on October 25, 2006, 03:22:01 PM
Quote from: James McMurraySorry, I misremembered, and hence misrepresented your stance. What you said was that gaming in a session wasn't actually gaming, as "all of us" refer to it. As I've already said, my experience puts the lie to that statement. But also as I said, it's pure opinion, so you're free to disagree.

The reason I said as "all of us refer to it" is because RPGing is a social activity, a recreational activity. If a therapist were to actually run a game of DnD in a therapy session it would be for the express purpose of addressing emotional issues in what that therapist considered to be a therapeutic manner. It would a serious breach of ethics otherwise, one for which the therapist could get in very serious trouble. Since nobody else I've ever seen on one of these gaming forums has talked about playing DnD during therapy sessions, I felt safe in assuming very few of us game in that type of setting. If you are the exception to this rule then so be it, but that hardly "puts the lie" to anything I've said. Now if a whole bunch of other posters here on these forums were to post to this thread saying they too play during therapy sessions, I will concede your point.

Just so you know where I'm coming from, I'm a recovering drug addict with 10 years clean, and 10 years of membership in a recovery program. I have many years of therapy as a patient under my belt, and I have also worked for 2 years as a counselor in a drug rehabilitation program. While I have talked about RPing in therapy (on both sides of the couch, as it were), along with many other issues and interests, I have never actually played nor heard of anyone playing a RPG during a session.
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: James McMurray on October 25, 2006, 04:55:09 PM
As I said, my experience differs from yours. I have played RPGs during sessions, both group and singular, with the dual intent of enjoying ourselves and finding things out about myself in a therapeutic environment.

Why do you feel the need to convince me that what you believe to be the truth is objective, not subjective?
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: Sigmund on October 26, 2006, 03:20:08 PM
Quote from: James McMurrayAs I said, my experience differs from yours. I have played RPGs during sessions, both group and singular, with the dual intent of enjoying ourselves and finding things out about myself in a therapeutic environment.

Why do you feel the need to convince me that what you believe to be the truth is objective, not subjective?

Why are you trying to convince me that your RPGing in a therapy session is the same experience as when the rest of us get togther around the kitchen table with pizza and soda and game? I haven't said that you don't use RPGing as therapy, just that it's not the way most of the rest of us experience RPGs, and that therapy is not what RPGs are designed for. Regardless, despite the tone of your original post to this thread, you appear to agree that gaming is "fun", which is the only point I'm really trying to make. Let me at least say that unless prescribed by a psychologist, it is better not to try and deal with one's own deep emotional issues by playing RPGs.
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: Merten on October 26, 2006, 03:48:39 PM
Quote from: SigmundLet me at least say that unless prescribed by a psychologist, it is better not to try and deal with one's own deep emotional issues by playing RPGs.

I don't know where the notion of dealing with one's own emotional issues sneaked into discussion, but I can definately agree with that one. If roleplaying session happens to touch issues which connect to players own emotional issues, that at least should be more by accident than design.

Dealing with emotional issues of a fictive person, through fiction, with players emotionally attached to the mentioned person, yet detached enough from it to retain a sense of themselves - that's another issue entirely. I think and hope that the latter one is the subject of this discussion.
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: James McMurray on October 26, 2006, 03:50:53 PM
You said RPGing in that manner is not gaming. I said that for me it is. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. In fact, all along I've said that our respectives opinions are equally valid.

I agree that trying to deal with deep emotional issues via RPGs without professional help could have bad results. I also agree that one of many reasons to play RPGs is fun. Depending on your definition of fun that might be the only reason, or you may toss in other intangibles such as "fulfillment," "enjoyment," "a sense of challenge," and countless other reasons why people do the things they do.
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: mythusmage on October 26, 2006, 04:06:44 PM
Quote from: SigmundWhy are you trying to convince me that your RPGing in a therapy session is the same experience as when the rest of us get togther around the kitchen table with pizza and soda and game?
(snip)

Why are you trying to convince us that it can't?
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: SunBoy on October 26, 2006, 05:39:03 PM
Gentlemen, I think you've forgotten the point of the thread.
Teh true of the female milanese, la verdad de la milanesa, this thread was about the missuse of the word "fun".
I agree.
What most of you failed to consider, is that there is one more use of the word: you can say "Aye, that motion picture was loads of fun indeed", but you can also say "Mummy, the milk smells funny". So, weird festering dairy product smells are fun? If so, do they lead you to deep thoughts and meaningful epyphanies? Or would you have to consume the rotting beverage in question to achieve some altered perception state?
But of course, we were talking about RPGs.
We stablished already that the concept of fun relates with weird smelling things (which explains, incidentally, why no one can avoid giggling like an asshole with fart jokes), and we all know that a good RPing session needs a good GM, so we can safely assure now that the only kind of fun RPG is that in which the GM either:
1.- Is really good at fart jokes, or
2.- Stinks like a baby's vomit.
Personally, I think that RPGs looking to achieve some kind of meaningful crap stink like a baby's vomit.

But, all in all, there is something even more important I wanted to say here:

Merten, JimmyMcM,

GET A LIFE. A funny one, if you can.

And Sigmund, man, I totally agree with you.
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: droog on October 26, 2006, 05:50:12 PM
Your post isn't very funny....
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: James McMurray on October 26, 2006, 09:04:58 PM
Nor was it fulfilling. Or even therapeutic.

Oh well, better luck next time. :)
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: Sigmund on October 27, 2006, 02:17:46 PM
Quote from: mythusmage(snip)

Why are you trying to convince us that it can't?

Because it can't, why else?
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: Sigmund on October 27, 2006, 02:21:28 PM
Quote from: James McMurrayYou said RPGing in that manner is not gaming. I said that for me it is. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. In fact, all along I've said that our respectives opinions are equally valid.

I agree that trying to deal with deep emotional issues via RPGs without professional help could have bad results. I also agree that one of many reasons to play RPGs is fun. Depending on your definition of fun that might be the only reason, or you may toss in other intangibles such as "fulfillment," "enjoyment," "a sense of challenge," and countless other reasons why people do the things they do.

You are right, I did. You are also right in that I was was not really accurate with that statement. What I should have said is that it is not gaming as the majority of us know it. For that, I stand corrected. In all else we seem to be in accord, thanks for the arguement ;) .
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: James McMurray on October 27, 2006, 02:34:15 PM
But if we're in agreement who wins???!!??!!??

Does not compute. Does not compute.

:combust:
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: Sigmund on October 27, 2006, 02:35:34 PM
Quote from: James McMurrayBut if we're in agreement who wins???!!??!!??

Does not compute. Does not compute.

:combust:

Oops.... I broke him.
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: James McMurray on October 27, 2006, 02:47:01 PM
But I'm feeling much better now.
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: SunBoy on October 27, 2006, 07:15:17 PM
Quote from: droogYour post isn't very funny....
Quote from: James McMurrayNor was it fulfilling. Or even therapeutic.

Oh well, better luck next time.

Well, I tried. :idunno:
Now I NEED therapy. :bawling:
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: mythusmage on October 27, 2006, 09:04:37 PM
Quote from: SigmundBecause it can't, why else?

And you know this how?
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: James McMurray on October 28, 2006, 03:00:23 AM
Obviously because he's convinced that, at least in his case, sometimes opinions can actually be facts. There's probably very little point discussing it with him.
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: Sigmund on October 28, 2006, 10:05:37 AM
I've changed my mind about not posting to this again. Guess I'm still having fun.

My "opinion" is based on pretty extensive experience, and simple reasoning. Playing a RPG as therapy for emotional issues must be different than playing for entertainment mainly because the overall goal is different. I don't doubt that RPGing is fun to do even in therapy, but that doesn't change the fact that it's still therapy, it's goal is still to ultimately improve the emotional health of one or more of the participants. This means the therpist is going to guide the experience toward that goal. The difference might be subtle, but it's there.

When I go over to my buddy Bill's house to game, improving my emotional health isn't even on the radar, we are there only for the purpose of entertaining/being entertained. When I and 5 of our patients sit around the living room downing diet pepsi and talking, we are not just "kickin' it", no matter how much it might seem like we are. I have a purpose there, so I guide the discussion both subtly and not-so-subtly towards achieving that purpose.

Despite my apparent assertion in my flippant (and slightly tongue-in-cheek) posts to this thread, I am very well aware that I could be wrong (even without ya'all's smartass and arguementative comments). Based on my personal and professional experience, I don't believe I am, but if you can produce convincing arguements to the contrary I am certainly open to revising my opinion.
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: James McMurray on October 28, 2006, 04:31:23 PM
First, you're assuming a forced singularity of purpose. Either you're trying to have fun or you're trying to be therapeutic. It's possible to do both at once.

Second, if "this is how it has happened in my life" isn't a convincing argument, then there ain't much else that can be said. If first hand experience (i.e. fact) won't convince you, why would any amount of theorizing (i.e. educated opinions) do so?
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: mythusmage on October 28, 2006, 07:49:12 PM
Let me add these two points...

1. It is possible to play for fun and have it be therapeutic.

2. It is possible to play as a part of therapy and have it be fun.
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: Sigmund on October 29, 2006, 12:16:12 AM
I have never, anywhere in this thread or any other, contended that playing an RPG as part of emotional therapy couldn't be or isn't fun. Not once. All I've said is that gaming as therapy is not the same experience as gaming for entertainment. This is why I don't get what the hell ya'all are argueing about. What I'm hearing you say is that you going to a therapy session run by a psychologist and having the psychologist use an RPG to attempt to deal with emotional issues in a manner his/her patients understand and feel safe with is the exact same experience as me going to my buddy's house and gaming for a few hours completely for the hell of it. If that is indeed what you are saying then I don't believe you, because I know gaming, and I know emotional therapy. I don't have to know every single method of therapy to understand how it works.

So, you're wrong when you say I'm "forcing a singularity of purpose". I'm doing no such thing, I thought we had cleared that up already. I even said in my very last post...

Quote from: SigmundI don't doubt that RPGing is fun to do even in therapy, but that doesn't change the fact that it's still therapy...

I really didn't think that statement was all that complex that it would be so grossly misunderstood.
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: James McMurray on October 29, 2006, 01:38:58 AM
Of course my gaming with a therapist is not going to be the same experience as your gaming without one. My gaming without one wouldn't be the same experience as you gaming without one either. We're different people and we bring different viewpoints to the table.

However, my gaming with a therapist was the same sort of experience as my gaming without one. They of course weren't exactly alike, as they were different gaming groups. But they were close enough that I'd call them both "gaming."

Whether my gaming with or without a therapist would be the same today I don't know. I'm a vastly different person then I was twenty years ago, and a different therapist would bring a different suite of skills to the table.
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: Sigmund on October 29, 2006, 07:27:16 AM
Quote from: James McMurrayOf course my gaming with a therapist is not going to be the same experience as your gaming without one. My gaming without one wouldn't be the same experience as you gaming without one either. We're different people and we bring different viewpoints to the table.

However, my gaming with a therapist was the same sort of experience as my gaming without one. They of course weren't exactly alike, as they were different gaming groups. But they were close enough that I'd call them both "gaming."

Whether my gaming with or without a therapist would be the same today I don't know. I'm a vastly different person then I was twenty years ago, and a different therapist would bring a different suite of skills to the table.

Ok, now we're talking about the same thing here finally.

I have no  interest in debating philosophy with you, or relative experience, or anything else really. I don't believe what you're saying, so there's really no point. We got vastly off-topic awhile back anyway, sorry to everyone else about that.
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: James McMurray on October 29, 2006, 01:38:32 PM
Ah hubris. Always entertaining, even when disappointing. :) Or to misquote* Londo Mollari: Ah, arrogance and ignorance all in the same package. How efficient of you.

* He uses stupidity in place of ignorance, but I don't think you're stupid, just blinded in this area by what you think you know, to the point that you disregard eyewitness accounts if they risk damaging your worldview.
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: Sigmund on October 29, 2006, 07:27:12 PM
Quote from: James McMurrayAh hubris. Always entertaining, even when disappointing. :) Or to misquote* Londo Mollari: Ah, arrogance and ignorance all in the same package. How efficient of you.

* He uses stupidity in place of ignorance, but I don't think you're stupid, just blinded in this area by what you think you know, to the point that you disregard eyewitness accounts if they risk damaging your worldview.

By your own admission, and your own reasoning, the two experiences are different , yet according to you just alike enough to call me ignorant and arrogant. You then, however, say that your game and mine, whether with therapist or without have to be different because we are different people, and game with different people, even though you have no idea what my game is like, and whether it might indeed be "close enough that you can call them both gaming". I think you're confused about who is the arrogant one here. I don't believe what you are posting here because you contradict yourself in the same post.

Quote from: James McMurrayOf course my gaming with a therapist is not going to be the same experience as your gaming without one. My gaming without one wouldn't be the same experience as you gaming without one either. We're different people and we bring different viewpoints to the table.

However, my gaming with a therapist was the same sort of experience as my gaming without one. They of course weren't exactly alike, as they were different gaming groups. But they were close enough that I'd call them both "gaming."

So are they the same or not? If they are close enough to each other to be loosely called the same, and that my assertion they are not is from ignorance, then how can you assert that neither of your gaming experiences can be like mine if you have no first hand experiences of my gaming? You are committing the very crime you are accusing me of. Why is it that it's ok for you and your "world view", but not mine? Hubris indeed.

Perhaps we should learn more about the experiences and then we can both be arrogant but not so ignorant. Tell me, where did this therapy gaming occur? How many players were involved? Who DMed? Did you run published adventures, or homebrew ones? How much was the therapist getting paid to play DnD with you? Did you play only an hour at a time, or from, like, dinnertime until 3am? Once a week? Was the DnD the only kind of therapy you engaged in during these sessions? Were there other games you played? Were all the other players always the same too, or did the player roster change every so often? Did you really use DnD to get at these deep emotional issues, or did you have to play a game with less "roll-playing" rules in it? Did you and the other players ever do anything else together besides game (and therapy)? How about your entertainment gaming? How did it differ from the therapy gaming? Where did it take place, and with who? Did you play any other games than DnD with them? How long did you engage in the two experiences?
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: Kyle Aaron on October 29, 2006, 09:19:02 PM
Mate, you blokes are talking a load of old bollocks. How did my clear, intelligent and insightful original post turn into this nonsense?

:forge:
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: Sigmund on October 30, 2006, 04:35:19 AM
Quote from: JimBobOzMate, you blokes are talking a load of old bollocks. How did my clear, intelligent and insightful original post turn into this nonsense?

:forge:

Yes, and bite me, we're having fun.

:enw:
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: James McMurray on October 30, 2006, 09:23:18 AM
It isn't the differences in experiences that make it hubris, it's the "your experiences differ from mine, so I don't believe what you're saying" that does it.

As for our games being exactly alike, well, you are of course free to think it's hubris of me to think they aren't, but I'll stick with my belief. You and I are obviously different people. The groups we game with are obviously different people. We most likely play different games. The odds of different people in different groups playing different games having the exact same experiences seem pretty slim to me.

QuoteTell me, where did this therapy gaming occur?

Fort Worth Child Study Center, over twenty years ago.

QuoteHow many players were involved? Who DMed?

Anywhere from two to four players, not including the therapist DMing.

QuoteDid you run published adventures, or homebrew ones?

I have no idea, although I haven't read anything similar to what we played, so my assumption is that it was homebrew. It would be a lot easier to mold an adventure towards therapy if it were.

QuoteHow much was the therapist getting paid to play DnD with you?

My dad paid (I wasn't even ten yet) so I have no idea. I'm guessing it was whatever the standard rates were for therapy at the time.

QuoteDid you play only an hour at a time, or from, like, dinnertime until 3am? Once a week? Was the DnD the only kind of therapy you engaged in during these sessions?

A couple of hours every other week, with "noral" therapy interspersed.

QuoteWere there other games you played?

There was other play therapy, which was pretty big at the time.

QuoteWere all the other players always the same too, or did the player roster change every so often?

Same players for the most part, although we did lose and gain people every now and then.

QuoteDid you really use DnD to get at these deep emotional issues, or did you have to play a game with less "roll-playing" rules in it?

D&D

QuoteDid you and the other players ever do anything else together besides game (and therapy)?

Nope.

QuoteHow about your entertainment gaming?

I didn't have a gaming group at the time, so my gaming outside of the therapy was limited to solo adventures and the various fighting fantasy books coupled with lots of reading.

QuoteHow long did you engage in the two experiences?

About a year of therapy gaming. About 25 years of regular gaming.
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: Sigmund on October 30, 2006, 06:14:19 PM
Ugh, I can't do it anymore. You have out-endured me in this pointless and silly debate. I concede. You win. Call me arrogant, ignorant, full of hubris, shit, or the worst dickhead on the planet... I don't care. I'm gonna go spend time with my son, and then watch Heroes. Have fun gaming.
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: James McMurray on October 30, 2006, 07:53:39 PM
My intent when answering your questions certainly wasn't to "outlast" you. I figured you asked because you wanted to know. Oh well...

I WIN!!! I WIN!!!

;)
Title: "Fun" and "fulfilment"
Post by: Sigmund on October 31, 2006, 06:09:17 AM
Quote from: James McMurrayMy intent when answering your questions certainly wasn't to "outlast" you. I figured you asked because you wanted to know. Oh well...

I WIN!!! I WIN!!!

;)

I did, but I can't summon the energy to keep going on this topic, so yes... you win.