I’d say it’s practically impossible to get through an
English degree without learning about Roland Barthes and his essay “The Death
of the Author.” I became quite familiar with that essay during my studies, and
referenced it in more than one paper. In the essay, Barthes argues that an
author’s background and biases should be set aside in favor of an analysis on
the text by itself. Since meaning doesn’t exist until the reader interprets
the words placed there by the writer, the concept of authorial intent is inherently
flawed, according to Barthes.
 |
| Image found here |
My growing pains while running a Dungeons & Dragons
campaign have taught me that players will end up interpreting events much differently
than I, the author, intended. I created a small town with an eerie Children of the Corn vibe that I
thought would provide some cheap laughs and then send the party running after a
while. Instead, my players wanted to learn more about the creepy cultists and I
found myself scrambling to flesh out the town and its customs. I can probably
attribute some of those misinterpretations to mistakes on my end: not providing
enough details in my descriptions, not preparing enough material beforehand, or
not considering likely alternative viewpoints. However, I believe that any
D&D campaign will have moments like these where the players surprise the
DM. That’s simply the nature of language.
Looking at game design in general, I'm sure we understand all too
well the “death of the designer.” We know that players will always find startlingly
different ways to interpret and play our games. But that needn’t be a source of
despair. I’d say that the scenario from my D&D campaign above ended up
being the most powerful and most interesting moment in our adventures so far.
And although the inherent interactivity of games might scoff at any thought of
authorial intent, perhaps it’s comforting to know that other mediums of
expression have been grappling with these concerns as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment