.jpg)
Courtesy Amazon.com
Although Dungeons & Dragons and its ilk are positioned as fantasy role-playing games limited only by the players’ imagination, they are in fact bound by common principles that make fantasy role-playing games distinctly American. As defined by Gary Alan Fine in his book, Shared Fantasy, they are: a force of unlimited good, a world in opposition with sharply defined sides, an evil that favors only violence to perpetrate its ethos, and the value of hard work.
American culture has some particular nuances that are unique to it, one being the notion of limitless growth. This concept was, until recently, endemic to American business. In short, it posits that businesses, consumers, and the economic engine will grow in perpetuity. History shows that cycles are not just inevitable but healthy, and thus perpetual growth is not only impossible to sustain but dangerous to the economic health of a society.
This optimistic view of endlessly growing resources is inherently part of dungeon exploration, where there’s always a monster with teasure around the next corner, always a new area to explore, always a new frontier to conquer. The very nature of adventure is predicated on an age of expansion, heedless of the results of that expansion. Adventurers are cast not as colonial conquerors but as heroes to their homeland, with none of the consequences of an aggressive expansion suffered by the non-dominant societies. When you take treasure from someone, someone else must have lost it, but in D&D it’s inevitably an ancient culture that no longer can claim ownership. In massive multiplayer online role-playing games, the evidence of perpetual growth borders on parody, as hordes of supposedly rare adventurers camp out in front of dungeons that generate limitless amounts of monsters and treasure.
In Dungeons & Dragons, good and evil are axiomatic. They are clearly defined “sides” to which players claim allegiance, and their allegiance influences their characters, from abilities to appearance. At one point there was even a language peculiar to one’s alignment. This ethos was taken wholesale from Michael Moorcock’s Elric series, and it has far reaching implications to the forces of good and evil, heaven and hell.
In America, this “my way or the highway” philosophy has become an increasingly dominant form of discourse, contrasted most ardenly in politics and the media. Two talking heads are placed on screen with contrasting viewpoints, and the opponents duke it out. The implication of this form of conversation is that both sides are equal and that there are only two sides to an argument. This has spread to the communication channels themselves, with different networks accusing the other of bias, forming their own “alignment” language.
Evil in America is something that takes many forms, violence just being one of them. However, in American society, violence is a more acceptable means of expressing evil. As a result, it is censored less than sex or foul language. Indeed, this tradition stretches back to Tolkien’s work. MAR Barker, author of the Empire of the Petal Throne game, describes the forces of evil in Lord of the Rings as a “gentlemanly evil.” At heart, this is also governed by a sense of fair play, where force can be combated by force, and terrorism tactics are not utilized except as a show of might.
Dungeons & Dragons is focused on violence, with pages of rules centered on combat. There are few rules about torture or other forms of depravity, and when books like the Book of Erotic Fantasy were released by a third-party publisher, they caused enough of a stir with Wizards of the Coast that the open gaming license was revised to prevent similarly-themed books from ever being published. Of course, Wizards then came out with the Book of Vile Darkness, which centered on addressing these same issues.
The Protesant ethic of hard work equating to great rewards is evident throughout American culture. It informs our instinctive reactions to socialism, which some charge rewards the lazy who didn’t “earn” their keep.
Dungeons & Dragons, with its levels and challenge ratings, is explicitly structured to provide the characters with a fighting chance. Dungeon levels are populated with creatures appropriate to a lower level of power, because they’re encountered first. The deeper the dungeon, the more powerful the opponent. Similarly, magic items and other valuables are rewarded based on the difficulty of the monster. Everything has its place, and the more difficult the monster or challenge, the greater the reward.
Its striking when these four concepts are applied to games that do not follow the traditional fantasy mold, which may account for their popularity. In Call of Cthulhu, for example, there are no forces of unlimited good. The forces of the mythos are clearly defined as the “bad guys.” Violence is just one manifestation of evil (think Y’golonac). And hard work is irrelevant; investigators don’t grow in power but instead slowly go insane.
Fine’s definitely onto something when he outlined the four pillars of American fantasy. Although largely seen as tired tropes now, there’s a reason these concepts are so successful in role-playing games. It’s because they reflect on our own bias and social mores.
Comments
Excellent, thought provoking article. I've never heard of that book before, but I'll be getting a copy to read now. Thanks.
It amuses me to no end, I read that book back in college, 15 years ago, and I still consider it a fascinating book, Thanks for spreading the word about it, and keep it up.
Your mention about Tolkien is inaccurate in every way - he is not American but English, his "heroes" are very un-American (in the aspirational sense - perhaps all too American in reality), the powerful ones are fatally flawed or unrecognized (Boromir and his Brother Faramir), self interested (Elrond), or weak and non-combative (Frodo and Sam, Pippin and Merry). The Hobbits are quintessentially English - JRR admitted to the fact in his own time. The Shire was modelled on an ideal England.
Most English role players play a much more nuanced game, with less of the "roles defined by name" concept, and more grey areas of alignment.
In the end, might does not triumph. The smallest and weakest heroes triumph over might by guile, stealth and outright determination, with the odd outbreak of outright decency and good, and many of the mighty are fallen. Doesn't sound anything like the myths of America to me.
Dungeons and Dragons, however, I grant you is very American as presented and pla
To clarify, I was quoting MAR Barker on Tolkien. Here's the full quote: "The evil in Tolkien is particularly English...it's not really sort of depraved kind of evil that...one senses in other cultures that are non-Western cultures, where things really seem pretty "icky" to a person with European values. It's sort of English-style medieval evil."
So I think Barker agrees with you. I also think this discussion merits another article on the English influence on fantasy gaming.
I'll echo what Steven says. I read this in the early 1990s, and it was already a decade old then. It got me started on my own trajectory with my dissertation (a folkloristic perspective on fantasy gamers), which wound up being in part a response to Fine. Fine's book is good, but it's a quarter-century old, and there have been huge developments in the hobby--the story revolution which started after his book was published (from Dragonlance through Vampire to the narrativist indie games); the entry of many more women into the hobby in the early 1990s; the transformation of gamer identity and public image (from the suicide-satanist thing to the old school geek thing), etc. Your last bit, about Call of Cthulhu, is onto something that wasn't obvious to Fine in the late 1970s: role-playing can embody and convey ANY set of values, just like any narrative form. I also recommend Daniel McKay's book, The Fantasy Role-Playing Game, and Kurt Lancaster's pop culture/performance work.
I would like to see Jack Holcomb's dissertation response - just for shyts & grins. I would also like to see this book updated for today's gaming style - how it has changed from pre-1e to 1e to 2e and finally to 3e and the splintering of the game with those staying with the 3.5 system and those going with 4e. Not in a bashing way of any system, but in a game mechanics way, in a player base way and in a community way. How has the pre-1e community and game differed from today's split community. Is today's split community (3.5/Pathfinder vs. 4e) anything like the split with AD&D and Basic D&D. As its likely not, how is it different. How has the combination of MMO's affected gamers style, how has today's game systems affected society and norms (and vice versa) and the ethos of the players themselves? Is the game more global centric in its concepts or are they still very American?
Be Well. Be Well Updated.
Theocrat Issak
As an American, a conservative, a Christian, a capitalist, and avid D&D gamer I feel like I need to respond to what may be a few erroneous assumptions in your essay. I've not read Fine's dissertation so I can't comment on that, but I'll assume you've delivered a competent overview of it and I'll go with that.
The phenomenon of "limitless growth" isn't dead, and it never was- at least in all practical terms that we humans are able to conceive of it. Unfortunately a lot of people don't "believe" that because of the liberal mainstream media’s traditional domination of the western marketplace.
You can see the absurdity of the notion that we are running out of “room and resources” quite plainly. Whether or not you believe that we have the will or the ability to conquer such a frontier? Well… that’s a political question, but the facts are that limitless growth – at the very least – is still a very real (and probable) reality for humanity. These “cycles” that you speak of, while humanity certainly has its ups and downs (cycles if you prefer), it’s still very easy to chart of course of general and consistent “upward” progress in human history. This is why most people react naturally to the idea, both in their real lives and in the games they play.
And finally I would warn against activist journalism in your writing. What you “want” to see happen and what “actually does” happen are two different things. Certainly Call of Cthulhu is a popular game – but to suggest that it’s on a trajectory to eclipse (or even rival) Dungeons and Dragons? That it’s on a trajectory to impact popular culture to that degree in the wake of a phenomenon like World of Warcraft which draws its primary inspiration from D&D? That seems intellectually disingenuous to me.
Perhaps you might take that as cultural imperialism – I might take it as a sign that these “American values” are a lot more universal than many people think.
-Stormgaard
t-a-b-a.blogspot.com/
Start a few posts down for the whole reverse-post read. :)
Dear Stormgaard,
This is not a forum for: 1) posts on your political world view, 2) conspiracy theories about liberal media, 3) links to your blog, 4) backhanded insults to everyone who may disagree with you. You are of course welcome to argue the point about the article itself, which is why I kept the few posts that were on topic.
I have no idea where you came up with my suggestion that Call of Cthulhu is "on a trajectory to eclipse (or even rival) Dungeons and Dragons". I said it "may account for their popularity" -- and I used Call of Cthulhu as an example.
That said, you have exquisitely demonstrated my comment about alignment languages and "different networks accusing the other of bias." So thanks for that. :)
Sorry 'bout the blog pimp (sometimes I can't help myself). The rest of it I thought was quite reasonable however...
I linked you on my blog. You have a good blog!
No worries mate. I appreciate the linking and I'm glad to see we can maintain a mutual respect. I do appreciate you commenting in any case.
Are you baleeting my comments?! Well, if not then epic post fael.
Insert the following between post 1 and post 2.
~
Right now the traditional liberal media in America has relentlessly pressed the idea that we are on the verge of destroying the planet and rendering it uninhabitable because of overpopulation and pollution – therefore letting everyone come naturally to the conclusion that we have to reduce birthrates and industrial activity even at the expense of our own national economy and/or security…
…keeping in mind they say this on a single planet that exists in a solar system so large it’s impossible for our brains to conceive of it, in a galaxy, and a universe that are even larger far ridiculous orders of magnitude.
While we're on topic, this as good as time as any to announce that I'm working on a book, Paper & Pixels, that will hopefully be published next year. It will trace the history of the fantasy role-playing game party and interweaves my thesis on anonymity with the separation of player from character as the medium has morphed from wargame to tabletop to LARP to MMORPG. In other words, pretty close to what Theocrat Issak was asking for. :)
Also, as a protestant Christian (with that “work ethic” you speak of), I would say that your take on it seems to be that we work hard to obtain “great rewards” – we don’t, we work hard because that’s what God wants us to do whether we make a lot of money or not. In truth it’s a lot like the code of the Samurai. If a Samurai were to choose NOT to defend his family or serve his emperor that would be a stain on his honor. He would choose death first. The protestant work ethic functions the same way – to be lazy is a stain on our honor. If we reap material rewards as a result of our efforts that’s nice and it’s nothing to feel guilty about, but it’s not why we do it. We worship God, not the giant flat-screen color T.V.
Mike, the bulk of this article seems to reflect your updated interpretation of Fine. Not having read Fine, I can't comment on his work, but I think you are wide of the mark on a number of topics, especially economics, history and American culture. Also, many of your examples contradict your thesis. If American culture truly embodies "good vs. evil" for example, tv talking heads can't represent two side of an argument: one must be evil and the other good. What you cite is an example of nihilism (which in its purest form is might makes rights) not good vs. evil. Also, I never read Morcock to take a good vs. evil view, his was chaos vs. order, which is very different. Also, as others noted, economic cycles can occur in a series that trends upward (or downward). It is demonstrably true that people in the US today are wealthier than in the great depression, the cycles did not kill economic progress. Your article is too ambitious, you need to find what point you really want to make.
While we're on topic, this as good as time as any to announce that I'm working on a book, Paper & Pixels, that will hopefully be published next year. It will trace the history of the fantasy role-playing game party and interweaves my thesis on anonymity with the separation of player from character as the medium has morphed from wargame to tabletop to LARP to MMORPG. In other words, pretty close to what Theocrat Issak was asking for. :)
"Indeed, this tradition stretches back to Tolkien’s work. MAR Baker, author of the Empire of the Petal Throne game, describes the forces of evil in Lord of the Rings as a “gentlemanly evil.” At heart, this is also governed by a sense of fair play, where force can be combated by force, and terrorism tactics are not utilized except as a show of might."
As others have probably pointed out, this is just the most obvious example of the shoddy research involved in this review.
Point by point:
1) The entire theme of Tolkien's work is that evil cannot be thwarted by violence alone, or indeed by evil at all.
2) Violence is almost never on stage in Tolkien's works and is never particularly explicit. By contrast, M.A.R. Barker's literary works are drenched in blood.
3) Evil in Tolkien doesn't necessarily take easily combatible forms - plagues, despair, madness, environmental desctruction, and terrorism. On a page count basis, very little of Tolkien's work is about violence.
I agree that the ethos of D&D is modern (in the sociological sense) and therefore anachronistic, relative to the tropes and ostensible subject-matter. As the US is one of the most modern of societies, it is probably not surprising that American values can easily be found in D&D.
If I had to nominate the most modernist/American aspect of D&D, I would say "individualism". The emphasis on the power of the individual agent is very marked. There is also, arguably, a Fascistic streak - this power is exercised primarily through violence and domination (although, unlike Fascism, it is individual rather than social power). I see the role of the Alignment system being to make this emphasis on individual violent power acceptable rather than repulsive, by giving it a moral dimension.
Given that I enjoy playing D&D and am not a Fascist, I think this is yet more evidence for the truth of the proposition that aesthetic value does not track moral/political value.
Hi Phaedrus,
You are of course welcome to disagree with me. I believe it is entirely possible to have a good vs. evil argument with two talking heads. I recommend reading Voodoo Science, great book -- the implication is that one side is right, and one side is wrong. Or one side is good, and the other side is evil. I'm sure I didn't elaborate on that point enough to clarify -- definitely worth a follow-up article.
The Moorcock reference is not about alignment but about alignment languages.
My economic reference is based on my personal experiences in the workplace. My definition of "growth" wasn't fleshed out in detail in that one sentence, but suffice it to say that I disagree with the notion that businesses grow perpetually.
I will never apologize for being too ambitious, so I will take that as a compliment. :) The fact the article has generated such a great discussion means the article achieved its goal -- generating discussion and more topics to write about!
Celebrim,
D'oh, I spelled Mr. Barker's name wrong! I just fixed that, thank you for catching it!
Ignoring for a moment that you're calling my research shoddy (kind of rude, I think), MAR Barker feels that Tolkien's work lacks the truly sick, sadistic evil he apparently included in his own works. I was quoting entirely from Fine's interview with MAR Barker (see the quote in its entirety below).
I think Barker's being a bit unkind to Tolkien in his assessment...he definitely seems to have his nose out of joint for the "traditional" form of dominant fantasy at the time. But I wanted to demonstrate how evil filtered from Tolkien to gaming, and I thought Barker's opinion did that very well.
Nicely put Thurgon. Your point about fascism is intriguing.
Thanks for your comment!
Mike, ambition is not a bad thing, I just think your thesis is overbroad and I think you are selecting facts to fit the thesis, not the other way around. More importantly, even if you and Fine are correct in your analysis, does it really tell us anything? Would you conclude that roleplayers all adopt the 4 points of the "American" worldview just because they play D&D? Would suggest gamers are a conformist mass, no? Or would the conclusion be that once identified, gamers would opt to play games that don't embody the "American" ethos. But if the American ethos is part of who we are, why would we choose to play something else?
I get the sense what you want to do is write a critique of US culture through the lens of rpgs. Nothing wrong with that, but as they used to say "if you are going to shoot the king, don't miss." If you want to write such a critique I think you need to rely on more than personal experience. Just my 2 cp worth.
Hi Phaedrus,
I'm using Fine's thesis, so if I'm guilty of anything, it's selecting facts to support Fine's analysis. Which I think is fine (pun! heheh), since Fine's theories of American fantasy are the subject of the article.
* I would not assume all role-players adopt this worldview. I do however think it shows HOW D&D came to be what it is, which, while definitely inspired by Tolkien, comes with its own inherent biases.
* I don't think this has anything to do with gamers conforming to anything. You of course play how you like. But the game comes with some inherent biases, which I thought Fine pointed out nicely.
* I don't think American gamers think specifically about a game's ethos. I think they play what appeals to them, and I think D&D's success in America is precisely because it "speaks their language." It has appeal for Americans in more ways than just the rules, or the rulebook, or even the text itself.
a narrow world view, and a sense of opportunism. For all author's talk about "the American view" he doesn't take into account that America is incredibly diverse in its interests views, that it's the spirit of (un)healthy debate that keeps it swinging wildly between an open or closed world view. This is expanded by the fact that he ignores the presence of Role playing Games which do not support his view such as the Storyteller system and Unknown Armies; two roleplaying games which may be considered satire of the Dualist / Competitive philosophy which is seemed to be pinned upon the American people by Tresca.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!