Quote from: jhkimNo, what you need to agree on his how to play.  You don't need to agree on some deep philosophy or higher purpose to play, or some theoretical classification of the priority.  You might have get different things out of the game that someone else does, but that's fine.

You want to explore social issues, to educate me.

I want to kill monsters and take their shit, to be entertained.

We could easily look at the same set of rules and agree they'll work, and still piss each other off.

It's hardly "deep philosophy" to say that.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenYou want to explore social issues, to educate me.

I want to kill monsters and take their shit, to be entertained.

We could easily look at the same set of rules and agree they'll work, and still piss each other off.

It's hardly "deep philosophy" to say that.

Could we potentially have clashes in how we play that piss each other off?  Sure.  However, that doesn't depend on this.  

Conversely, if I want to educate you, then one of the best successes for me would be if you find it to just be a fun activity and treat it as such.  It is much better for my purposes if you find the game to be entertaining and engaging.  I don't want you to feel like you have to actively avoid what's fun in order to learn.  

More broadly, the typing here seems reductionist to me (i.e. "entertainment" vs. "education", for example -- or "story" vs. "challenge").  In reality, I think people's styles/preferences have a lot of overlap but also a lot of small differences.

Quote from: jhkimMore broadly, the typing here seems reductionist to me (i.e. "entertainment" vs. "education", for example -- or "story" vs. "challenge").  In reality, I think people's styles/preferences have a lot of overlap but also a lot of small differences.

I don't think it's reductionist at all.  It really boils down to the functional role that you hold when conducting a roleplaying session.  As an amateur, a GM, you're an entertainer, and your players will expect to be entertained.  As a teacher, you're an educator, and your students will expect to learn from your lesson.  As a therapist, you're, well, a therapist, and your patients will expect help with exploring personal issues.  When one tries to simultaneously adopt the role of another, particularly if they're not qualified to do so, and upon an unwilling or unwitting audience, they're asking for a volatile reaction.

!i!

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaI don't think it's reductionist at all.  It really boils down to the functional role that you hold when conducting a roleplaying session.  As an amateur, a GM, you're an entertainer, and your players will expect to be entertained.  As a teacher, you're an educator, and your students will expect to learn from your lesson.  As a therapist, you're, well, a therapist, and your patients will expect help with exploring personal issues.  When one tries to simultaneously adopt the role of another, particularly if they're not qualified to do so, and upon an unwilling or unwitting audience, they're asking for a volatile reaction.

I think you got it Ian.

A couple of things. I see no problem with rpgs used as an educational tool in the traditional teacher/student context but I'm more interested in the idea that rpgs educate (and I'm using the term broadly) about specific subjects. I don't think that this is such a provocative idea, it could be used with almost any system and may just involve a more collaborative approach during campaign creation, mechanics (this I suppose is the contorversial aspect) that reflect the subject etc.

I know I'm not exactly on topic here, but....

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaI don't think it's reductionist at all.  It really boils down to the functional role that you hold when conducting a roleplaying session.  As an amateur, a GM, you're an entertainer, and your players will expect to be entertained.  As a teacher, you're an educator, and your students will expect to learn from your lesson.  As a therapist, you're, well, a therapist, and your patients will expect help with exploring personal issues.  When one tries to simultaneously adopt the role of another, particularly if they're not qualified to do so, and upon an unwilling or unwitting audience, they're asking for a volatile reaction.

If you do anything to an unwilling audience, you're asking for a volatile reaction.  This seems like a trumped-up strawman to dump on the topic of educational role-playing.  

The problem I have is that you're trying to make out that these have to be exclusive roles.  i.e. Entertainers or entertainment shouldn't educate, so stuff like the historical information in GURPS sourcebooks or the real science in games like Traveller or Guns, Guns, Guns should be excised.  Similarly, you are apparently claiming that educators shouldn't be entertaining, so if the students have fun in a class while they're learning -- then apparently the educator is overstepping his bounds.  

I would say that it doesn't matter what sort of box you stick it in.  A game can be educational, but if that is so, then it should do a good job at it and not have misinformation.  A game that tries to be fun should be fun.

Quote from: jhkimIf you do anything to an unwilling audience, you're asking for a volatile reaction.  This seems like a trumped-up strawman to dump on the topic of educational role-playing.

It is not a "strawman".  Tell me that this sort of thing doesn't happen.  That GMs don't try to foist off topical scenarios on players who aren't interested.  That teachers don't try to engage students in non-traditional exercises that they're uncomfortable with.

Okay, so the "unwilling" bit was a little obvious, but I notice that you didn't flinch at the "unwitting" part.  So I'll meet you halfway on the matter of "unwilling and unwitting".

QuoteThe problem I have is that you're trying to make out that these have to be exclusive roles.

Again, no I'm not.  Take a look at my post above.  As I stated very clearly therein, I have no problem with games that are educational or therapuetic, or lessons that are fun or therapuetic, or therapy that's fun and educational, but make sure that your priorities are straight before you try mixing them.  Make sure that your audience wants to mix them.  Make damned sure that you're qualified to mix them.

QuoteEntertainers or entertainment shouldn't educate, so stuff like the historical information in GURPS sourcebooks or the real science in games like Traveller or Guns, Guns, Guns should be excised.

Please, don't be ridiculous.  Do you really think I was trying to say that?

QuoteSimilarly, you are apparently claiming that educators shouldn't be entertaining, so if the students have fun in a class while they're learning -- then apparently the educator is overstepping his bounds.

Again, read what I wrote in my earlier post.  I've stated nothing of the kind.  I don't think I even implied it.  I certainly don't take issue with your assertion that the different purposes of roleplay can't be mixed.  What I do have a problem with is the notion that there needn't be a priority in mind when engaging in roleplay.

Near the beginning of the thread, I stated that it was "crucial" to be explicit about your intention when roleplaying.  Since that statement, I've softened my stance that the roleplaying must be exclusive in its intent somewhat, but I maintain that it is vital to have a primary goal (entertainment, education, or therapy) in mind, that you not attempt to mix in elements that the players are either unaware of or unprepared to deal with, and that you be competent at the elements you're mixing in.  Kind of a no-brainer: Don't do something that you're not good at and that people won't appreciate.

!i!

As a College Professor in my regular job, I use roleplay in my classroom.  I teach History, and part of the grade is participation-- specifically class discussions-- as this is a good oportunity for students to sharpen their critical analysis of the events.  Sometimes in discussion I will say something like, "Okay, it is the year 1600.  Everyone on this side of the room is an explorer who wants to petition the Viceroy of New Spain for the funds and supplies to embark on an expedition to explore California.  Everyone on the other side of the room is an administrator of the Viceroy-- who may or may not want the Viceroy to fund the expedition.  Please give your reasons for your request-- and be sure to explain why he should agree with your side.  And remember-- we're all 17th Century Spaniards here, so think about things in the context of the time."

Then students would take turns trying to justify to me (playing the Viceroy) why I should or shouldn't provide the funds-- and it turns into a rather lively debate and really forces the students to critically analyze-- not memorize-- the material-- which is after all, the purpose of studying history-- and to think of things in terms of the historical context.

As a game designer, I did build a system that could be called "educational" to help "sell" parents on the idea that it was an acceptable hobby.  I was working for the YMCA in an afterschool program, and the director mandated that the program must be all educational all the time.  That coupled with a total ban on anything representing swords, killing, etc, led me to the idea that I wanted to create a Superheroes game (nobody could argue I was teaching kids to kill with that) that honed skills the kids were working on in school.  That led to the creation of a multiplication mechanic for the system. 2d6 times stat / power.  When playing, kids would at first struggle with figuring out what their roll was-- but refusing to "give" them the answer and their own impatience to find out if Dr. Aqua escaped the forcefield in time forced them to get faster at multiplying in their head.

Originally I was intending to market the game soley as an rpg for kids-- but playtesting with adults one time we found it to be a perfectly viable game for adult gamers too.  However, I think I may make a "Young Heroes" edition-- which gets back to the original target audience of kids.

So, Chris...

Having established "Look, I do this shit." - do you find that having a clear set of priorities in the terms we've been arguing about is positive, negative, or hogwash?

And why?

Quote from: BASHMANI wanted to create a Superheroes game (...) that honed skills the kids were working on in school.  (...) When playing, kids would at first struggle with figuring out what their roll was-- but refusing to "give" them the answer and their own impatience to find out if Dr. Aqua escaped the forcefield in time forced them to get faster at multiplying in their head.

That sounds like a brilliantly focused motivational game: I want to teach this skill; in order to get to the fun, players have to use that skill. Win-win situation: Kids get to have fun, and you get to teach them what they need to learn.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenSo, Chris...

Having established "Look, I do this shit." - do you find that having a clear set of priorities in the terms we've been arguing about is positive, negative, or hogwash?

And why?

Hmmmm.  I don't know if it is applicable in my case.  In both cases, I was not working with a captive audience in the way that an elementary school teacher would be if the role-playing were an assignment.  

I would say that the answer depends on the audience.  In the case of the college students, who likely aren't used to professors engaging them in games of pretend, I do explain what the purpose of the exercise is (to go beyond knowing the facts and take the step to begin analyzing their importance).

In the case of my supers game, the students are learning whether they want to or not.  I am not telling them, "Okay we're going to be playing a math game."  That would go over like saying I was giving free tetenus shots.  The math part is just a required component of the game.  You need to be able to multiply the 2d6 roll to find out what happens.  You need to be able to subtract 47-18 to figure out how much damage got through your force field.  The players are not even thinking that they are doing math exercises-- they think they are laying the smack down on a bunch of supervillains and saving the city!

Quote from: BASHMANIn the case of my supers game, the students are learning whether they want to or not.  I am not telling them, "Okay we're going to be playing a math game."  That would go over like saying I was giving free tetenus shots.  The math part is just a required component of the game.  You need to be able to multiply the 2d6 roll to find out what happens.  You need to be able to subtract 47-18 to figure out how much damage got through your force field.  The players are not even thinking that they are doing math exercises-- they think they are laying the smack down on a bunch of supervillains and saving the city!

It sounds cool to me.  The students are "unwittingly" being lead into this in the sense that you have an ulterior motive for the game, but I don't have an issue with that as long as they basically know what they are getting into.  I've never done that, though I would say that when I was a child, Traveller was influential to me in teaching some principles of astronomy and physics.  This was also unwitting on my part, in that I turned to Traveller simply to be cool rather than deliberately to educate myself.

Quote from: jhkimThe students are "unwittingly" being lead into this in the sense that you have an ulterior motive for the game, but I don't have an issue with that as long as they basically know what they are getting into.

Holy cats, you just not letting go of this "unwilling and unwitting" business, are you?  You see?  They're clearly not "unwitting" of the situation -- they're in school, their teacher is giving them a lesson in the form of a game.  He's qualified to do so on the grounds that he is a) a certified educator, and b) he's presumably good at presenting the lesson as a game (or the game as a lesson).  Everything is up-front -- it's first and foremost a lesson that has the side benefit of being fun.  No problem.

Quote...I would say that when I was a child, Traveller was influential to me in teaching some principles of astronomy and physics.  This was also unwitting on my part, in that I turned to Traveller simply to be cool rather than deliberately to educate myself.

See, this wasn't "unwitting" either.  You were, ultimately, conscious of what you were doing with the game.  First and foremost, you approached it as entertainment.  As a side benefit, you discovered that it was based, at least in part, on some very real scientific principles.  No foul, no problem.

No, the real issue of "unwitting" arises from inserting secondary agendas that the participants might otherwise find objectionable, whether due to the nature of the agenda or the question of competence on the part of the instigator.  Okay, it's hard to argue that sneaking education into entertainment or therapy is a bad thing (as Bill Cosby used to say at the beginning of Fat Albert and the Cosby Kids, "...and if you aren't careful, you might learn something."), but the same isn't as easily said for entertainment or therapy.  Especially therapy.

I'm loathe to point fingers at particular titles, but there's been plenty of discussion about misguided efforts to incorporate "cathartic" experiences into roleplaying games.  "But I find some television and movies cathartic...why not RPGs?"  Probably because RPGs are an interpersonal experience, where your catharsis isn't internal, as it would be when watching an emotionally provocative show or film.  Your catharsis hinges on the presence and actions of a handful of others who may not know what to do with what they've loosed.

Okay, but you and your mates may very well want to engage in this sort of psycho-gaming (and by "you" I refer to the general "You", and by "psycho-" I mean "having to do with the psyche").  But your primary goal is still going to be entertainment -- you're all going at this as a game, though you clearly have secondary, and perhaps tertiary agendas in mind.  That's fine -- as ever, what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes is their business.

When this issue of pushing the definition of "roleplaying game" comes up, I like to site this article by John Tynes, not because he was a particularly brilliant RPG writer in his time (and I think he was), but because it includes some spectacularly bad advice.  Suggestions #1 and #4, even with the cautionary provisos, show that really good intentions to make a game "fun" can be totally blind-sided by a misunderstanding of the implications of the actions.

So, in summary, I still maintain: Set your primary goal up front, and keep your peripheral goals clear.

!i!

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaHoly cats, you just not letting go of this "unwilling and unwitting" business, are you?  You see?  They're clearly not "unwitting" of the situation -- they're in school, their teacher is giving them a lesson in the form of a game.  He's qualified to do so on the grounds that he is a) a certified educator, and b) he's presumably good at presenting the lesson as a game (or the game as a lesson).  Everything is up-front -- it's first and foremost a lesson that has the side benefit of being fun.  No problem.See, this wasn't "unwitting" either.  You were, ultimately, conscious of what you were doing with the game.  First and foremost, you approached it as entertainment.  As a side benefit, you discovered that it was based, at least in part, on some very real scientific principles.  No foul, no problem.
!i!

Actually, in the case of the superheroes game, the only people I explained the educational merits of the game to were the administrators who insisted all activities must be educational all the time.  I really created the game to have fun with the kids and introduce them to role-playing-- the educational angle was something to sell the adults on the idea.  I wasn't playing with the kids in order to "secretly make them do math"-- I was playing for fun.  If I didn't make this game, I would have been forced to play "math-ominos" or something lamer with them by the administrators.

Also, in the case of the kids in the supers game, I was not acting in the capacity of their schoolteacher-- I was working in an afterschool program.

Quote from: BASHMANActually, in the case of the superheroes game, the only people I explained the educational merits of the game to were the administrators who insisted all activities must be educational all the time.

So, it was the administration you deceived, flying fun in under their radar.  Shame on you.

!i!

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaWhen this issue of pushing the definition of "roleplaying game" comes up, I like to site this article by John Tynes, not because he was a particularly brilliant RPG writer in his time (and I think he was), but because it includes some spectacularly bad advice.  Suggestions #1 and #4, even with the cautionary provisos, show that really good intentions to make a game "fun" can be totally blind-sided by a misunderstanding of the implications of the actions.

So, in summary, I still maintain: Set your primary goal up front, and keep your peripheral goals clear.

Huh?  The Tynes article is specifically about evoking a horror mood -- i.e. his idea of entertainment. He says nothing about education or therapy in there, only his advice about how to evoke a horror mood.  This dragging in negative material and trying to spuriously attach it to the topic of education, when it has nothing to do with the topic.  

As for a summary -- On the topic of educational role-playing, here's where we apparently agree:  (1) In a game with a primary goal of entertainment, it's fine to include educational material.  (2) In a game with the primary goal of education, it's fine to also be entertaining. However, you seem to feel that there's some horrible danger if (3) the two goals are considered equal, or (4) the creators don't have a primary goal but just pursues their interest without considering it.  I don't see it.  You'll get something which is somewhere between the two good things, which is no worse or better than either.  

Regarding therapy -- it's not on the topic of the thread, and I think it's getting mixed up, so I'm starting a separate thread if you want to discuss that side.