Where to begin.
I have been reading the on going battle for what seems like forever now about 'social contracts' and 'industry standards'. I have really tried to stay out of it. This is the kind of pitched battles that made me quit forums. Somebody says something, doesn't maybe understand the gravity of the statement and then all hell breaks loose. It all started with this:
"It is that LOTFP: Grindhouse Edition violates the social contract of the RPG community."
http://errantgame.blogspot.com/2011/06/violation-of-social-contract.html
And ends up the biggest fist fight I have seen in some time. People are arguing with people that they have always been civil to. This one post has caused more damage to this hobby we call home than anything I can imagine.
What was so powerful about this to cause so many to react so aggressively? A simple mistake we have all made from time to time. When we speak we think we are speaking for the masses. And that offends a lot of people.
This could have been stopped by taking a step back and saying that it was a personal opinion but that didn't happen. The fuel was increased by somehow associating our group with a group we have nothing to do with and that is 'the industry'. If this were 'the industry' I wouldn't be here typing this. I would be filling out apps and trying to figure out whose ass to kiss next after Mearls over at Wizards. THAT'S the industry. This is 'the hobby' or 'hobby business' if you will.
This is the story of how our favorite hobby fell the 1st time and how we are now at the crossroads. again Will 1989 repeat itself? Or will we ignore the naysayers and forge our own path? The decision is ours.
In the past it started with Satanic panic, Mazes and Monsters and a lot of propaganda that would lead a company to make decisions that would change the course of gaming history.
TSR caved into pressure from religious groups and changed what had been an adult game into something acceptable to people who were not even customers, let alone gamers.
Now our own are quoting items out of context. The 'social contract' has nothing to do with the community as a whole. It is the agreement between players at a table and what they decide to play and how to play it. It is not a moral ruler to measure the acceptability of a game or anything else within the context of this community.
And here the added fuel:
The problem with LOTFP Grindhouse Edition is that it violates the boundaries set by the community. It goes over the line that people are willing to comfortably tolerate, it is beyond the acceptable standard of behavior, and people have reacted to that in a variety of ways."
http://errantgame.blogspot.com/2011/06/violation-of-social-contract.html
What community set which boundaries? Not my community nor the community of others that I have seen. This product seems to be doing quite well.
There is a difference between having an opinion and expressing it and presuming that you speak for an entire group of people. No one speaks for me. I think for myself and choose for myself. I am not cattle or sheep, moving in fear away from the edge that exists to challenge us.
I could quote the entire post I have excerpted above, but it comes down to 1989:
"People don't want their beloved games on the same shelf with this stuff, they don't like to see it included in the mix. They don't want someone looking at LOTFP Grindhouse Edition as being a part of RPGs, lest the negativity flow back onto other RPGs. Our hobby went through a very long and painful doldrum period where we struggled with negative reputational effects. We are just now getting to the point where it is not a big issue anymore. The last thing people want is for something like this to trigger even more negative associations. I try very hard not to describe RPGs as being "like D&D" because of this negative history. I would truly hate to have to disavow even more material."
Is this being serious or supposed to be funny? Who are these people buying games they don't want and setting them on any shelf? Negative associations? Let me tell you, they still hate us and think we are doing Satan's work and corrupting people. Those people have always existed and always will regardless of what a publisher decides to print.
Has someone been sneaking into homes and putting games on game shelves under cover of darkness? Is this some covert operation? Where's my damn copy then? Cause I would certainly love to have a nice boxed set proudly sitting on my shelf.
I am not ashamed of the roots of this hobby or the culture it grew out of. Are there things I disagree with? Of course. But it's me disagreeing. Not me telling you what you should find disagreeable. There is a big difference.
We have no reason to tip toe around and try to go unnoticed. We can stamp our feet if we damn well please and if someone is not 'comfortable' with that then they don't have to be part of it. I'm certain there is a big pile of Monopoly game boxes sitting somewhere nearby that is nice and safe. Go play that.
The last time was a different world, where people forced their opinions on the lives of others and caused a ripple effect that made me, for one, leave the hobby. But things are different now. No more boycotts or threats to a business owners livelihood if they carry those 'awful' Dungeons and Dragons games.
We're in charge this time. We are not part of 'the industry' and I wish to never be again. I look forward to the absolute collapse of 'the industry' and good riddance. And if those 'rules' are truly for GenCon then what is left? A table to play Jenga on? No violence, no gore, no nudity, no religion, no cosplay...what the hell do you do? Drink coffee and check your watch constantly to see when your flight leaves?
It's our show and the more of this fascist group think crap that I read the more I want to Spinal Tap this mother and take it up to 11...How about we start with a module, say The Rape of Village Thiyus...the whole module is seeing how many things you can rape in a given amount of time. Men, women, kids, dogs, goats...if it's breathing then we're hittin' it...and do it fired up on drugs and alcohol...maybe betting contests between PCs to see who gets the higher count...see how this crap makes me react?
You see, I ran a game store back in the 80's and I was treated like a leper. They burnt shit in my yard and told me I was selling the work of the devil. My customers were scared by these fanatics.
OVER A GAME.
So you will have to pardon me that all that 'golden age' dust doesn't get in my eyes and blind me from the crap we have always taken. Go be a mouse if you want to. Just don't expect everyone to be a mouse. Some are lions and they eat mice.
And as I said the other day, we really need to be careful about stepping over the most heinous of all lines-hypocrisy. When you take it down to the basics the largest group of gamers play a game that is a perpetual race war where you kill other creatures and steal their stuff. And don't say that's not what fantasy rpgs are about. Since day one that was the basic game. If you have 'moral issues' with gaming you might want to start right there.
I think too many folks are in this thinking it is a stepping stone into that big ticket job in 'the industry' and for some it may well be.
But the majority of people I talk with know this is a small thing and always will be. This is the only reason this is worth doing. These are labors of love, homages to those who came before 'political correctness'. Look at the our collective past and the influences on the hobby. This is 'Old School'. Frank Frazetta. Boris Vallejo. H.P. Lovecraft, R.E. Howard, E.R. Burroughs.
When H.G. Wells codified miniature war gaming he made a statement that perhaps if we fought more of these small wars we would fight less big ones.
And RPGs are the same. Remember that the concept of role-playing was developed by Jacob Moreno, a Viennese psychologist who contended that people could gain more from acting out their problems than from talking about them. That it would evolve into a gaming hobby is quite remarkable.
But man is a rough beast and for all of our laws and social structures we remain animals at heart, part of a greater nature than we may ever understand. This is the place for where the beast can be released and we can learn something about ourselves in the process.
Too heavy? Maybe you wanna go play that Monopoly now...
Dude, you are showing up late to the dance with a full court press. :) To mix metaphors.
ReplyDeleteIronically, you make the best arguments so far that I have seen.
Oh I'm not late. You just didn't want to read what I wrote the first 3 times.
ReplyDeleteI have to say I haven't been that pissed off since the dark ages. It was bad back then and a lot of what you were saying sounded exactly like what people were saying back then...the old 'you can sell whatever you want in your store, but we won't be shopping here anymore nor will any of our friends'...and that bothered me a lot.
You have to realize that other people don't have that same baggage. I was born in 1981. I don't have any memories like that.
ReplyDeleteIronically, I am arguing that I don't want to go back to that dark age by backsliding into material that people might choke on. And you oppose that position.
No, I just don't believe Raggi has done anything wrong. He gives ample warning on his blog entrance and packaging that states the material is for adults. He's done nothing wrong.
ReplyDeleteThe people you are worried about will never be appeased. It is pointless to worry about them. We now can do everything for ourselves. Create it, produce it, market it and sell it.
The dark age was created by caving into fanatics who could pressure us into doing what they wanted us to do. That doesn't exist anymore. With the internet came the method of marketing and distribution. We are growing in leaps and bounds.
If I thought James was doing something wrong I would have been first on his back. But he hasn't done anything wrong.
I feel though that you have created a truly bad situation by trying to speak for the community as a whole. We all speak for ourselves. If you don't like something that is fine. Say so. No problem. But don't presume that your opinion speaks for me as well. Or anyone else for that matter. That is what caused the flair up on this. There are people who share your opinion on the situation and there are people who share my opinion on the situation. But I don't represent them or think that I do. That's all I'm saying.
And, he has provided an art-less edition at no charge. It doesn't get anymore accommodating than that.
I just wish you would help straighten this out.
And there lies the rub.
ReplyDeleteSee, I don't think he has done anything wrong either. My post consisted of the following argument.
1. There is a social contract within the RPG community that art in an RPG product should be within a certain boundary.
2. The art in LOTFP is outside of that boundary.
-----
Therefore, I don't like the game.
Furthermore,
1. In the past, there has been a lot of negative attention on RPGs because of perceived "immoral" aspects.
2. This kind of behavior risks that kind of thing coming back down on the hobby
--------
Therefore, I don't think it is a good idea to create such material.
What bothers most people has been my statement that I think the majority of people in the hobby would agree with the above argument. Considering all the gamers I know personally, I don't think that is true.
So all the people within our tiny niche that disagree with me have shown up with pointy sticks. My defense has been, you are the niche, of course you disagree. After all, these are the same people who are constantly attacking the gaming mainstream, particularly the industry. Of course they are not going to agree. However, it remains my belief that the majority of gamers (not RPG bloggers, necessarily) do have a shared artistic standard over which they would prefer most games not overreach.
If you think that I have the kind of power to truly hurt a large number of people with my opinions on this subject, I think you are ascribing more power to me than I actually have. The situation is not as bad as you appear to think it is. At least, not from my perspective and I am even the one getting attacked from many quarters.
I don't know what you want me to do to "straighten this out". I still think my arguments are solid. I have tried to avoid speaking about it on my own blog very much at all to let the steam boil down, though I do engage in other people's comments to correct what I see as misrepresentations of my position.
Forgot to add this clarification:
ReplyDeleteEven though I think it is a bad idea to create such material, I am not advocating any action against Jim. I think 4e was a bad idea too. That's just my opinion. But as you said, it is my saying "and I think most people would agree with me" that gets people rankled.
Another clarification, sorry typing this in a tiny window and hard to edit,
ReplyDelete"Considering all the gamers I know personally, I think that is true"
Not "don't think"
"Furthermore,
ReplyDelete1. In the past, there has been a lot of negative attention on RPGs because of perceived "immoral" aspects.
2. This kind of behavior risks that kind of thing coming back down on the hobby
--------
Therefore, I don't think it is a good idea to create such material."
This is why my grandfather fought in WW II. So you can wimp out and declare that fear should censor our artistic vision.
Ok, I'm not going to be able to explain this evidently to come to some mutual agreement of understanding. So I will leave it at this:
ReplyDeleteYou made a statement that says you represent the community in that statement. Many people disagreed. I am one of them. You don't speak for the community no more than I do.
People have been sniping each other for days now over this subject. The way to help the situation is to post an apology and make it clear that you are stating your opinion, not the opinion of the community as a whole.
You are trying to act as if I were the niche on this and I would say re-read your own comments sections again. There are a lot of people disagreeing with you. They are not disagreeing with your opinion. They are disagreeing that you represent it as their opinion. Difference.
I know we are probably never going to see eye to eye on what I'm trying to describe, but I hope that you can explore the community more, including its roots, and see where people like James and others are coming from. I don't expect you to agree with them but informed dissent is a powerful thing and enables one to better express their opinion without resorting to a blanket statement of what others think about a given topic.
@ James
ReplyDeleteIs that a new variant of Godwin's Law? Acts have to be judged as worthy in light of the WWII victory?
@ ADD
1. The only snipping that I have seen not directed at me has been between Trollsmyth and Timeshadow, and that is a result of a fairly aggressive claim about violence vs women that he made while riffing on my topic, not my fault. I have seen a lot of people ganging up on me, but I don't see any valiant defenders of mine anywhere getting their asses kicked. Do you? I would like to see them.
2. When I write anything on my blog, even "the sky is blue", it is my opinion. You should know that before we even start talking. This is the internet, dude. Come on. I am not the sole arbiter of facts in the universe. Nobody is. Don't make me go philosophical into theories of reality and stuff. Seriously, if anyone is taking my word as the holy writ, that is pretty cool. I would like to know because I very much don't feel like my word is law. I have a really small empire if that is the case.
3. I will never issue an apology unless I got the facts wrong on something. I expressed an opinion on someone's art direction and made the claim that RPG people in general don't want their game to be associated with extreme artwork like that. If WotC shows up with some new survey data suggesting that violence porn is what people want in their RPG books, I would apologize. Short of that, no.
4. I like you. I like your blog. I like James' blog. When people express strong opinions about me, I let it roll off my back. This is the internet. If you guys want to take it personally and get really upset, I'm sorry that you feel that way but I can't let it bother me too much. James took me out of his blogroll over this and that is his call. You don't even have me in yours, also your call. The internet is a wretched hive of scum and villany, you gotta do what you gotta do. But you are both in mine and I will continue to enjoy your thoughts and read your blogs. Live and let live, brother.
All my references to James = James Smith, not Raggi
ReplyDeleteGreg,
ReplyDeleteYou mention that you won't apologize unless you got some facts wrong. Here are the claims you have way wrong.
"1. There is a social contract within the RPG community that art in an RPG product should be within a certain boundary.
2. The art in LOTFP is outside of that boundary."
I intensely dislike the promiscuous use of the word "community." What community? The so called "RPG community?" What is that? It doesn't exist. People who have in common that they play, design and sell role playing games does not make them a community. A community is a physical place, with people, land, the plants and the animals, the dead who are buried in that land, those who have yet to be born and live on that land. That is a community. Read Wendell Berry, he'll fill you in on what the word community means. The people who play, design, sell, trade and collect role-playing games are a network, at best.
Social Contract? What an absurd notion. One, you are using the term way out of context. Two; Just because I happen to like a particular sort of past time doesn't mean I have signed on to some sort of code of conduct. Does this mean I shouldn't put pictures of naked ladies on the labels of my homebrewed mead because someone in the Omaha homebrew club might find it offensive? I don't think so.
The people who have imposed the boundary of which you speak are not the people who make up the RPG network. They are the people outside of that network who's minds are completely disconnected from reality and are looking for a scape goat for their own failures as parents and the anomie that is inherent in western civilization. These are the same people who attacked heavy metal music in the 80's. Dee Snyder sat in front of Al Gore's committee on public decency during those days. 30 years later Al Gore's kid has been picked up on drug charges numerous times and his marriage is in shambles. Dee Snyder has great kids, married to the same woman. One guy wore make-up stretch pants and sang songs about EEEEEVIL! and the other is a hypocrite. Guess which one I'd rather be.
The big players in the RPG industry, seeking to get into the big box retail outlets decided to make those standards their own because they decided to make money the marker buy which they gauge the success of their games. The INDUSTRY is not the overall NETWORK and the NETWORK is NOT a COMMUNITY.
Therefore, in my opinion, you are wrong on all counts.
Don't light a match. These straw men will catch fire.
ReplyDeleteAlso, you need to work on coherence, Travis.
You claim that I got the facts wrong, then in the next sentence you are talking about claims (which is it, claims or facts?) Then at the end, you say that it is your opinion I am wrong. We are back to opinions now?
You say there is no boundary, then you talk about the "the people who have imposed the boundary". The boundary that doesn't exist?
You might want to regroup on this. Or just settle on "opinions differ". I'm fine with that.
Ok...two different groups keep getting discussed here which causes the confusion.
ReplyDeleteFirst let's get step 1 out of the way. Greg, plain and simple, you do not represent the community (or network-whichever works better) of the industry or the hobby. To say that you know what the community thinks implies you have a dialog with thousands of people who have made you their spokesperson. I don't believe this is the case.
This is the central point that has fueled this debate. You keep saying it's just your opinion but you keep saying things like this:
3. I will never issue an apology unless I got the facts wrong on something. I expressed an opinion on someone's art direction and made the claim that RPG people in general don't want their game to be associated with extreme artwork like that. If WotC shows up with some new survey data suggesting that violence porn is what people want in their RPG books, I would apologize. Short of that, no.
Notice the bolded text-RPG people in general-you are again speaking as though you represent the masses. You do not. Even your own words say you have been getting the crap kicked out of you which proves those people disagree with you.
And WotC is the industry. Of course they have their own standards. To them selling games is like selling bread or baby food. It's about moving units.
The hobby is not part of that. To continue to try and mix the two just makes things worse. The hobby today is about where it was circa 1974-76. It is not concerned with anything WotC thinks because they have left the industry produced commercial material for greener pastures. Most of the hobby community doesn't even think D&D exists anymore because the latest version is so radically different from past editions. This is why the hobby exists. To create outside of corporate boundaries.
Anyone who wants to own this type of material is free to purchase it. Those who don't support this type of product are free to not purchase it. That is the whole thing.
I am not mad at you and I have promoted your material in the past right on this very blog if memory serves me right. I don't have a problem with you not liking a product. I have a problem with you telling people it should not be made. That is censorship. That is wrong. And when you compound the problem by speaking as if this is the feelings of the masses then that really hits a nerve.
No, you're wrong ADD
ReplyDeleteSaying that something should not be made is not censorship.
The Star Wars prequels should not have been made
D&D 4e should not have been made
Those two opinions don't mean that I am censoring George Lucas or WotC.
Also, Raggi is selling the product. Therefore he is the industry, not the hobby.
Are you honestly saying that my having an opinion that most RPG players would agree with my position is not allowed, but you can claim that most of them would not? Goose, meet gander.
http://joeskythedungeonbrawler.wordpress.com/2010/07/12/house-rule-for-osr-and-not-osr-games-people-blogs/
ReplyDeleteThis is the hobby business, more the equivalent of semi-pro publishing, fanzines, etc. When James lands in his private jet in my back yard and has to finish up a call on on his SAT phone THEN he is industry.
ReplyDeleteMaybe you just don't know the history of all this.
And no, I'm saying there are all kinds of opinions and that no one person speaks for the group as a whole which is what you imply. You seem quite certain that the rpg community agrees with your opinion when we don't. We are part of the community, remember...
I can see that this is going no where so I'm leaving it at that.
See ya round the blogosphere :)
The following statement is false: "There is a social contract within the RPG community that art in an RPG product should be within a certain boundary."
ReplyDelete"1. There is a social contract within the RPG community that art in an RPG product should be within a certain boundary."
ReplyDeleteI disagree. Furthermore, whether you admit it or not, what you are advocating is a form of communal self-censorship, enforced by peer pressure & the threat of ostracism. I find that repellent, to be blunt. I could accept it as a personal opinion, but you have repeatedly positioned yourself as the mouthpiece of an RPG "community" and marginalized others as "niche", based on no greater authority than your own opinion and those of the people with whom you've surrounded yourself.
I have done no such thing, Nellisir.
ReplyDeleteI am the mouthpiece of no one. I have called the OSR a niche. That is a factual statement. As a percentage of RPG players, it is small. That is just a fact, not my opinion.
Really dude. If you want to convince someone of your sincerity that you actually care about the future of the hobby and not just your ego you shouldn't be obtuse. You understood what I wrote.
ReplyDeleteA straw man is an argument misrepresenting an argument of your opponent. Which is, ironically, what you just did.
I'm a little distracted and busy right now so I didn't have time to edit my writing. Here is a second go around.
There is no RPG "community." The word gets used to describe what is a loose network of diverse people who enjoy the same hobby but it is incorrectly used. There is an incredible variety of people who play RPGs. They are of vastly different ages (10 and up), ethnic groups, religious beliefs, political affiliations, world views and cultural backgrounds. They all have different ideas about what is appropriate and inappropriate for themselves and their actual communities (See Wendell Berry). That diversity makes it impossible to define the people who play RPG's as a "community." They can only be defined as a group that they have that one interest in common.
Pointing to the standards of companies who produce RPG's as representative of the people who play RPG's as a whole does not work. People will compromise aesthetics and ideals in all sorts of ways when their mortgage is on the line. When someone has a house payment, they'll produce all sorts of pablum if what marketing researchers have shown is that mommy and daddy won't open up their wallets if there are pictures of boobies in an RPG.
Those content standards were adopted to increase the amount of money TSR could rake in and to make their products beyond reproach by the wacko's that thought (and still think) Mazes and Monsters was a documentary. It was about brand image to increase the amount of money that could be made. It wasn't about any sort of boundary set by people who played RPG's already but about money. That avarice was far more offensive to me than cartoon monsters popping out of hoo-ha's.
Using the term "social contract" is hyperbole. "Social contract" has been primarily used by enlightenment philosophers and their intellectual descendants to define the relationship between a government and the society it governs. Using "social contract" as a term to describe a non-existant set of common beliefs of a loose network of people with a wide diversity of backgrounds and world views is way over the top. You are correct in saying that the largest companies in RPG's have established a set of content standards. That the rest of the diverse spectrum of people who have the RPG hobby in common see these content standards as a good thing is not a falsifiable premise. We can't assess whether or not it is true.
What you are saying when you make those two claims is that LoTFP: WFRP Grind house has broken a normative standard that no can prove exists and is held in common by millions of people across the planet with a wide variety of socio-econimic backgrounds, cultural backgrounds, ages, political affiliations and
Something got eaten. To get on with it you make the following argument:
ReplyDelete"1. There is a social contract within the RPG community that art in an RPG product should be within a certain boundary.
2. The art in LOTFP is outside of that boundary."
Unpacking your unstated premises, your argument is that LoTFP: WFRP Grind house has broken a normative standard that no can prove exists and is held in common by millions of people across the planet with a wide variety of socio-econimic backgrounds, cultural backgrounds, ages, political affiliations, religious affiliations and developmental levels. The vast majority of these people believe that Raggi went off the deep end with is gore his exploding hoo-ha's and boobies.
Do you see why some of us might find that a little out of touch?
If all you wrote that YOU found the work offensive, and that YOU didn't like it then I'd have nothing to say. Can't speak for anyone else. That's my beef. You didn't do that. What you did was write that the "community's social contract" was broken and that's the work could be a problem for the rest of us because of some negative association that might come as a result of. It ought to seem apparent by now that some folks in the "community" are unaware of their membership in the community and that they signed a contract somewhere that says there will be no 'sploding vaginas in our art work.
ReplyDeleteIt's late and I'm getting silly. Good night.
One of the better posts on the subject, well said - thanks for the thoughts and the time it took to put them down.
ReplyDeleteD.