Consensus and Power in Tabletop Role-playing Games
https://doi.org/10.22394/2074-0492-2020-3-53-73
Abstract
This article is dedicated to the issue of achieving consensus in tabletop role-playing games and also addresses the question of how exactly players gain power over the interpretation of events within a tabletop RPG. A tabletop role-playing game presupposes that its participants constantly articulate statements which shift the current configuration of in-game elements and also play the role of being artistic descriptions of said shifts. The alternation and interplay of performative and descriptive statements, their convolution and also the fact that, in tabletop RPGs, unlike in the majority of the rest of the games known to humanity, the same words from natural languages are used both in order to produce a shift in abstract, symbolic structure of a game, and to artistically describe said shift, all lead to the situation where participants cannot tell a proper symbolic system of a given game from other symbolic systems which this game refers to. In this article, we propose an analytical model of a tabletop RPG which would make it possible to draw stricter borderlines between a given RPG's fictional world and its inner symbolic structure. Furthermore, it would 54 allow us to formulate a clearer question regarding the structures of power produced while playing an RPG, and what exactly players gain control over while playing it. Moreover, this model would enable us to explore in detail the processes of the individual and collective interpretation of events in a tabletop RPG, and classify facts within said interpretation in relation to whether they are held to be objectively or subjectively true.
About the Author
Maksim A. PodvalnyiRussian Federation
lecturer at the Faculty of Design at Institute of Business and Design
References
1. Зенкин С. (2004) Критика нарративного разума-2. НЛО, 1 (65).
2. Зенкин С. (2018) Теория литературы: проблемы и результаты, М.: НЛО. EDN: RPPZFR
3. Соссюр Ф. (1998) Курс общей лингвистики. (https://studfile.net/preview/1664809/).
4. Шмид В. (2003) Нарратология. (http://yanko.lib.ru/books/cultur/shmid-narratology. pdf).
5. Austin J.L. (1962) How to Do Things with Words, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
6. Caillois R. (2001) Man, Play and Games, University of Illinois Press.
7. Dashiell S. (2017) Rules Lawyering As Symbolic And Linguistic Capital. (http://analog-gamestudies.org/2017/11/rules-lawyering-as-symbolic-and-linguistic-capital/).
8. Dashiell S. (2018) "Rules As Written": Game Algorithms As Game Capital. (http://analog-gamestudies.org/2018/09/rules-as-written-analyzing-changes-in-reliance-on-game-system-algorithms-as-shifts-in-game-capital/#note-1).
9. Edwards R. (2004) System Does Matter. (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/system_ doe s_matter. html).
10. Fine G.A. (1993) Shared Fantasy: role-playing games as social worlds, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
11. Goffman E. (1974) Frame Analysis, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
12. Hite K., Rein-Hagen M. (2018) Vampire: The Masquerade 5th ed. Core Book, Modiphius Entertainment.
13. Jones S. (2018) Blinded by the Roll: The Critical Fail of Disability in D&D. (http://analog-gamestudies.org/2018/03/blinded-by-the-roll-the-critical-fail-of-disability-in-dd).
14. Klastrup L. (2009) The Worldness of EverQuest: Exploring a 21st Century Fiction. (http:// gamestudies.org/0901/articles/klastrup).
15. Lakoff G., Johnson M. (1980) Metaphors we live by, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
16. Lakoff G. (1987) Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
17. Mackay D. (2001) The Fantasy Role-Playing Game: a new performing art, Jefferson, NC.
18. McFarland & Company.
19. Mearls M., Crawford J. (2014) Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook (5th ей.), Renton,WA: Wizards of the Coast.
20. Neuenschwander B. (2008) Playing by the Rules: Instruction and Acculturation in Role-Playing Games. E-Learning and Digital Media, 5 (2): 189-198.
21. Ottens M. (2016) Enacting aporia: Roger Caillois' game typology as formalist methodology. (http://www.digra.org/wp-content/uploads/digital-library/paper_293.pdf).
22. Schallegger R.R. (2018) The Postmodern Joy of Role-Playing Games: Agency, Ritual and Meaning in the Medium, McFarland & Company, Inc.
23. Stenros J., Sihvonen T. (2016) Out of the Dungeons: Representations of Queer Sexuality in RPG Source Books. Analog Game Studies: Volume III, Pittsburgh, PA: ETC Press.
24. Stokes M. (2017) Access To The Page: Queer And Disabled Characters In Dungeons & Dragons. (http://analoggamestudies.org/2017/05/access-to-the-page-queer-and-disabled-characters-in-dungeons-dragons/).
25. Trammell A., Walden E.L., Torner E. (2014) Reinventing Analog Game Studies. (http:// analoggamestudies.org/2014/08/reinventing-analog-game-studies/).
26. Trammell A. (2016) Misogyny and the Female Body in Dungeons & Dragons. Analog Game Studies: Volume I, Pittsburgh, PA: ETC Press.
27. Trammell A. (2019) How Dungeons & Dragons Appropriated the Orient. Analog Game Studies: Volume III, Pittsburgh, PA: ETC Press.
28. Waskul D.D. (2006) The Role-Playing Game and the Game of Role-Playing: the ludic self and everyday life. Gaming as Culture: essays on reality, identity and experience in fantasy games, Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Co.: 19-38.
29. Williams P.J., Hendrick S.Q., Winkler W.K. (2006) Gaming as culture: essays on reality, identity and experience in fantasy games, Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland & Co.
30. Zimmerman E. (2012) Jerked Around by the Magic Circle - Clearing the Air Ten Years Later. (https://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/135063/jerked_around_by_the_magic_ circle_.php?page=4).
Review
For citations:
Podvalnyi M.A. Consensus and Power in Tabletop Role-playing Games. Sociology of Power. 2020;32(3):53-73. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.22394/2074-0492-2020-3-53-73