This is a followup to both Why the Angst? and The Biggest Thing Game Designers/GMs do Wrong, both of which got badly derailed. In the second thread, RPGPundit generalized his complaint about "Angst" to say that the themes in most RPG settings are presented shallowly and simplistically.

The way I see this is that the grist of activity in RPGs is conflict. And while conflict is usually external or internal, and further subdivided into categories such as man vs. man, man vs. nature, man vs. society, and man vs. self, I think there's a tendency to fall into the trap of seeing "man vs. self", or internal moral struggle, as the most mature type of conflict. Ergo, angst attracts the wannabes.

Meanwhile all four (or whatever) conflicts are treated "simplistically" when they appear in isolation instead of being built into a web. Compare the simplistic Good & Evil of 80's afternoon cartoons (Man vs. Man in one dimension) to stories where multiple conflicts intersect. Thus the Iliad's Achaeans vs. Trojans, Achilles vs. Agamemnon, Hector vs. his fear, Achilles vs. his humanity, etc. Result: depth of emotion.

1. Are RPG settings really that bad?
2. If so what can be done to improve them?

Discuss (because I gotta run home).

I'm going to pull two theories straight out of my ass on this one. Just warning you they aren't thought out, tested, or proven.

1) Better hubris than nemesis. When making a character, I'd rather be a persecuter than the persecuted. Why? Because I choose to be a persecuter as opposed to having persecution thrust upon me. Your early Christian cowering in fear of wolves is bull. You whine or get angry. You fight or run away. If, however, I play a Sassanid priest-killer... I chose this. Even if I don't hate Christians and this is just a job, I still chose it. This frees me for greater depth than fight or flight, even in things as basic as combat.

This applies to non-historical and non-bigot situations as well. Shinji Ikari? Whiny bitch. Gendo Ikari? Fucking badass. Even though Shinji acts all emotional and the most Gendo musters is the occasional smirk, you still get that Gendo is actually doing something... action as opposed to expression as the hallmark of impetus (emotion, motivation, whatever).

For those of you who aren't drooling Eva fanboys, switch out Shinji Ikari for Charlie Brown and Gendo Ikary for Lucy or even Peppermint Patty.

2) Almost all motivation stems from one of four sins (which can also have positive attributes).

Pride: Self-assertion.

Sloth: Adaptation.

Greed: Self-indulgence.

Wrath: Affecting change.

Just a thought. Also, total reliance on conflict is pretty much total reliance on wrath, with maybe a smidgeon of pride. There's more to characters than that. It applies to NPCs and world-design too.

I think when discussing a topic like this examples of games/settings that illustrate (IMO off course) conflict without angst is appropiate.

I'm going to throw in Unknown Armies, In Harms Way, Tribe 8, CoC and Jorune as some of my examples.

Also I think Balbinus had it right, credible characters are rarely simplistic - if I was reading his post right. Add to that a complex setting ( I'm talking about a detailed setting with numerous souces of conflict) does not necessarily mean that the setting has depth. It's all in the presentation (I'm thinking of the writing specifically), which in turn is highly subjective.

Regards,
David R

There's also a school of adventurous fiction in which, roughly, the external conflicts are positioned so as to add drive and flavor to the internal conflicts and vice versa.  Not that either internal or external is "better" than the other, but that they have specific roles supporting each other.

In superhero stories (an even more specific subset) for instance, the moment when the hero resolves all of their internal conflicts, and is finally able to act with a unified heart and spirit ... that moment is the beginning of their now-inevitable victory over their external conflicts.  The message there is "The real problem is knowing how to act rightly ... know that and all other difficulties can be overcome," which is a fine superhero message.

I see that kind of intertwining getting lost, particularly by the angst-puppies.  They pick a slice of story, and don't see how it relates to anything else ... they just see "Buffy is always so sad about how hard her life is, so I'm going to play a character whose life is twice as hard and I'll moan incessantly."  Once you rip that piece, bloody and steaming, away from the support system in which it could live ... yech.  It doesn't end well.

So the best I can recommend is this:  When you're looking to play a game, assume that you will have both internal and external conflicts.  Ask yourself how they will relate to each other, and what needs to happen in order for them to support each other in the way you want.  Do that and you're already several big steps ahead of the game.

A big part of my gaming theory is that conflict is what drives interesting play.  I agree with TonyB though that merely angsting over this conflict isn't interesting, at least not for very long.  I often put conflicts with nonobvious solutions in front of my players, but my goal is not for them to mope about their tortured existence over it, but to find out what kind of person their characters are.  

A little angst is fine, but it isn't the be all and end all of emotional roleplaying.  Actually I think it's the beginning, with the character figuring out what they want to do and then executing it.  If you never move past that you won't get the good stuff.  You eventually have to stop navel gazing and *do* something about the situation one way or the other.

Personally I am pretty satisfied on the gaming level, with the answer that games where the PCs are invested into family or society as participants, rather than wierd exile/loners like most adventuring parties are with no real ties to the society they're in, will tend to create the more sophisticated kind of emotional issues that angst is a cheap substitute for.

And, on the meta level, the reason why more games aren't framed that way is because far too many gamers are fed on a regular diet of cheap sci-fi/fantasy pablum as a substitute for real education.

RPGPundit

QuoteAnd, on the meta level, the reason why more games aren't framed that way is because far too many gamers are fed on a regular diet of cheap sci-fi/fantasy pablum as a substitute for real education.

Wow. You are saying gaming should be more intellectual?

I've always said that games CAN be smart.

I've also always said that most people who claim that their gaming is "intellectual" are really playing games that are very sophomoric.

Mostly what I'm saying is that there's absolutely nothing wrong with playing a game that's just plain fun without too much thinking involved, but if you're trying to do a "thinking man's game", you ought to do it right.
And most of the people who make claims at doing so are apparently utterly incapable of being able to truly do something with any actual depth.

White Wolf games, for example, have all the depth of a teenager's depressing poetry.

RPGPundit

QuoteMostly what I'm saying is that there's absolutely nothing wrong with playing a game that's just plain fun without too much thinking involved, but if you're trying to do a "thinking man's game", you ought to do it right.

I see am with you there.

I'll agree.  I have no problem with admitting my games are loud, crude fun.  We're not writing the fucking Aeneid, here.  

Nor would we want to.

Quote from: RPGPunditWhite Wolf games, for example, have all the depth of a teenager's depressing poetry.

Now that's an unfair generalization.  Exalted is nothing like that!  It has all the depth of a teenage ADD anime devotee's fanfic about how big his sword is and how many people he killed and girls he laid.  That's why it's so loved - it's like porn and brownies for gamers.