The Pursuit Of Perfection, Part 1 of 5: Don’t Compromise With Mediocrity
Confessions Of A Fan: A partisan review
The 7 seasons of The West Wing emerged a couple of years ago from a packed field of contenders to become my all-time favorite TV series.
Early in its life, it wasn’t even a contender. I wasn’t a fan of political shows, just as I wasn’t particularly opinionated about politics; the image of Australian Politics presented through Question Time is not especially flattering, and more often than not, I voted in elections on the basis of who I did NOT want to see in government. It was somewhere in the middle of Season 2 that I started watching it occasionally, and by the end of that season I was a convert.
One of the big factors that made the series stand out for me was the way in which it didn’t dumb itself down for its audiance. It never talked down to them, trusting in them to keep up, and if you missed the occasional beat or nuance because it went by too fast, you could usually pick up the plot threads before too long.
A lot of people seemed to tune out after Rob Lowe left the series, because at much the same time as he was doing his final season, Aaron Sorkin, the creator of the series, also left, handing over control to a new producer. The series seemed to shift subtly in relationships after this transition; whereas before, the staff had come together to present a united front against the problems of the week or the series, now they were at odds with each other on occasion. The characters may have become more realistic, but the sense of a team standing united, against the world if need be, was lost. The writing became a little more hit-and-miss, especially in terms of consistancy of characterisation; on occasions, the series was still able to touch the stars, but the average quality dropped a little. And there was the occasional logic gaffe or serious continuity error. By the time the series wrapped at the end of the seventh season, it had rediscovered its footing, and at the end, I found myself wanting more; but not a lot of people stuck around to share that experience.
Even so, it wasn’t until I got the entire series on DVD that it became my favorite, something that I only recognised belatedly when I discovered that I was watching it – all seven seasons – three or four times a year. Other shows that at the time I may have ranked more highly, like Stargate SG-1, or Babylon-5, or Numb3rs, or the CSI franchises, did not stand up so well.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
What’s more – and this is at the heart of the reasoning behind this series of articles – I found that a number of elements of the plot had seeped into my consciousness, forging unexpected connotations and connections with other ideas, where they began to influance my writing and GMing in meny and interesting ways.
This series of articles is going to seek to extract and explain some of the pearls of wisdom that have been gleaned from the show, and how they relate to Gaming, and how you can integrate them into your own campaigns and GMing styles to improve your own game.
Don’t talk down to your audiance
This principle is at the heart of what I enjoyed about the West Wing, which makes it appropriate as the first lesson to be gleaned from the production.
Almost all TV production compromises it’s distinctive voice in order to appeal to the lowest common denomenator. The result is an inoffensive blandness, a mediocrity that makes almost everything watchable and almost nothing captivating. It is percieved that it is better to have 2 million uncommitted viewers who could care less about what they are watching, than it is to have 200,000 fanatical followers.
The memorable TV series are those that compromise a little less; shows like Buffy, Heroes, even Lost. “Reality TV” such as Survivor and The Amazing Race. I watched the Australian series of Big Brother for many years, observing that the show was at its most interesting when it was all about the psychology of confinement and the transformations in personality that occured as a consequence, and at its least interesting when it compromised to introduce artificially-induced melodrama, becoming a hybrid between reality television and a soap opera. The majority of viewers must have agreed with me, because it immediately began slipping in the ratings; the occasional dramatic twist would entice an audiance back, but viewer loyalty was a thing of the past. And the more the ratings slipped, the more the production began to rely on those gimmicks which occasionally punched up their numbers.
The same phenomenon occurs to a lesser extent with movies, and I would contend that this is the reason why Aliens 3 was less interesting than the earlier installments of the franchise. There was a sense that Ripley had earned credibility and respect and a ‘happily ever after’ in “Aliens,” and the third movie stripped her of everything that she had achieved, and that the audiance had been rooting for her to achieve, in the second. This is also why I enjoyed T3 less than the earlier parts of that franchise, which were all about optimism and hope for the future, no matter how dark things became.
The Uniqueness Of RPGs
If ever there was a medium where these forces should not operate, it’s a roleplaying game, where the “audiance” can actively interrupt and demand an explanation of something they didn’t understand. That level of interaction means that there should be far less pressure to conform to the mediocrity of compromise from one game to the next. Each new campaign is analagous to a TV series without the need to mix the GM’s vision of setting and story with a bland conformity.
This is both a blessing and a burdon. The blessing – the capacity for fresh ideas, new perspectives, and sheer entertainment targetted directly at a select audiance – is fairly self-evident. The burdons are two-fold: first, there is the difficulty in creating such an original vision; and second, because the GM does not have total creative control, he has to compromise his vision to exclude those elements that the PCs do not interact with, and to incorporate their characterisations.
I spent seven years compiling and unifying ideas for my Fumanor campaign (while running other campaigns), the first D&D game that I had GM’d in more than a decade. The fact that it has now been in use for a decade, with at least another decade of life left in the franchise (maybe two), demonstrates the level of reward that came of these efforts.
The Rewards Of Perfection
Perfection is hard to achieve. In a perfect game, the players would not need to be told anything out of character, ever. There would not need to be a campaign briefing of any sort, the world would manifest before their eyes in character interactions and dialogue and the results of skill rolls.
The result would be total integration of characters and world, and a total absence of compromise. Each campaign would be a unique, stand-alone experience for the participants whose only consistant feature would be the entertainment that it brings to those concerned.
Compromising Perfection
But this perfection is, to all intents and purposes, impossible to achieve, simply because there is more than one mind at work, and most of them start off ignorant of where the GM intends things to go, and have their own notions about what they want and what they find entertaining.
Players bring assumptions to the game, formed of past experience, and text in the rule books, and genre conventions. There is a constant temptation on the part of the GM to dismiss these contributions as less valuable than the “pure vision” that he started with, simply because the participants have not put as much thought into the overall picture that he has, or don’t know as much about it. Yielding to that temptation produces plot trains and actually serves to impede the entertainment of the game.
Since perfection is unobtainable in the real world, our very definition of “perfection” has to be compromised in order for it to be a practical goal.
Try this alternative on for size: “Perfection in an RPG is achieved when Player contributions synergise with the original vision to produce a sum that is greater than the sum of its parts”.
That’s certainly a more practical goal to strive for. So how should the GM go about it? I would suggest that there are four elements required: an initial vision; a common foundation; an evolution of vision; and an evolution of character.
In subsequent parts of this article, I’ll explain these terms, how they relate to the synergy that is our goal, and offer strategies and techniques for success in achieving them.
- The Pursuit Of Perfection, Part 1 of 5: Don’t Compromise With Mediocrity
- The Pursuit Of Perfection, Part 2 of 5: A Perfect Vision Through A Glass, Darkly
- The Pursuit Of Perfection, Part 3 of 5: Laying A Campaign Foundation
- The Pursuit Of Perfection, Part 4 of 5: Evolving The Campaign
- The Pursuit Of Perfection, Part 5 of 5: Character Evolution
- Lessons From The West Wing II: The Psychology Of Maps
- Lessons From The West Wing III: Time Happens In The Background
- Lessons From The West Wing IV: Victory At Any Price
- Lessons From The West Wing V: Bilateral Political Incorrectness for RPGs
Discover more from Campaign Mastery
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
March 25th, 2010 at 2:32 pm
Probably the main reason I like RPG’s is because they do not need to be dumbed down to stay afloat. In the TV and video game worlds it IS better to have 2 million uncommited viewers than it is to have 200,000 devoted fans, because those 2 million bring in 10x the money. Everything they release, they of course release with the intention of making as much money as possible, and they know the safest and most effective ways to do it. Cause of this almost every show or video game series I like gets cancelled early because while it broke the mold and was different in a good way, it didn’t seem to catch on with the masses and was killed in ratings/sales by Generic Reality Show 3553 or Generic FPS 3245. The notable exception is the Stargate franchise.
In an RPG you don’t have to worry about bottom lines or any of that nonsense, all that matters is everyone at the table having fun. The result is that often even a poor GM can come up with a more compelling story and game world than most of the garbage that gets dumped on us by the TV and video game industries these days.
March 25th, 2010 at 8:32 pm
@Robert: It’s something that seems like it should be obvious, isn’t it? But I’ve learned the hard way that most things that seem obvious, aren’t – until someone points them out.
Obviously, this post was just preamble; but what was supposed to be a single article has grown far beyond any expectation that I had for it. The first meaty bit simply wouldn’t fit as part of this post, so there’s a lot more to come in the way of practical advice – and this entire multipart article is just the first in a series of articles.
March 26th, 2010 at 12:45 am
Nice article. I look forward to the followups or extensions of this first post. I also shared a love for West Wing, liking the fast paced laser focus and indomidable wills and personalities.
As for RPGs… I don’t play very much, which I am trying to change, but when I do… I have a good time, better then playing PC or Video games… to be honest, I don’t care for much TV anymore, but I do always buy my D&D 4e book each month that they publish and graze over the content for the month… think up stuff that will fit into a ‘homebrew of the core-setting’ for any future players that wish to be a part of that future story, yet to be told… RPGs that we have a passion for mostly affects the people who like stories of some sort. Even if it is one that they narrate in their brain after the session… notably mechanic-optimizers basking in the glory of what their numbers-character did that session… it is all valid. I like RPGs, even if I don’t play them much, just for the sheer content they provide.
I am looking forward to the rest of these articles. Keep em coming please!
March 26th, 2010 at 3:37 am
@QuestingWord: You won’t have long to wait. The next three parts of this particular article are written (one more to go!) and I have another five “Lessons From The West Wing” to follow it – though I may post something else in between these, just for the variety (and to keep from burning out on the subject, and to give me another excuse to watch the DVDs again…!)
As for TV, I still watch – but very selectively. Twenty years ago, I watched about 5 hours a night. Ten years ago, I was averaging about 3 hours a night. These days, I would average no more than 2 hours a night. There are still things that are entertaining enough to watch – but they are the exceptions.
March 26th, 2010 at 7:24 am
Wow, 4 more parts? I am looking forward to that!
Anyhow, I didn’t mean my first post to sound like I was saying you brought up an obvious point, I was just mentioning that the reason I like RPG’s better than TV is because of the reason you brought up, that TV shows are often dumbed down to appeal to the largest group of people possible, and those that are not usually don’t last very long.
I also remember when I used to watch 4+ hours a night of TV. Nowadays I only watch TV for about 3-4 hours a week tops. I still play a lot of video games, but I have noticed that I find myself buying up old games and remakes of old games much more than the new stuff, and not just because of bland storylines and the fact that the gameplay has been cloned 50x already but because the older games were actually still challenging. If there is one huge complaint I have about video games these days it is that it takes absolutely no effort to get through them anymore. The entire game is almost like an extended tutorial, you don’t lose unless you go out of your way to do it. I shudder to think of what impact this will have on the next generation of tabletop RPG players :D
March 26th, 2010 at 1:56 pm
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by JohnnFour, David Radzik. David Radzik said: RT @JohnnFour: Campaign Mastery – The Persuit Of Perfection, Part 1: Don’t Compromise With Mediocrity http://bit.ly/bWkaGt #rpg […]
March 26th, 2010 at 7:11 pm
@Robert – Don’t worry, you didn’t sound like you were suggesting that I was stating the obvious, I was suggesting that the advice sounds obvious!
As to the impact of Computer Games on modern RPG players, that’s something that’s somewhere on my list of unwritten blog ideas – but I really want to persuade a friend of mine to guest author or co-author the article because he has some strong and articulate opinions on the subject.
March 29th, 2010 at 5:16 pm
Good stuff, Mike! Looking forward to future parts. However, there’s just one consistent typo I’ve noticed: it’s “audience,” not “audiance.”
Sorry, I’m an editor by profession. I just can’t help it! :)
On topic: I was never a fan of the West Wing, but knew people who were. It seemed like a great show, but one I wasn’t willing to get into at the time. From what I saw, I look forward to some lessons learned!
May 4th, 2010 at 12:19 am
Mike, you’ve put West Wing on my radar. I hadn’t given the show much thought before.
I’d have to say my favourite all-time TV shows are The Wire, Firefly, The Nature of Things, Dr. Who. I’m probably missing a few.
I’m digging into the other parts of the series next, and maybe you explain this there, but I’d like to know more about the part of perfection that is greater than the sum of the parts. What is this aspect of the game for you? What lies there?
I watch a lot of sports. So my TV consumption is about 10 hours/week. I do email, outlining, chores and other things while watching. Other than sports, I can’t think of any TV I watch consistently.
@Robert – I like RPG because of the combo of design, writing, reading, game rules, freedom/sandbox and friends. Why I like GMing is another story for another time.
I think the internet ironically has made parts of TV better. With smaller audience levels across all networks and time slots, I think programming had to improve to keep audiences tuned in. I think lower audience size expectations leads to more risk taking or more strategy toward appealing to passionate fans. I’m not sure of the economics of TV, and how this has impacted budgets, though.
I think studios are kicking themselves about the efforts toward HDTV instead of inventing and controlling hulu or YouTube. And I still don’t have a smart TV yet.
Off to read part two of the series now.
May 4th, 2010 at 1:55 am
@Johnn: No, if you didn’t get it from this part of the series, you won’t find it explicitly spelt out further on. Perfection in this context is about transcending the mediocre, common ingredients to a campaign. The Core Rules for D&D, for example, are both a blessing and a curse: a blessing in that they permit everyone who comes to the game to have a common foundation, and a curse in that they force the campaign world and its rules systems to compromise to that generic vision. This is wholly analagous to the way in which Hollywood often compromises the ideas that make a TV series or a movie unique with what they believe (rightly or wrongly) will appeal to the ‘lowest common denomenator’. I posit in this article that the shows that excel, that stand out in people’s memories, that can be watched time and time again, and that win award after award, are the shows that have compromised with the mediocre the least, and stayed closest to the initial unique concept. In the article, of course, I follow the opposite trajectory, starting with hollywood and then suggesting that the same principles be applied to RPGs.
I wanted to avoid getting all poetic and lyrical, but since you’ve asked the question: Perfection is when everything in the background, the encounters, the rules, the descriptive language, the style, and the tone of the campaign all contribute towards emphasising the uniqueness of the campaign, the things that make Johnn’s campaign different from Mike’s campaign and different to Robert’s campaign and so on, to such an extent that suspension of disbelief is so easily achieved that your players can almost smell the trees and taste the water, can – at will – totally immerse themselves in this particular game and its environment because everything in and connected to the campaign and the ways they interact with it propel them there.
It’s that immersion that is not present in any one of those elements, that is the difference between what is achieved in perfection and the sum of the individual constituant parts.
The rest of the series is how I go about trying to achieve it – my personal ‘state of the art’ techniques, if you will. These are definitely advanced techniques, difficult to master, and harder to implement consistantly, even for an experienced game master – but even taking one step closer to perfection means a better campaign, or at least that’s the theory.
May 4th, 2010 at 6:10 pm
Ok, I understand now. Thanks!