Explore vs Repel

   Just like in everything else, there is a political spectrum in tabletop gaming. You have the right, the left, and the center. Some games are focused on Exploration – that’s towards the left. Other games are focused on Repelling – that leans towards the right. When there’s no clear, definite enemy against whom both characters and players struggle constantly, that game is to the left of the spectrum. When there is a clear enemy to push back, that game is more to the right. One of the key tenets of fascism is that there’s an “other” against whom “we” must defend. Dungeons & Dragons and GURPS are good examples of “Exploration” games. Call of Cthulhu and Warhammer are good examples of “Repelling” games.

   High concept settings are not necessarily to the right of the spectrum, but one thing’s for sure, it’s hard leaning to the right when you’re in a generic, low concept fantasy kingdom in the middle of a generic, fantasy forest, and heading towards the nearest generic, fantasy town.

   Everybody knows Howard Phillips Lovecraft was a racist, but I don’t think his message was a racist warning. It was a warning of a much greater magnitude: science and reason both have their limits – the rest is limitless and unimaginable. Dark matter, anyone?

   No, the lovecraftian message isn’t inherently racist, I don’t think so; but the role-playing game inspired by HPL’s works evidently falls into the “Repelling” category – like I said, the repelling of pesky invaders is a core tenet of fascism since the days of Sparta and even before that.

   As for Warhammer, well, I’m certainly not the first guy to say it. Haven’t seen many Latino or Asian or Black Space Wolves lately, and the constant struggle against “chaos” in the Old World left a bitter aftertaste in my mouth, even though I played and even ran that game many times. Then again, games like Warhammer 40K are direct descendants of the kriegsspiels of old, and those were based on Napoleonian warfare – in other words, European troops, not Zulus or Aztecs.

   The main focus of D&D is to explore dungeons and gain treasure, while the main focus of Warhammer – any iteration of it – is to repel pesky invaders. This alone ought to tell you something fundamental. Warhammer 40K is a huge favorite among the 1d4chan shut-ins, and some of the stuff that is being discussed over there is just plain sad.

   And then there’s a second degree to this entire thing.

   A debate about diversity at the gaming table is currently going on in social media, and that is also quite reminiscent of the left vs right affair. Proponents of inclusiveness and gatekeepers don’t hang out in the same spaces, because gatekeeping means “Repel”, while inclusiveness and diversity means “Explore”. It seems convenient, but it’s all part of the same sweeping phenomenon.

   The world has undergone a paradigm shift. We now live in a “sharing” society, and those who refuse to share are viewed with growing contempt and suspicion. Of course, this is much less apparent with Monopoly, for instance, because you don’t usually play Monopoly with a bunch of strangers; thus, you’re not expected to “share” your Monopoly experience or stream it live – although someone is probably doing it.

   You’re much more likely to share your poker experience, because poker was originally a frontier game, and it was naturally meant to be played with a bunch of strangers.

   Role-playing games started out with a strong convention / tournament spin. Players used to roam from one DM to another with the same character. This style of organized play slowly but surely died out when the high concept, Silver Age RPGs appeared. In a game with lots of background info, players can’t go from one DM to the next, it’s impossible. Less sharing was inevitable. Complex homebrew campaigns are also bound to be fixed and confined. Low concept games are easily sharable.

   Just don’t pay any attention to the gatekeepers. There will be gatekeepers in every game and pastime. I have seen severe noob bashing in MMORPGs. I have heard of people being ridiculed by seasoned fishermen when they first took up fly fishing. I have heard stories of gatekeeping in the centuries-old game of Go. And have you ever tried playing Magic at your FLGS when you only recently started building up your deck?

   Mind you, inclusiveness and diversity can also go a bit too far. Someday, someone is going to roll up an Illithid-Dragonborn Undead Assassin/Paladin, and one poor Dungeon Master is just gonna quit. But that is in-game diversity. At the table itself, it can’t ever go too far.

   This rule of thumb (if I may even call it that) is far from being absolute. It is kind of yin and yang, to be honest: there’s always gonna be a bit of exploration within the repelling, and there’s always gonna be a bit of repelling within any type of exploration. Threat remains ever present. It’s the proximity that counts. If a danger is “out there” somewhere, it’ll be called exploration; but if that danger is right here at our doorstep, then it’ll be called repelling. Cortés was exploring. The Aztecs were repelling. The terrible threat of extinction would never reach all the way to Spain itself.

   You have to explore the Caves of Chaos from The Keep on the Borderlands, but you have to repel the Hordes of Chaos Undivided that pour into Kislev.

   Choose your threat level.