It's assumed that this is so because someone must be benefitting from those ideas remaining in place (X), but in fact, the evidence is everywhere that such benefits, if they exist, are quite obviously fleeting, since those most vigorously arguing for X almost always disappear from the public stage (Y).
For a universal example, which occurs in every democratic system, take the case of social welfare, or if one prefers, social insurance/social security. It is always presented as a "cost" or a "waste of money" (X), when it's plain to virtually everyone on it that the money cannot remain in the hands of the receiver, but must immediately be paid out for rent, food, basic necessities and so on. This supports local landlords, groceries, transit systems, department stores... essentially everyone directly related to local economies, many of which would collapse were it not for the presence of social welfare (Y). The disaster that would ensue should this welfare be removed would be catastrophic... solving a problem that isn't one, since the money of necessity merely circulates back into the government's coffers. Nothing is therefore "wasted" in this process, while this circulation stimulates economies throughout the world.
Yet no one who defends welfare or security does so from this advantage point. It is always defended as morally right or "decent," whereas it's opponents describe it as a costly disaster to the economy and something that needs abolishing. It would seem to make sense that someone ought to just stand forth and say, "The city of 'blank' would die without this money," but it's never said and the city of blank often just goes ahead and votes against their own interest, usually because they aren't educated enough to know where their interest lies.
And those that do lambast the cost? They pick their times during the election cycle and then shut up tight as a drum when the vote nears. Silence becomes the order of the day within six months, the "problem" is never addressed and quietly, those re-elected do not take up the issue again until after the election has occurred. Because those who talk about it to near an election are voted out. So where is the benefit, exactly?
The truth is that politicians repeat these tropes because they've seen predecessors do it, and politicians by and large aren't very creative. It does raise money for the next election, but since the problem that raised the money isn't addressed in that election, and since money for the most part remains less important than what the politician apparently believes, it all feels more like "magic thinking" than a well-considered strategy for getting elected.
I'll give you another example, though not a popular one on this blog, before bringing this to D&D. Just now, virtually everyone in the press perceives that America, and several other nations, are moving towards "fascism"... and certainly the signs appear to be everywhere. That's "X." But we have, historically, quite a number of examples of fascist states in the past that have actually imposed fascism, and none of them, remotely, ever moved as slowly as this. "Y." Doesn't it seem curious that a nation with far less resources, far less advanced, existing nearly a century ago (92 years ago by my count), was able to impose total fascism in a period of less than 8 months... while at present, all that's happened is that a few people have been arrested who shouldn't have been, while a lunatic is spouting rhetoric that in fact hasn't been implemented. Why the wait? What does the wait serve? In reality, this can't even be called "fascist light." If it's a frog unaware that it's being boiled in water, at this rate, the water won't boil until the year 2085. The metaphorical frog is going to be dead of old age before the pot gets warm.
So, a D&D example. Why is it assumed that role-playing is a necessary part of D&D, or any RPG (X), when in fact the rules allow it to be completely ignored? (Y) It's assumed that if you're playing an RPG, a "role-playing" game, that you're supposed to inhabit your character. But the written rules, even in later editions, allow plainly for the pure tactical play (though in the case of later editions, this "tactical" aspect is sorely lacking in value). Yet X persists partly because "role-playing" is baked in to the name, and people project what they wish overtop of what the rules allow, and the DM — generally an incompetent when stepping into the role — is easily sold on this idea, as is the mass zeitgeist of players (equally unaware of the rules). As a result, nearly all the persons involved, including the mass of those commenting and "explaining" the game, are misinformed or miscomprehensive of the game's structure or rules. It is easier to pretend those rules don't exist (X) than learn what they say (Y).
Thus we see "stadium presentations" of D&D as though the participants are rock stars, presenting a wholly performative representation of the game as it is never played, as "cool," complete with pyrotechnics. This makes the vast audience ooo and aaah, which seems to assert that this is what the public wants... while, in fact, it's all posturing and nonsense. It's not sustaining the game itself, which is collapsing under the weight of its own failure to produce a resilient experience, while the company that controls it is presently wallowing under the weight of its recent disastrous business decisions. This latter, Y, is plainly in evidence, but the assumption, X, that the game is "more popular than ever" persists because of show. The hype is a marketing mirage — effective at creating the sense of a juggernaut in motion, even if the actual machine is coughing and leaking oil just out of sight.
Likewise, while "rules light" D&D is obviously showing itself to be a loser for the company that owns the game (Y), recent iterations of a "replacement" for D&D, notably Daggerheart (declared as open beta right now) and the freshly released and long-awaited Draw Steel, among others, buy in to the resounding belief that role-play is what the audience wants (X). Which it clearly doesn't, because it hasn't been paying for it recently. Which we should expect will mean that all the youtube gurus and all the reddit pages won't be enough to assure Humpty Dumpty a future — which no one says because shiny glitzy new product, yay. The "roleplay über alles" approach plays great in streamed entertainment, but most paying tables lean heavily towards a rules framework that supports crunchy, tactical play. And recently, those tables aren't "paying" anyone just now.
The effort is what's been described as "greenfield" RPG development — the effort to seize the cultural position that D&D occupies without inheriting it's rule baggage or legal entanglements. It's not trying to please the old crowd with their old monster manuals and adventure structures, but rather introducing something that can be "learned from the ground up" in about an afternoon. A sort of Settlers of Catan level of game complexity, permitting all the role-play of D&D character and background, without all the annoying framing that permits or fails to permit character freedom of action. Tactics are pitched, combat is a procedure that amounts pretty much to "make it up as you go along," while new people can engage without feeling overwhelmed by things they don't know, or lesser than those who have already played. In fact, it's the Milton Bradley mindset of games from the 1960s. Anyone can play, and everyone should.
I would guess that after a few games, it's boring as hell. The novelty of play only lasts until the players perceive that they're doing the same things every session, with the same consequences and the same basic expectation. Without the tension of constraint — which these games are designed to eliminate — the value of the game is dependent wholly upon the DM's performative ability. Unfortunately for the participant in Poughkeepsie, Peoria or Pocatello, their DM is likely not Matt Mercer.
Seems obvious to me. But that X remains presumptive.
When I bring up this sort of thing, if X is supposed to be true, why does Y show it isn't, that's when I get responses from readers that go, "You make me think..." Good. I recommend thinking. It's a positive character trait. Using old numbers, I think by and large original D&D was invented to be played by those with a 12 intelligence or better. On the whole, I think it's failure has been trying to make it accessible for those with an Int of 8.
No comments:
Post a Comment