The Joy of Role-Playing

Sketching out dungeon maps on graph paper, marveling at the trinkets or “feelies” in Infocom and Ultima games, vigilantly reading every manual and printed material in the box, and writing pages of quest notes. Whenever my girlfriend sees me meticulously doing any of these kinds of things I get the same befuddled smirk my parents gave me when I played games as a 10-year-old: only another nerd could truly appreciate this. Yet, these are exactly the kinds of things that draw me closer to games and give me a sense of intimacy that allows me to appreciate them not just as works of art, but as worlds.

Recently, Michael of the Brainy Gamer wrote a brilliant (yet terribly misunderstood) exploration of the phenomenology of keeping a scorecard at a baseball game. Sounds a little boring eh? You bet… until you understand the level of intimacy that he creates just by writing down a few numbers and thinking through the game. In this post I’ll try to do justice to just what Michael might have meant by the word “engagement” by talking a little bit about what people do when they “engage” themselves with a game. Before you read this, it’s critical to read Michael’s post first… because I’ll be referring to it throughout. Trust me, it’s worth it.

Let’s deal with scorekeeping a baseball game first:

“Scoring a ballgame brings you closer to the game being played on the field”

How is it possible that keeping a score card at a baseball game could actually create a level of intimacy with the game that goes beyond spectating? Isn’t it just a cold calculus of the mind?

From what I can tell, this intimacy is produced in two ways:

1) Through the mechanics of maintaining the scorekeeping card. Michael writes of his experience: “A right-handed batter steps to the plate to face a right-handed pitcher. These two have faced each other many times, so I note that this pitcher “owns” this batter with a mark next to the batter’s name. The flags, which indicated that the wind was blowing out at the start of the game, have now gone limp, so I note that on my scorecard as well.”  From what we gather from his story, keeping the score card requires patience, attentiveness, technical skill, judgment, and a darned good memory. This skillful act, while important (as we’ll find out), is secondary to another personal act…

2) Through the imaginative work of playing the roles of the pitcher, batter, fielders, basemen, etc. This act, as form of engagement with the game, is primary. It involves how we imagine the on-field players are feeling and thinking. As Michael says in a later comment, “If the batter can be patient, he will likely see a good pitch to hit, but if he’s over-anxious, as my scorecard tells me he was both previous times, he’s probably going to be vulnerable to a pitch low and away. He knows this. The pitcher knows this. And so do I.”

Now let’s think about what happens when someone scorekeeps the way he does. The scorekeeper does not just record numbers, statistically analyze them, and spit back out the results. He also does not just imagine the game as a personal fantasy; the game is going on in front of him. He is also not a passive spectator - he feels invested in the game as if his judgments were just as important as the pitcher’s choices.

What the scorekeeper does, and I daresay all people familiar with role-play do, is engage themselves with the game at a level beyond both rule-following and imaginary fantasy. The scorekeeper is like an appreciator of fine art or music: they are mindful of the subtleties and nuances of the ‘rules’ while simultaneously mindful of the art work itself. Where the casual spectator can only engage with the game in fantasy, and the rigid statistician does not “see” a game but a complex calculus, the scorekeeper plays the game. They are engaged with the baseball game at a bodily and spiritual level - the game unfolds for them at their personal pace.

Based on those distinctions we can imagine that there are three (idealized) kinds of video game players:

“The Accountant”


The game is enjoyed at a distance as sets or levels of generative rules. The game is played in terms of understanding these rules and making distinctions, and using this understanding to obtain something of personal interest: in-game artifacts, treasure, quest completion, character attributes, etc.

Because the player has no personal engagement with the rules, the rules are seen as inviolable, impersonal, and external; the player often attempts to master or dominate the game.

“The Devourer”

The game is enjoyed as a flight into fantasy; it is “consumed” by the player because s/he makes no distinctions of quality or quantity within the game. This kind of player simply relies upon their inchoate sense of personal value which determines their play style, and the game is subsumed by their desires. If the game rules do not suit them, they are tossed, ignored, or violated (ie. cheating). The kind of game does not matter much in the end; an FPS could be just as enjoyable as an adventure game as long as it satiates their desires.

“The Role-Player”

The game is understood as deeply personal yet otherworldly. The game world exists as a living, breathing, self-sufficient world, separate from the player’s desires. Yet, the role-player finds ways of discovering his/her desires within the game, by understanding the game’s rules. The player’s desires, in the end, are reshaped by their understanding of the rules. They engage with the game world (usually through a Player-Character or avatar) with a sense of commitment, care, and personal value for what happens in the game. This player plays in the game.

Of course we can see that these player types are idealized, and every player sits in all camps simultaneously, but drawing out the distinctions brings us closer to understanding just what’s at stake for the average player.

Loving Games is Hard Work

Appreciating anything is more than just distilling our personal enjoyment from it, and more than just coldly analyzing its constituent elements one at a time. Appreciating games, art, music, baseball, the subtleties of my cat’s meows, all require a deep personal engagement only possible when we allow ourselves to become mindful of the rules, what’s happening in front of us, and our selves. Developing a phenomenology (a description of our personal engagement with some phenomenon) of video and computer games is one of the new languages that we have to develop, among other things. Understanding and appreciating games allows us to engage with them in deeper waters and ensures that they won’t become just another flavor of the month. I’m deeply thankful that Michael started paddling us down this creek in the first place.

Thanks — this is a great analysis of Michael’s piece.

I wonder if we couldn’t combine the Accountant and Devourer categories into one; it seems to me that you’re really drawing a distinction here between roleplayers and non-roleplayers. Perhaps there are gamers who sees the game rules as something to be absorbed in (RPer), and others who see them as something to absorb (non-RPer). Or, put another way, a non-RPer’s engagement does not occur on a personal level, but on an abstract one.

Anyway, just thinking out loud. :) I’ve had roleplaying on the brain recently.

You picked up on something that I had thought of including while I was writing, and it slipped my mind. I absolutely agree with you that the first two kinds of players are, in many ways, the same. I was thinking about the word “consumer” to describe those two kinds of players, but I really prefer your “absorption” metaphor - that really seems to be more appropriate because it can describe all three, as you’ve said. Nice!

I too am quite ‘consumed by’ roleplaying - I act as a Dungeon/Game Master for a weekly role-playing game that me, my girlfriend, and two friends play. This is my first crack at it, but the sense of personal involvement that we get from playing the game is unlike anything I’ve ever had. It literally is a joint storytelling production.

Thanks again for the response and your excellent clarifications - glad it at least made sense!

I can’t begin to tell you how gratified I am by your lovely essay, Chris. I was greatly disappointed by the discussion generated on my site, mostly because it degenerated into a series of arguments that never really got around to addressing the crux of the piece. I think Dan tried to apply a bit of corrective (thanks, Dan!), but by then all the trenches had been dug.

Maybe my post was misunderstood because I didn’t properly articulate what appreciating the game of baseball means to me and how keeping score activates that for me. Perhaps my real contribution was to put the ball on on a tee so you could hammer it out of the park, which is exactly what you did here. :-)

You manage to properly (and vividly) account for the engagement of a role-player through the conduit of rules. “Phenomenology” is a useful term because, as you suggest, this relationship is complex and personal. It’s what keeps the desire to play alive and growing, in my view.

Thanks for taking the time to think about this so carefully and for putting flesh and blood on my skeleton scorekeeper. ;-) I’m truly grateful.

There’s been some interesting points. As you said, we are all a bit of each, although I think I fall into the role-player camp mainly. I used to be a dungeon master, and when the group dynamics are right it’s an experience like no other. I was always quite flexible with the rules though - story and character seeming to be more important than intricate dice maneuvers.

@Michael - Glad that I didn’t butcher your thoughts! I thought your post was completely lucid - it was disappointing to see the way that others (with the exception of Dan) misinterpreted it.

@Keira -
I too share in a passion for story, character development (motivation, personality, etc), and dramatization. We’ve got a *great* group together (4 of us) that run a campaign using a mixture of rules I’ve developed myself, and D&D 3rd Edition. Because the world is so different from the usual fantasy-oriented campaigns, I’ve had to make a lot of stuff up on the spot - and because of that I’m pretty flexible with the rules also. This is met with varying successes - one of the players definitely falls into the “Accountant” camp and is deeply discomforted by any departures from the canon 3rd Edition rulebook.. the another is more of a “Devourer” and attempts to ignore the rules in order to maximize their benefit. I’ve found it difficult yet rewarding to reconcile these two play styles in favor of true “role-play” … and I have noticed that the players (and myself) have transformed our play styles over the last year or so - all for the best. Thanks for the comment!

I don’t normally take the time to post on forums like this, but I felt moved to say a couple of things in response to your essays (to both Michael and Chris).

First of all, I want to sincerely thank the two of you for putting in such deep thought and time on an issue that normally is regarded as trivial by the general public. I can’t tell you how many conversations I have had with my father about Magic: the Gathering, Dungeons & Dragons, or World of Warcraft that revolve around the issue of “wasting time.” I fully plan on forcing him to read both of these articles. He and I both love baseball and the tie in to that sport may help him to see RPGs as another “thinking man’s game.”

Second, I feel the need to once again thank you for bringing such wonderful memories back to me in regards to my sadly short but wonderful experience with D&D. I used to live near a few very close friends who all went to college with or near me. We all studied things like, art, english, or music and seemed to see eye to eye creatively more than any group of people I have spent time with before or since. This lead to some of the most amazing D&D I have ever been a part of. Vast landscapes, epic story lines, and best of all, intricate control over characters, actions, and settings. We all took turns in one way or another being DM over a two year period and it was some of the most fun I have ever had playing a game. In fact one of the guys that I used to play with is responsible for my reading this article.

I am very happy to see people sharing this experience and putting as much thought into this as it deserves.

Thanks again, and you can bet I will be checking back in on both of your sites soon.

Matt

(P.S. This is a comment for Micheal which seems slightly strange….wrong website and all, but anyway: I wanted to say that your article was very clear. I actually stopped reading the comments about a third of the way through because I was so frustrated with how people were responding. Anyway, cheers, and keep up the good work!)

Wow, thanks for the feedback Mattypro. I like the idea of RPGs as a “thinking [person's] game” - that is definitely how they feel to me.

I’ve been very fortunate in finding a group of friends that enjoy role-playing … especially considering my limited experience as a DM. In the early 90’s I bought a D&D Basic Set from a friend of mine and spent many hours pouring over the rulebook, creating characters, and designing worlds .. but I never did manage to play a face-to-face game in those years. Instead I spent a large amount of my time playing CRPGs and adventure games on the computer, so my appreciation of RPGs is definitely shaped by those experiences.

Thanks for writing in. I hope you get the chance to put together a role-playing campaign together some time - I find it deeply rewarding. I’m hoping to write many more articles on role-playing in the future - I didn’t realize that it was still a viable topic!