Quote from: SettembriniI always saw RPGs to get away from the "I´m your father, Luke!" kind of clichés and haphazard collection of cheap emotional tricks.
Look at books: It takes a highly skilled author to turn a novel about realationship from something with a Fabio cover on it into something readable and enjoyable. The plot elements and turns might even be the same, but the presentation in the form of language can save so much. Especially, good literature creates figures, who´s motivations and introspection are gripping, copmpelling and interesting.
What I´m trying to say is, that to explore the human condition in a non-trivial, overused and clichéd way, you need the skills of a nobel prize winner.

...So I cannot understand the fun in retreading the exact stuff I was trying to get away from: contrived coincedences, dramatic structure, script reasoning etc. ad nauseam.

That's pretty much how I feel about RPGs. I have a genuine intest in human drama - I just find that the drama presented in genre fiction, movies, and TV rarely rises above hackneyed schlock. That's why I don't buy fantasy novels anymore - they just make me cringe. And when genre drama does rise above the hackneyed - as it sometimes does in Buffy or Battlestar Gallactica - I'm aware of the enormous amount of talent, craftsmanship, and reworking that went into it.

Maybe this makes me an elitist prick. I don't know. I mean, I have friends who write, act and direct in local theatre. And frankly, though I support them, I find the shows pretty difficult to watch. For me, drama is something that, when done with true art and mastery, can move me deeply. I try to go in with an open mind, but every bit of hackneyed dialog, every overly pointed characterization, every indulgence in mawkish sentimentality just jars me out of any immersion in the drama. I can't help myself - I honestly can't endure 98 per cent of popular drama without jeering and hooting with derision (my wife doesn't like watching TV with me).

So no, my group doesn't try to explore the human condition or emulate genre drama in our games. I should note that none of the guys I play with are plugged into 'geek' pop culture. No Buffy or wuxuia (sp?) fans, no X-Files afficianados, or Tolkien enthusiasts. Even my player with an English degree - a newspaper columnist who loves to write - doesn't have any interest in crafting genre storylines with heartaches, betyrayals, redemption, etc, in our games. We just make some broadly drawn characters, plunk them in a vividly-realized and perilous setting, and see how many amusing situations they can back into before they die.

Now, I'm not slagging narrative gaming or genre fiction. Whatever turns your crank. But I think it's a mistake to think that gamers who don't want to explore characterization or engage in melodramatic storylines in their games aren't interested in character or drama. Some of us are very interested; we just don't expect or want those elements in our roleplaying games.

I think more along the line of creating dramatic elements so the character can develop outside of levels, equipment, etc...  It's a game but it doesn't need to be Gauntlet either.  That's a big distinction for roleplaying games for me.  The characters develop as the players make decisions regarding what they "feel" their characters should do.  The game aspect of RPGs is fun but I remember the characters.  They're what made the campaign come alive.  As a GM my first priority is to assist the character into defining moments without stepping on the players concept.  

Action is only as dramatic as what fuels the characters into action.

Quote from: Elliot WilenSo the question isn't "What do you get out of exploring the human condition?" but rather, "How come your games are riddled with thematic cliches? Wouldn't you get a fresher perspective by using tools that jar you out of cliche?"

That can't be Sett's question, as he is an avowed D&D fan and that game, by design, is hugely dependent upon cliches (from class and race descriptions, to spell entries and the classic "quest" model for adventures).

I have no idea what Sett is trying to say and for once Elliot is not effective in his (welcomed) role as "interpreter". It seems to me there a whole lot of assumptions and conflation of ideas/rhetoric in the OP.

Perhaps it's best if Sett gave us an AP so that I (for one) can get where he is coming from.

Regards,
David R

I agree with David R that I'm not sure what Settembrini is on about, he's rambling and mixed stuff up in his OP. But -

Quote from: droogRoleplaying is a field of amateurs. What we lose in polish and professionalism we gain in spontaneity and ownership.

So the fun is in creating your own entertainment. Better than TV.

I agree with this whole-heartedly. It's the same as making anything else as a hobby. Okay, it's not brilliantly-done, but it was interesting to do and I made it.

Or in the case of rpgs, we made it.

Quote from: jdrakehThat can't be Sett's question, as he is an avowed D&D fan and that game, by design, is hugely dependent upon cliches (from class and race descriptions, to spell entries and the classic "quest" model for adventures).

Ah, I foresaw this response, especially after droog's reply to me. I could explain but I think it'd be better for Sett to clarify instead of me potentially putting words in his mouth.

While I think Settembrini's OP was posted before it was really formulated in his mind, the points he brings up about genre emulation are pretty thought-provoking. This returns us to one of Pundit's recent arguments: that what is considered sophisticated by many is in reality emulating middle-grade schlock at best (because, really, cop shows and superhero comics aren't Camus and Merle any way you slice it).

QuoteOne of the most appealing aspects for me, is that in RPGs I can interact with fictional worlds, as if they were real. This is in stark contrast for me to how fictional universes act in the media: In Star Trek, we know Kirk will win in the end. Any emulation of Star Trek for example, in which the Captain does not automatically save the day isn´t really one.

I think this needs to be worded more precisely. The need is not for the realism of accurate physics or social structures, but the realism of in-game consequences resulting from player input and interior processes. What makes this exciting, and what makes the often clichéd nature of game environments not as important as you'd think, is the ability to make a difference. This is why I agree with the quotes below:

QuoteAnother example: The movie Spiderman 3. It was awful for me to watch it, because of the "story". The contrived and clichéd soap opera elements were everyone was related to everyone else, and all problems really are relationship problems was a tremendous fun-sink for me.

I always saw RPGs to get away from the "I´m your father, Luke!" kind of clichés and haphazard collection of cheap emotional tricks.

QuotePlease help me out what is fun for those people to re-enact the very elements in media that drove me to roleplaying games with these very roleplaying games?

Well, taking out those elements of his post as Melan did, we get some funny things.

1) people like things in their games which they like in movies.

Some do. Probably not a lot. rpgs are different things to movies and books and comics. As droog said, participation's the key difference. It's not a brilliant creation, but it's my creation. And there's the fact that creation is a joint one - it's nice to do things in a group. We've got a social creative hobby. Movies and books can be sort of social - but not a lot compared to an rpg session - and are almost never creative for the audience.


2) those things are lame.

Well, maybe for Settembrini they are. Bear in mind those "cheap emotional tricks" and "cliches" actually make for very popular movies.


3) cliches are bad

Then why play D&D?

Melan's said what I had in mind, which already answers Kyle's last response: it's not an issue of cliched elements or inputs, rather it's cliched narrative and outputs.

[EDIT: trying to help David out]

Settembrini Says:

• He likes to interact with fictional worlds as if they were real, rather than how their reality works on TV (etc).
• He thinks most genre fiction is crap (I have to say, old man, I'm right with you there).
• Forgenik narrativista games are implicated by having universes that run on dramatic logic and containing lots of genre elements.

See my reply.

Quote from: Elliot WilenMelan's said what I had in mind, which already answers Kyle's last response: it's not an issue of cliched elements or inputs, rather it's cliched narrative and outputs.

This is where we need some examples.

Quote from: Elliot WilenMelan's said what I had in mind, which already answers Kyle's last response: it's not an issue of cliched elements or inputs, rather it's cliched narrative and outputs.

That doesn't answer anything, really. Cliched input produces cliched ouput. A game built around cliched portrayals of certain mythical races, fantasy occupations, and acting out one of many different types of cliched quest archetypes produces an output that is, for better or worse, cliched. The only way you get around this is if you ignore or "revision" the fundamental underpinnings of such a game.

elements and inputs, narrative and outputs, this ridiculous definition of "story" as "an exploration of the human individual´s condition", etc - it's all hopelessly vague and muddled. We need examples, as droog said.

Huh?

Jdrakeh, you are mistaking an Elephant for a rope right now.
The clichéd nature of a quest settup is of no import. The execution of the quest is what you actually play.

Quote from: SettembriniThe execution of the quest is what you actually play.

And? Executing (i.e., acting out) a time-honored cliche somehow makes it less cliche? Sorry. I don't buy it.