Are you an Escapist or Explorer?

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com

Escapist or Explorer?

  • Total voters
    44
Urdlen's best boy said:
I think EmperorNorton EmperorNorton, Agemegos Agemegos & others are right at least that catharsis is a big part of what makes exploring still relevant issues pleasing (to those who enjoy it)

I guess part of the question is does catharsis count as a form of escapism? Or is escapism a specific form of cartharsis, maybe? idk

However I think the narrativist/gameplay is a red herring and a false dichotomy (in the strong sense), though there might be a correlation w/ people who identify as such - ie overthinkers.
Click to expand...
Sure, it's a form of mild escapism, but the OP specifically defines escapism as "gaming to distance from reality issues." and exploration as "gaming to explore those reality issues." In both cases, the reason for game is assumed to revolve around "reality issues" one way or another.

I'm confident that plenty of us aren't really thinking about "reality issues" at all or using them as a basis for deciding to game.

The original question reads to me like asking if I eat food to explore Mexican culture or if I eat food to get away from thinking about Mexican culture, to which my only real response is to look confused. Occasionally, while eating or prepping a meal, I may give some thought to Mexican culture, and often food might give me something to think about other than Mexico and it's people, but neither effect really has anything whatsoever to do with why I eat or choose the foods I do.
 
Sable Wyvern said:
and often food might give me something to think about other than Mexico and it's people
Click to expand...
82d7wc.jpg
 
'Explorer'. Pfffffffffft! That's far too ambitious a term when the only thing these people will be 'exploring' is their navel.
 
What's navel? Sorry, non-native speaker here.

Sable Wyvern said:
I'm confident that plenty of us aren't really thinking about "reality issues" at all or using them as a basis for deciding to game.
Click to expand...
Hmm, maybe I'm not getting your point. Do you think "society issues" would be a better term then? Like, the Dune x LotR contrast may be an example here? Both are fictional but Dune is more grounded and touches common society issues like blackmail, politicking, personal grudges, etc. more.

Another example would be Shadowrun in...

A) "Hooders" mode, focused on hitting the corps while going back to the slums/barrens to it's day-to-day struggles of poverty, gang wars, Lone Star oppression, etc,

vs

B) "World saving" mode, focusing on high level stuff like allying Dragons and Immortal Elves to contain extinction threats like planar Horrors or Insect Spirit infestations.

Makes sense?

EDIT: reminds me that Blades and The Spire do that "hooders" pretty well by default.
 
Last edited:
Lessa said:
What's navel? Sorry, non-native speaker here.
Click to expand...

The Mad Hatter said:
Your from Brazil right? So navel means umbigo. Here's a picture.
Click to expand...
Yeah--if it helps, 'navel-gazing' is an idiom for 'useless and pretentious introspection.'

Like some other posters above, I don't quite feel the dichotomy applies to me or my tastes in gaming. Part of the problem is what counts as 'real world' issues that explorers are exploring. So Runequest is offered as an example of 'exploring' because it involves mythology and religion. Which is true, but its take on them is so far from anything around me IRL that I would see it as escapist.

There are of course more universal themes, like 'how a character responds to temptations at the cost of violating his/her moral code' but those things are so vague that I don't see them as really mapping onto escapist vs. exploratory. To me, if the game has my character deciding whether to accept a bribe not to blow the whistle on his employer, that's exploratory (I guess) but if it's a superhero character deciding whether to plump for allowing innocents to be harmed because it will allow him to stop the bad guy, it's not.

Historical settings make it even more muddy. I like games where characters have to make difficult decisions based on the moral and social issues of their time--but because those are issues of their time, it is escapist to me, not exploratory.
 
Lofgeornost said:
Yeah--if it helps, 'navel-gazing' is an idiom for 'useless and pretentious introspection.'

Like some other posters above, I don't quite feel the dichotomy applies to me or my tastes in gaming. Part of the problem is what counts as 'real world' issues that explorers are exploring. So Runequest is offered as an example of 'exploring' because it involves mythology and religion. Which is true, but its take on them is so far from anything around me IRL that I would see it as escapist.

There are of course more universal themes, like 'how a character responds to temptations at the cost of violating his/her moral code' but those things are so vague that I don't see them as really mapping onto escapist vs. exploratory. To me, if the game has my character deciding whether to accept a bribe not to blow the whistle on his employer, that's exploratory (I guess) but if it's a superhero character deciding whether to plump for allowing innocents to be harmed because it will allow him to stop the bad guy, it's not.

Historical settings make it even more muddy. I like games where characters have to make difficult decisions based on the moral and social issues of their time--but because those are issues of their time, it is escapist to me, not exploratory.
Click to expand...
Thanks for clarifying. Perhaps a third option in the poll, "neither element is prioritary for my gaming" (or similar), would be nice.

About Runequest, makes sense (Edit: also historical games). It feels both escapist and exploratist in this context. That said, I had a slightly different take than you, in that I immediately felt familiarity for the religious/superstitious thought permeating it. Maybe due to my first contact being with the videogame King of Dragon Pass? (or maybe not, I suspect Cults of Prax would give me a similar impression). But yeah, in the end it does feel fantastic and mundane at the same time, and that's awesome.
 
Last edited:
Lessa said:
Thanks for clarifying. Perhaps a third option in the poll, "neither element is prioritary for my gaming" (or similar), would be nice.
Click to expand...
It doesn't need to be prioritary, the question is just which one is more important to your gaming style/choices:thumbsup:.
 
Shadowrun' fantasy racism, Runequest's myths and superstitions, Monsterhearts' teen drama, Dogs in the Vineyard's moral dilemmas or Sagas of the Icelanders' historical pagans vs christians conflict, the fiction for me is just a vehicle to explore real world.
Click to expand...
In this context, I am the antithesis of "Explorer". 100% Escapist, and 0% Explorer.

The entire point of Rpging to me is as an escapist, imaginative experience. It doesn't need to be as ... trivial as shooting things or exploring dungeons and taking stuff. There's plenty of room for depth in an escapist campaign. The point is to experience something that I can't - or wouldn't want to be challenged by in reality.

Infusing real-world-issues into an Rpg campaign is incredibly unappealing to me. I'd rather spend hours doing my taxes than explore the real world through gaming. I'm exploring the real world at this very moment; why would I want to do it in my spare hobby time as well?
 
K_Peterson said:
I'm exploring the real world at this very moment; why would I want to do it in my spare hobby time as well?
Click to expand...
To explore other real world situations you currently can't, contemporary or otherwise, like war scenarios, crime fighting, political intrigue, the life of a Tokugawa samurai, a Norse settler in Iceland or a near future sararyman disgusted by Arasaka corp abusive work conditions?
 
Last edited:
Perhaps, then, I'm not quite understanding the distinction between escapist and explorer. Beyond the last example, I see the others as grouped in as escapist experiences.

To me, it feels quite separate to experience a modern, near-modern, or historical perspective, as a character in that time period vs. exploring themes of fantasy racism, abusive working conditions, religious conflict - which I would consider more meta-.
 
I think the difference is like watching Die Hard versus watching something like Beasts of No Nation.

Both are movies. Both are meant to be entertaining. One also examines some real world problems. It involves potentially troubling themes and ideas in a fictional way, at a safe remove.

Neither is good or bad, or better than the other except subjectively.
 
Yep, good example by hawkeyefan hawkeyefan .

K_Peterson said:
Perhaps, then, I'm not quite understanding the distinction between escapist and explorer. Beyond the last example, I see the others as grouped in as escapist experiences.
Click to expand...
My bad. I see now each of those themes could be adressed either fantastic or realistically. So, taking the Tokugawa samurai example..

- The escapist take would highlight your PC battles and martial prowess, perhaps even against evil, supernatural beings. Think Nioh videogame.

- The exploratist take would highlight matters of duty to your lord and family, as well as clans politicking. Think Sanadamaru taiga drama. (or think "samurai GoT" if you don't know that)

Again, important: it's not a binary/0 or 1 affair as any gaming activity involves both (and many others) elements in different degrees. Nor there is an objectively best mode to be found here. I love my Nioh games (and Sekiro! and Tenchu!) as much as my taiga dramas.
 
Last edited:
I see escapism and exploratism as different mentalities taken for how to approach role-playing, not that a specific game is one or the other (but different games can have better or worse support for it).

Exploratism, as I think of it, is fairly closely related to culture gaming as a large part of culture gaming is to explore another culture (which might or might not be made up). However, exploratism, as I see it, isn't limited to culture gaming.

In the thread about how to set up a Vietnam war campaign, some mentioned they would go with that it is just the backdrop, but it is fighting monsters or aliens. Others want more focus on the horrors of war, and all the other issues of the era (the civil rights movement, etc). When it comes to using "weird settings", some plays Call of Cthulhu as monster horror against a sanitized 1920's backdrop. Others play CoC with a lot of the 20's issues with a monster horror backdrop.

One is not better or worse than the other, just different preferences. :smile:

SoManyRats said:
I'll say both, but often the mix is escaping from my own issues by exploring others' issues.
Click to expand...
Which is quite possible compatible with my wants from role-playing. :smile:
 
Lessa said:
Yep, good example by hawkeyefan hawkeyefan .


My bad. I see now each of those themes could be adressed either fantastic or realistically. So, taking the Tokugawa samurai example..

- The escapist take would highlight your PC battles and martial prowess, perhaps even against evil, supernatural beings. Think Nioh videogame.

- The exploratist take would highlight matters of duty to your lord and family, as well as clans politicking. Think Sanadamaru taiga drama. (or think "samurai GoT" if you don't know that)

Again, important: it's not a binary/0 or 1 affair as any gaming activity involves both (and many others) elements in different degrees. Nor there is an objectively best mode to be found here. I love my Nioh games (and Sekiro! and Tenchu!) as much as my taiga dramas.
Click to expand...
Ok, all of the examples provided definitely help to clarify the Explorer approach/"mentality". Thanks.

To me, the Diehard and Beasts of no Nation comparison seem like opposite poles with an escapist vs explorer approach - all one direction, or the other. Whereas the Tokugawan Samurai examples seems to represent a pure escapist pole, and a rough middle-ground between poles. Or some ratio, like 40% escapist / 60% explorer when you highlight duty/honor/politicking.

My gaming is always in the vague middle-ground between poles. Either in some ratio of the two approaches, or under a different classification. I'd consider depth/verisimilitude to be important factors in a Tokugawan Samurai campaign and the Nioh videogame experience to be an extreme that's very unappealing. The fantasy campaigns I run shift closer to the Escapist pole, but they aren't action-movie/videogame shut your brain off experiences. They include themes that are reflective of sword & sorcery or dark fantasy fiction.

I think where I get most repelled is when the Explorer dial gets turned up close to 100%. Like, the examples below:

Others play CoC with a lot of the 20's issues with a monster horror backdrop.
Click to expand...
One also examines some real world problems. It involves potentially troubling themes and ideas in a fictional way, at a safe remove.
Click to expand...
Others want more focus on ... all the other issues of the era (the civil rights movement, etc)
Click to expand...
I think there's quite a big difference between highlighting the depth/expectations/verisimilitude/immersive-qualities that a historical, near-modern, or modern setting can provide, and using a gaming session as a tool to "explore troubling themes" or otherwise act as a cultural/social anthropologist observing a time period.
 
K_Peterson said:
I think there's quite a big difference between highlighting the depth/expectations/verisimilitude/immersive-qualities that a historical, near-modern, or modern setting can provide, and using a gaming session as a tool to "explore troubling themes" or otherwise act as a cultural/social anthropologist observing a time period.
Click to expand...
Uh, yes? The difference of having it as part of the focus and having it as the backdrop. But having it shown a lot in the background without really affecting the player characters in any way is a middle ground. The other end from having it as a focus is after all having it heavily sanitized or even removed.
 
Lundgren said:
Uh, yes? The difference of having it as part of the focus and having it as the backdrop. But having it shown a lot in the background without really affecting the player characters in any way is a middle ground. The other end from having it as a focus is after all having it heavily sanitized or even removed.
Click to expand...
My point - which may not have been clear - is that this kind of sliding scale made the definition of "explorer" a little muddy - at least to me. When applied as a focus then the "approach" became very clear in what it entailed. But the further examples drifted into the middle ground or in the escapist direction, the more it just seemed like "regular" gaming. The type of gaming I partake in. Not video gamer and not cultural anthropologist gamer.

I have the same argument about focused "escapist" play. It seems just as 'extreme' to me as focused "explorer" play, and something that I wouldn't participate in either. So, when you have these two (IMO) extreme poles, a vast slushy, middle in-between, and are asked "which are you?", it's not an easy answer. I think "neither", and "you guys on both extremes are weird!" :smile:
 
Well, that the phrase is a bit too new on this forum doesn't help. There's not really a "set in stone" definition yet. :tongue:
 
Nakana said:
I just don’t want my gaming to feel like an After School Special. :facepalm:
Click to expand...
But it could be "a very special episode of Blossom" as they used to advertise them back in the day--then you could have Mayim Bialik playing NPCs...:smile:
 
Lofgeornost said:
But it could be "a very special episode of Blossom" as they used to advertise them back in the day--then you could have Mayim Bialik playing NPCs...:smile:
Click to expand...
I’d much prefer Big Bang Theory where she’s a PC and Howard is doing impressions. :wink:
lol
 
So the problem with exploring social themes is that it takes a special type of group where you can roleplay a variety of character types in that sort of game. There are players that will judge you if you aren’t playing a white knight for whatever social issue is being explored and that can really limit the game. I’m not saying let’s play slavers hunting on down escaped slaves but I do feel it adds constraints that wouldn’t exist in the game otherwise.

I was playing a game online where I had a thief who was basically built as a soccer hooligan. Everyone knew that and was cool with it, there were laughs and cheers as I described him. We ended up in a big street fight and a NPC hit my guy from behind, I proceeded to knock him down and curb stomp him. “Isn’t that a little excessive?” I was asked. My answer was as hell no but it definitely colored the rest of the session. That wasn’t a exploration type game but I could see the same kind of reaction if all the PCs weren’t lock step in agreement regarding whatever social thing is being explored and if you are all lock step what’s the point?
 
sharps54 said:
So the problem with exploring social themes is that it takes a special type of group where you can roleplay a variety of character types in that sort of game. There are players that will judge you if you aren’t playing a white knight for whatever social issue is being explored and that can really limit the game. I’m not saying let’s play slavers hunting on down escaped slaves but I do feel it adds constraints that wouldn’t exist in the game otherwise.
Click to expand...

Yeah, there’s really little exploration going on when every choice and every outcome is a forgone conclusion. As I said before, James Bondage is pure escapism even when its subject is nuclear blackmail and the threat of nuclear war, omnicidal billionaires plotting universal euthanasia, or drug-smuggling, because it indulges the fantasy that these things can be prevented in a straightforward way by morally uncomplicated violence and prodigies of physical prowess.
 
I’ve got some serious issues in the background in my current game - war has left a lot of displaced refugees who dwell in shanties outside the city walls and are treated by the townsfolk as an unwelcome burden, neglected and resented and exploited. A criminal organization in town is involved in trafficking both drugs and people, the burden of both of which falls heavily on this refugee population, and charismatic religious leaders with ill intent among the refugees are also stoking resentment and finding a more sympathetic audience as the situation worsens.

But, while the players are encouraged to draw parallels between these things and analogous real world situations, the game is not really about exploring those issues - it’s all just background for an adventure-rich environment. The bad guys are demonstrably bad and need to be stopped, and the ostensible good guys are either powerless or indifferent or corrupt (or all of the above), so the situation is dire and getting worse unless the PCs take heroic action to fix it (i.e. tracking the bad guys to their bases, putting them to the sword, taking their stuff, and convincing the recalcitrant good guys to do better going forward while we move on to the next trouble spot in need of heroic intervention).

I find it easier to “sell” that setup to the players when the bad situation is something they can actually understand and relate to analogous real world problems than simply telling them it’s bad without any outward evidence or making something exaggerated and cartoony that doesn’t feel like it means anything.
 
Nakana said:
Jeez, that’s PG-13 compared to what goes on in our games lol. We’re much worse and everybody’s having a great time.
Click to expand...
No joke. I've got players perfectly happy to commit horrible war crimes on entire cities just because there's an obnoxious flunky or they decide that asking npcs polite questions is too hard. Descriptions of folks in a mall being dehydrated to death have no effect.
 
Escapism, by a long shot, I guess. I don't want to explore many hot button political and social issues that would get me banned from this forum. Just for example. Fuck exploring. I'd be better off being politically active than have play time with my anger and despair. It's just not the medium for it.

Anyway, I hope we all make it.
 
Lofgeornost said:
Historical settings make it even more muddy. I like games where characters have to make difficult decisions based on the moral and social issues of their time--but because those are issues of their time, it is escapist to me, not exploratory.
Click to expand...
Lofgeornost said:
Part of the problem is what counts as 'real world' issues that explorers are exploring.
Click to expand...
Was going to talk about that but you beat me to it. I'll add with historical/pseudohistorical you can also have the opposite case where something that happened 200 years ago is still relevant and/or touchy subject to some ppl. In the end it'll depend a lot on individuals, cultures, etc what is considered real enough
 
Lessa said:
Escapism = gaming to distance from reality issues.

x

Exploration = gaming to explore those reality issues.


I guess it's fair to say everybody is driven by, and touches on, both elements while playing (among others), but if you had to choose only one, which one would it be? To escape reality or to explore it?

Me, it's Explorer. Even when playing fictional worlds, I love exploring real world issues and situations, be it Shadowrun' fantasy racism, Runequest's myths and superstitions, Monsterhearts' teen drama, Dogs in the Vineyard's moral dilemmas or Sagas of the Icelanders' historical pagans vs christians conflict, the fiction for me is just a vehicle to explore real world. That doesn't mean I dislike more fantasy-inclined games with idealistic goals like saving the world or killing evil baddies, sure I do, but these don't usually excite me as much.

P.S: hey L Lundgren , seeing as you coined the terms in another thread, maybe this interests you.
Click to expand...
I'm playing to have fun with my friends.

This leads to me sometimes inserting real life shit in because it makes sense for the game and sometimes I do it for grins. If you stuck a gun to my head, though, it would be Escapism.
 
Tommy Brownell said:
I'm glad that in the Year of Our Lord 2024, someone decided gaming needed more fucking labels.
Click to expand...
I find it perfectly acceptable if we throw out one of those labels that doesn't fit me, to not change the sum of them. :tongue:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top