http://mythcreants.com/blog/five-destructi...eplaying-games/

It's a long article so I won't repost in quotes here but basically it cites a number of tropes from role playing games that aren't really realistic. It actually mentioned the "Great Man Theory".

Personally I wonder if "Great Man Theory" would have been more true in ancient times. Today things are much more complicated but back in say the dark ages there were fewer players and fewer resources, so maybe all you needed was a savvy forceful leader to tie stuff together. The maximum size of bureaucracy and government would have been restricted by the fact there were no computers and given that the leader might execute you if you displeased him these organs of the state would be as responsive as possible to him. You could argue that whether Hitler lived or not German was going to re-industralize and kick off World War II sooner or later due to the public sentiments and weakness of the Weimar republic. You could argue that Bismark may have succeeded in delaying World War I but that it was going to happen eventually anyway so on the whole he wasn't really that important. But can we really say that European history was completely inevitable and would have been pretty much the same if Charlemagne had died as an infant or something?

The other interesting thing about the article is how it points out that most RPG characters exist in a strange social void where they don't always get along well with each other, have no family, have no friends, and exist only for battle and spoils. In reality that wouldn't work on many levels because social relations are necessary to make anything happen, i.e. get a job, know about what is happening behind the scenes in certain contexts, whatever. Even a boxing champ whose skillset centers on fighting would need to be able to manage social relations with promoters, trainers, and fans.

So it's interesting to consider that the idea of Diplomacy as "roll dice to con someone or make them act against their interests without realizing it" is probably a totally surreal and perverted mechanic. The unrealistic combat system is probably more realistic than the social-skills-as-mind-control trope. I guess that would be all right for a "fast talk" type roll that should be pretty limited in its power especially in the longer term, but if you think about it building social or diplomatic relations is more of a long term process, so the character allegedly good at Diplomacy would spend time talking to others, would reciprocate favors, would offer free help every now and again, etc. It's almost like instead of rolling the dice you'd have a table where you could input time and money from the character into "relations, group X" in order to get bonuses when interacting with that group or something.

I recommend "The Sleepwalkers: How Europe went to war in 1914" if you want to read (an at least interesting theory) on how various leader personalities can influence stuff that really happens. Of course there is something like a larger public with an agenda on it´s own, but still.

1. I believe it necessary to hold the persons in power responsible for the things they do, especially since lessons learned (and forcibly taught) after WW2 seem to be totally forgotten by now. See Geneva Convention, see basic human rights in 1st world societies. If someone manages to do right, credit is due because if the same someone is a failure, blame will be applied. So maybe the "Great Man Theory" is simplistic, but not necessary wrong. From an RP perspective, it makes my work as GM easier. I need a LOT of contact with a faction to portray it on it´s own.

2. Sociopaths in SR are boring, a trope done to death. Boring! But true.

3. Happy with my players. They manage dystopian in their diplomacy, too.

4. Mostly guilty as charged. Emotional loss is usually just coped with.

5. Despite the "Plan A: Use explosives" motto, we have gotten MUCH better about using different things than violence.

Just sort of skimmed the blog but the comments are pretty interesting in a sad sort of way. Lots of people taking offense to it and overreacting with angry posts.

1.
It would be comforting to think that everybody amounts equally to where history moves,
but sometimes it takes a man who can lay an ambush with an army of 10.000 to conquer rome (Hannibal),
or a complete madman to burn it to the ground.
Sometimes it takes a man who has ungodly charisma, to seduce the masses into serving him (Hitler).
These individuals do not stick out for nothing.
Post-revolutionary france would probably not have moved in the same direction without Napoleon.
The invasion of egypt would not have happened for example. It only happened because Napoleon had unrealistic expectations about exploring that land.

I see no problem in wanting to play the integral people in a story.
'The problem arises when the game focuses exclusively on their actions, as if nothing else matters.'
I disagree here.

2.
Well yeah, the murder-hobo thing is a trope. Duh.
Later in the article the author mentions that, of course games are unrealistic.
Well, I have social ties in real life. What is my motivation to have them in an RPG too?
I know people who played a round of The Dark Eye, and basically just played joe-shmoes in a regular city.
I do not care for that kind of game much.

3.
Again. It is heroic fantasy for the most part. Being an explorer in such stories is cool.
A good DM can subvert this trope very easily though, and I have seen it done often, and skillfully.
'We have to remember that these stories don’t exist in a vacuum,'
That sounds familiar... Oh noes, Anita Sarkeesian has infiltrated RPGs.
Seriously, whats the point here? That RPGers are gonna go and kill some indians because that behavior was normalised in their gaming group?
Ridiculous!

4.
'This is a problem not because it’s unrealistic but because it reinforces the idea that experiencing adversity is a positive thing.'
Bone is strongest where it is mended.
If I learn to overcome adversity in a fictional setting, it may help me deal with challenges in real life, if nothing else.
RPGs are escapist fantasy. People can conquer adversity in them, which they never could in real life.
Taking that enjoyment out of it would be stupid, in my opinion.
Even in the mentioned systems, like Call of Cthulhu, the game is ultimately about overcoming the ultimate adversity (the big ones).

5.
I disagree wholeheartedly.
In classic D&D, and that is where most of the stuff with RPGs started, fighting was seldom the optimal solution.
You gained XP for overcoming the obstacles that monsters represented. Fighting them was optional. Tricking them, or evading them was preferred.
Some gaming groups are really heavy on the hack and slay, so I am going to give this half a point though.

Ok, enough grinching.

Lots of what that blog post blames on gaming isn't really gaming's fault, and is, in fact, counterproductive to pin gaming.

How do you reconcile concerns with Great Man theory versus concerns about deprotagonization, for instance? Having a small group of powerful heroes be central figures in a game setting doesn't mean you also agree that a small group of powerful people have steered history in real life, it just means you acknowledge that a game is about players, and are shining the spotlight accordingly.