Most games are RPG (i.e. players take on a role)
In thinking back to one's childhood, one will likely find that the games one played generally had a common thread. Most of them involved pretending to be something different. Children often play games such as Cops and Robbers, Cowboys and Indians, Mother, May I?, Red Light/Green Light, and House.
What do all of these games have in common? They all involve taking on a role which the player does not, in reality, occupy. Almost every game involves the exploration of a role. If you break out the board game, Monopoly(tm), you will be placed in the role of a real estate tycoon with thousands of dollars to spend on land, houses, and hotels. Very few people occupy this role in real life, but a great number of people play this game. In Chess, players take on the role of military strategists, however far one may think this abstraction is from the battlefield. If you play any simulation game, you will be playing the role of someone with power, be it zoning authority in a city sim, military authority in a battlefield sim, or flying skills in a flight sim.
The children's games are the same. Children take on the roles of policemen, criminals, authority figures and subordinates, drivers, and adults in the home. Very few people have any qualms about these games.
But the situation is different in the clarified genre of Role-Playing Games. Many people find fault with these games, and with good reason. Some players lose the distinction between reality and game world. Being concerned about this is natural, just as one would be concerned if a child tried to arrest or shoot someone who was not playing Cops and Robbers, thinking he was, in fact, a policeman. But that is usually not a problem with the game; it is a problem with the player. Players should not put an inordinate amount of emotional energy or realism into any game they play. Also, many of these games ask players to partake in actions during play that they should not do in real life. Play that relies on such content should be avoided.
Yet with all the concern and attention these games, both the benign and the malignant variants, have received, we have perhaps missed something fantasy role-playing games can teach us.
Smooth play through role fulfillment
In the most common fantasy role-playing games, there is a truth behind the name of the genre. That truth is that the game is most fun and goes most smoothly when every player fulfills his or her role. This is also true on real-life battlefields. There is usually a role that is supposed to get and keep the attention of the enemies so that they won't attack weaker and more lightly-armored classes, which is often called a tank. There is usually a class that focuses on healing, like an army's medic. There is usually a class that focuses on subtlety or attacks from a greater distance as a way to deal damage with minimal risk, like covert ops, air support, and artillery. But any one of these classes can ruin a fight or a campaign.
Problems associated with role usurping
Healing and ranged classes in these games generally wear armor that isn't as tough as the tank class. If a healer gains the attention of an enemy, he or she can't focus on healing the others. If the ranged class attacks too many targets, some of them will focus on the ranged person rather than on the tank, and the tactical advantage of the group will be lessened or destroyed. And if a tank outruns his or her ranged support and healer, he or she can quickly be overwhelmed. In these games and on the battlefield, it is important that each member of the group fulfill the proper role. When a member tries to play a role that isn't suited to his or her class, problems arise.
Roles in Real Life
This truth is not simply for gamers and military personel. This is an important lesson for all people. In life, we each have a role to fulfill. When we fulfill it, our lives go more smoothly. When we try to fill someone else's role, for which we are unsuited, we can cause problems for ourselves and those around us.
God has given to each person a set of roles, and we can't simply trade those roles for others without consequences.
In fact, God has set some general roles for men and some general roles for women. God did not do this because women are better than men or because men are better than women. A tank is not better than a medic, and a medic is not better than a tank. Neither artillery nor tanks are better than the other. They each have strengths in different areas. While men tend to be better at some things, women tend to be better at other things.
But relative strengths and weaknesses are not the only factor in God's decision to choose some roles for men and some for women. God is God, and God is perfect. So we should pay attention to the roles God has designated for us. Just as God made the hand for some tasks and the foot for others, Gos gave men and women different roles. The hand is not superior to the foot or to the eye, it is simply designed for different tasks.
Leadership is not a universal human destiny. Most of you can go through life a follower and a servant, never leading a group of any size, but still fulfill God's purpose for your life. Our lives are rich and full through learning from some and mentoring to others, but a position of leadership is not, as our society seems to think, the destiny of all, to be grasped and sought. In fact, the fervid chase after positions of leadership is due largely to the abuse those of us who follow have made against leadership. We have exalted our leaders, treated them like more than God's representatives, and acted as though they are somehow better than the rest of us. Our exaltation of leaders has lead to a dilution of the demands of responsibility we place on them, which has lead to a dilution of the demands of responsibility we place on others, which has lead to a dilution of the demands of responsibility we place on ourselves. Thus, in exalting our leaders, we have lowered the standards of responsibility and accountability for our whole society. And we reap the damages of it every day.
There are many men and women who get upset when someone mentions that God designated that men should occupy positions of leadership. After all, men are often very ill-suited for responsibility and bad at making decisions. Superiority in decision-making or reasoning was not the reason God gave leadership to men. And it is important to remember that leadership is no prize. The responsibility of leadership is a heavy burden. To see this, one need only look at pictures of presidential candidates and compare them to pictures of the same men after they leave office. And how many stories have we heard of alchoholics who started drinking because of the pressures of their responsibility?
God made men leaders because God has decided that our relationships with each other should form a picture of our individual relationships to God. Just as God made more than one person to show us that we were not meant to live in isolation, that we need God as well as other people, so God gave leadership to one gender so that we would be certain to meet someone who was to fulfill with us the picture God paints of Christ and the Church. And God, through Paul, says that husbands should love their wives as Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for it. Men are to give themselves up for their wives; not, "I'll take a bullet for you, if necessary," but, "I'm going to spend myself for your benefit. My life, what God doesn't require, is yours."
We human beings are very rebellious. We don't want to be subject to anyone, but God says we should all be subject to each other. And leaders are no different. God's picture of a leader is a servant. Jesus said whoever wanted to be greatest should be the servant of all. So our society has gotten a foolishly inaccurate picture of what a leader is. God chose leadership as a role for men, and that's not a gift; It is a sacred trust and obligation--it's a very big, very hard pair of shoes to fill. When one understands God's view of a leader and a leader's responsibility and accountability in the Day of Judgement, one wonders why any woman would want such a role.
In fact, one wonders why any man would. In fact, many men don't. The Bible offers some evidence for the idea that this is why God raises up women for positions of authority: because the men have shirked their responsibility. In the book of Judges, God shamed Barak because he wouldn't go to war without Deborah. When God raises up women for leadership, it is to shame men for not fulfilling the role God chose for them. Yes, it also demonstrates that we are equal and that God uses whom God chooses, but it is also to our shame for not doing what God told us to do. The position of leader is not a position of wanton power; it is one of subjection to God and to God's people, and perhaps that is why so many men shirk leadership, but it is what God designated, and we should follow God's direction.
Can the rabbit say to the coyote, "I'll chase you"? Or can the bird say to the hippo, "Come, sit on my eggs until they hatch"? Neither can a man say to his wife, "You lead me," or a woman to her husband, "I'll protect you, follow me." God set the rabbit, the coyote, the bird, the hippo, the man and the woman in certain roles in God's order for the universe. We, as humans, should have more respect for God's plans. They are, after all, perfect.