Holographics: A Possible Future Evolution of Gaming?

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Giger's alien is the product of the genius of not just one man, but a team.  His vision was chosen by the production, made real by the special effects crew, and brought to life by filming.  

As an interesting side note to this, having read Giger's Alien which is an art book as well as a view of filmmaking process from the perspective of an outsider: Giger himself, quite a bit of the original vision did not come through in the finished product. They wanted to make the alien's head transparent so you could see the brains and such, but the clear latex they tried using didn't hold together and they ran out of time to experiment with it. There was also a scene where they found the missing crewmen near the end who were being turned into eggs. Yes, originally a queen alien was unnecessary. But the scene was cut because of pacing.

What I'm pointing out here is bringing a vision to life, especially in the medium of film but I suspect any medium is like this, you're lucky if you get even a small amount of your original vision into the finished product.

I think you underestimate how much scarier Giger's alien is in the dark.  Why?  Because you can't see it all.  How is that important?  'Fragmentary descriptions' are actually worse than seeing (or not seeing, actually) something in the dark.  However, there is an art to it.

See my above paraphrasing.

I'm with you, Fang. And the most important sentence here is: however, there's an art to it.

The independent visualizations of players [are] not a Feature to be treasured, but a Bug to be ruthlessly hunted down and eliminated.

And this is where the art comes in. There is absolutely nothing wrong with independant visualizations of the player. It's when these visualizations come into conflict that there's a problem. The art is avoiding this without bogging down in describing every single detail. What Pixar refers to as sanding the underside of the drawers.

[contracycle]

And this is where the art comes in. There is absolutely nothing wrong with independant visualizations of the player. It's when these visualizations come into conflict that there's a problem. The art is avoiding this without bogging down in describing every single detail. What Pixar refers to as sanding the underside of the drawers.

We are indeed talking at slightly cross purposes.  The situation I am adressing in this case is where a scebne is set, doesn;t matter by who.  During parsing of this scene, the audience will inteporlate it according to their expectations etc etc...

Now, if at a later date, one of those non-explicit assumptions explicitly enters play, this may cause a clash of expectations, or at least one interpretation will have to be nominated as correct so that play can procede with all in agreement.

From my perspective, these clashes of assumption/expectation are a wholly avoidable problem, not a virtue in any way.  I'm addressing situations in which the clash does/has happened.  They are confusion, not creation.

Fang wrote:

Unless you use someone else's work, unless you take advantage of someone else's designs, crafting, and programming. And if you're gonna do that, why not choose the person your player most likes the works of?

Their own imagination.

Because, I can't see it and none of the other players can see it, and hence we are in serious danger of working at cross purposes.  

I can't see how increased special effects curb 'let down' in the least. I mean what we're really talking about here is the 'snapped my suspenders of disbelief' aren't we? How is the poorly chosen snide remark during a movie any less of a 'let down' than finding out you've 'got it wrong' from the gamemaster.

No we're not - or at least, I'm not.  I'm just talking about simple stuff... like "we go into the bar" might carry, in the GM's mind, the necessity of walking up steps - but there might be no steps in the players apprehension of the strict text of the GM's description.  If the player had seen a picture of the bar, the steps would have been explicit and unquestioned.

And about the Mona Lisa. How often do you actually see it? I haven't seen it, except in passing, in years; yet the moment you mention it - the reason you mention it - is because of the obvious persistence of the memory. I could mention the 'one red shoe' Tom Hanks wore in the movie of the same name and I'll bet you can't remember it. That is what you can do in role-playing games that you can't with any amount of technology. Taking advantage of communal cultural literacy is the strength of role-playing games.

Whether I remmeber it is not important - the point is that the words "mona lisa" conjure up a specific image in the mind of everyone who knows what those words are referring to.  There is no confusion; we both know what we are talking about.

I think you underestimate how much scarier Giger's alien is in the dark. Why? Because you can't see it all. How is that important? 'Fragmentary descriptions' are actually worse than seeing (or not seeing, actually) something in the dark. However, there is an art to it.

Yes but a) I havent addressed horror anywhere, and b) then I'll show them a picture of the alien in the dark, just like the movie did.  That way, the bit we all saw is the bit we all saw, and the bits that were occluded likewise.  That can be quite significant.  What I'm trying to get at, is that if Alien had succeeded as a novel first, then a filmic interpertation of the alien would necessarily have contradicted some of the readers imaginings as to what the alien looked like; but because it succeeded as a film first, everyone who read the later book-version had exactly the same alien in mind.  Whether thats virtuous in the case of alien is not important, but I think having the same image, in RPG, is important.

I'm sorry, is the goal of role-playing games to provide some kind of visual entertainment for the players? No? Then how much can it matter if they have the exact, clear image that the gamemaster has? You worry that you might unknowingly over-rule some detail that the player has imagined that the gamemaster didn't? Big deal, you're as human as the next guy; they know it and you know it.

Yes, it is to provide a sort of visual entertainment - look: IMAG[e]ination, VISUALisation.  We create mental pictures of our thoughts (at least, I certaionly do); my approach is to work directly towards the image that the observer forms in their mind, not hope that the effect I intend occurs by happenstance.  Having the exact smae image is to  my mind directly analogous to having a common rules set, and I have argued in the past that the only purpose of rules, in fact, is to guide and regulate the images we develop such that they remain common, or nearly so; such that we are all inhabiting the same game space.

I really doubt you could convey something like 'walking onto the rugby field' with any amount of technology. Why? Because your players aren't a rugby team. No matter how 'realistically' your whiz-bang technology renders the situation, they'll still be 'ordinary people.' That's part of the point. You keep putting all the emphasis upon what the gamemaster does. That's a big mistake in my opinion.

Are you immune to the Carmina Burana?  I'm not, and I know for a fact, neither are my players.  I've used it in RPG, and it was so succesful there we used it in Paintball - and we won, of course, because we had better morale ;).  And yes, I do put an emphasis on strong-GM play, because that is my preffered mode of play both as player anf GM, and thus it is naturally what I think towards - making my own game better.

How could learning to communicate better not deliver all this in spades? I mean that's all you've really complained about, not being able to deliver your imaginings to your players.

Exactly so.  But the volume of data I can transmit orally is limited.  We use a lot of technical devices to overcome this limitation - writing, drawing, even clothing is a form of communication, an additional channel. Communication is not restricted to verbalisation and I would argue that "learning to communicate better" is exactly what I am doing - with all my faculties, including my technical skills.

[Le Joueur]

Hey Gareth,

You site many examples of really small, theoretically minor, misunderstandings.  I'm not going to debate the particulars.  But are these really that big of problem?

No really.  You create this 'big bad thing.'  Your players don't get every iota of information they wind up needing.  So?  Does it cause such a huge problem that you'd resort to the technologies being discussed?

I'm sorry, is the goal of role-playing games to provide some kind of visual entertainment for the players? No? Then how much can it matter if they have the exact, clear image that the gamemaster has? You worry that you might unknowingly over-rule some detail that the player has imagined that the gamemaster didn't? Big deal, you're as human as the next guy; they know it and you know it.

Yes, it is to provide a sort of visual entertainment - look: IMAG[e]ination, VISUALisation.

Sorry, we obviously disagree here.  Certainly role-playing games can include visual imaginings, but to make that the top priority loses a lot of good stuff.  To your specification, why not go rent Final Fantasy IX and forget about it?  I see a lot more 'this is me' ideaform work than imagery in games; the images simply support these.  Have you gamed with people who aren't so visually oriented?

This is missing the point anyway.  I don't really care what senses are replaced by the technological innovations, it is whether you are the one providing the stimuli.  If your gaming is such a 'one way street' (out of your head, images only go playerward), then I can't help you; you missing a good three-quarters of the fun.

If you don't supply all the imaginary stimuli, if as much or more comes from the players, there isn't much point in employing the fantastic technology because it can only serve as an impediment to this communication.

See, it works like this; you and your players 'dump stuff' into the imaginary 'place.'  Provided the unbelievable technology being discussed, there must be a way to 'dump' accurately (or else we're back at square one in terms of misunderstandings) and quickly.  You 'dump,' they 'dump,' or both do simultaneously.

Now how long do you think it will take to describe all the details your example suggest are necessary?  Okay, the gamemaster gets to cheat, preparing much in advance, but what about the players?  For example, I'd say that spellcasting, like throwing an illusion, is going to be just about as labor intensive (or else the gamemaster will misunderstand just as badly).

Some way is necessary to simplify this process (and make the gamemaster's prep time doable).  Let's say the technology offers a number of archetypes or templates to work with and let's say that these are given proprietary identification tags to make indexing them so much quicker.  Now let's say you need only specify a few tags and the system knows enough about plausibility to 'fill in the rest.'  Short of telepathy, for ease of use, let's make it voice activated.  Let's improve on that, let's allow the 'end of the system' the players are connected to subtly influence how it is presented to them, much like browser controls on the world wide web; this makes it not only accurate, quick, but it also appeals to the private aesthetics of each player individually.  Lastly, let's do something so we don't have to lug around huge packages of equipment to do this.

Let's use words.

A good description does exactly the above.  Specific words (the "proprietary...tags"), held in common, yield subtly modified imagery in the imaginations of the players.  Those same imaginations are exactly what "knows enough about plausibility to 'fill in the rest;'" best of all they're free.

I'm saying I just don't get how going all 'techy' is going to solve the problem without making a huge number of complications or concessions.  If the 'tiny details' like stairs and such are not being conveyed, resorting to computer imagery won't improve on that much, you're just as likely to forget to create an image as to say part of the description (more so, I'm afraid).

What it really sounds like is one of two problems.  1) You don't share enough expectations within the language you use with your players to communicate clearly.  (Do brownstone apartments usually have stairs out front or not?  I'm from the country, I don't know.)  2) You don't enjoy the confidence that your words will communicate this level of information.  (Did I sufficiently imply that there are stairs outside?)  Either way, I can't believe you'd think that adding technology to the mix would simplify the problem any.

That's why I say 'bunk' to all this techy talk.  I like dreaming about gadgets as much as the next guy, but when it comes to gaming, I'm like a neo-Luddite; I don't think it's necessary or useful.  Furthermore, I make the case that, if we did conjure up all this technological role-playing aids, we'd find ourselves creating yet another form of expression.  One that ultimately wouldn't be role-playing games anyway.

So finally, whether the details trip you up or not, this is only an argument about what each of us has as an opinion of what role-playing games are.

Fang Langford

[M. J. Young]

People are talking about a lot of different things. What Kester Pelagius is talking about is something very specific. He likens it to the chess board in Star Wars IV (he got the number wrong, but we knew which one he meant), and someone gave another example. But perhaps it will work better if it's described this way:

Kester wants living miniatures. He wants to be able to look down and see the scene as it unfolds, to walk around it and view it from every angle, and to be able to see all the detail--how tall is the troll, relative to the elf? just how far is are the Centauri standing from the Space Marines? where is the cover, and how much cover is there for the characters?

Now he's not so foolish as to suggest we could have living miniatures, so he suggests holographic ones. A century ago, it would have been clockwork ones that were suggested, but it's the same idea. We can see the exactly where everyone is, how the move, what the terrain is like. We can see whether John can reach out and touch Joe without bending or stretching, whether Ralph has a clear shot at the villain, how far the tree will reach if it falls this direction. It gives us a clear image of what is happening.

He's not asking for a character's-eye view of things. That would be different--not bad, probably good, but different. He's asking for the ability to create sets on the fly, slice them open to see the action inside, put them away and bring them back with a couple of buttons. He thinks that this would enhance his role playing experience.

I think if you're the sort of player who finds miniatures and prepared images helpful, this will enhance role playing. If, like Jack and Fang (great post, by the way, Fang), and me, you see what's happening in your mind and think that's probably better than whatever would be drawn, such an "aid" would be a detriment.

On the other hand, Gareth (a.k.a. Contracycle) makes a very important point. It is often the case that detail is vital to the situation. It is also often the case that you need to know that certain details are there without being overly cognizant of the fact. For example, when I run The Dancing Princess, there's a portal under the throw rug in the middle of the bedroom. That means I have to make the players aware that there's a throw rug in the middle of the floor in the bedroom without calling undue attention to it. The way I do it in play is by describing tapestries on walls, canopy beds, fireplace with mantel, throw rug, dressers, chests of drawers, vanities, dry sink, night stands, chairs--overwhelm them with detail so they can't pick out the important bit. Can't do this all the time, though, because then the high level of detail says that there is an important bit. An alternative is to mention it casually--"the room is so luxuriously appointed, even the throw rug under your feet is soft and warm despite the cold stone floor". But any technique you overuse is going to be recognized by the players eventually. A gadget that actually allows you to show the room permits the players to get the detail right without having to describe it.

Over in the meaningless detail thread, I think it was, I mentioned the creation of detail by players during play in little things. If the referee says there's a dresser in the room, the player might say he's going to dig through the clothes in the drawers, even though the dresser might be empty. As I think of it now, if I mention a dresser, I see some sort of period-appropriate lamp on it, a mirror behind it, a bureau scarf, perhaps a jewelry box or other knick-knacks. Never mind that the only dressers I've known in reality for the last quarter century have been buried in folded clothes that need to be put in drawers--but maybe that's an image someone else at the table has. This is all fine, as long as the detail doesn't matter. But if I suddenly pick up the lamp to throw at the ghost, and no one else thought there was a lamp there, someone's suspenders get snapped. Whether they're mine or someone else's might depend on the social contract, but Gareth is right, detail can be important.

I've not used NeverWinter Nights, but it does sound like it's supposed to be a game aid for live play that gives players a character's eye view of the setting. In that sense it's neither what Kester wants nor what he thinks it is; nor is it what Gareth thinks it is. But I could be mistaken.

So, hands up, how many think that a set of fully-functional holographic "living miniatures" with full terrain presentation and building slice-away capabilities would be useful to their ability to accurately imagine what's happening?

I think I wouldn't find it useful enough to take it out of the box before the game.

--M. J. Young

[Mike Holmes]

I'm with Gareth on this one.

But I also see it as a preference thing. Fang doesn't like his games to be presented visually, Gareth does. I'd love to have a visual presentation.

This almost links to GNS. The Sim player wants to discover the world. The Nar player wants to create it for himself. Players like Gareth and me like to find a world that has an objective appearance to it. Fang and others like to have a world which they can alter in their minds to their taste.

So, yes, there will be some players for whom the VR thing will not be the be-all, and end-all of gaming. But for many it will be compelling. Note that I am as fond of playing CRPGs like Final Fantasy (and all manner of other sorts of gaming) as I am of TableTop RPGs. So that should be no surprise to anyone.

Mike

[greyorm]

This almost links to GNS. The Sim player wants to discover the world. The Nar player wants to create it for himself.

And then there's me. I like Narrativism and prefer it or Gamism for table-top; but if I'm going to do Setting-based Sim, I want the world.

I've not used NeverWinter Nights, but it does sound like it's supposed to be a game aid for live play that gives players a character's eye view of the setting. In that sense it's neither what Kester wants nor what he thinks it is; nor is it what Gareth thinks it is. But I could be mistaken.

Right on, MJ. That's what I've been trying to get through the thick skulls around here <wink>: NWN can be played as a CRPG by creating a pre-scripted module with it, but it also has utility as (and was developed to be) a game aide providing a 3-D environment and moveable avatars/interactive features.

It, and the other programs I mention, are computerized versions of miniatures, maps/3D terrain models, not computer games. Most of them are completely useless without a gaming group and a GM doing the traditional tabletop thing.

[Le Joueur]

But I also see it as a preference thing. Fang doesn't like his games to be presented visually, Gareth does. I'd love to have a visual presentation.

That's not it at all.

I prefer visually referenced gaming; it is my art form.  What I am saying is that you don't have to be Hemmingway to convey it with words.  Communicating images with words can be tough, but Gareth only complains about what accounts as minor details; I like the way M. J. puts it and shows how it can be done.

What I am saying is that in all the examples Gareth lists, these are all small details that a little practice or a little confidence would solve.  Throwing 'great guns' technology into it cannot, will not, make it any easier; in fact I see no way that it would not make 'capturing all the detail' all that more harder.

The point I'm driving home behind all of this is that should such a beast be created, a ultimate 'visual presentation' gaming aid, it would right away turn out to be much better suited at a whole new medium of presentations (and quickly be snatched up by such leaving role-playing gaming in the dust wondering what it had wrought).  That, in fact, even 'old time' tabletop gamers like us would quickly not use it for 'just gaming.'

Don't get me wrong, I have that ache to see the games I'm running given a full Hollywood production in 3D-Omni-theatre-THX-surround-sound, in real time, as I run it, but honestly, you have to admit, if you could do that you wouldn't bother with role-playing games would you?  You'd do something else.  Which leaves me with my ultimate question....

What (the hell) is wrong with words?!?

Anyone who has a problem with them either a) lacks confidence or b) needs practice.  (A good knowledge of your audience and how to play on their expectations, and voilà!)  It's not so hard; anyone can do it.  (And the extra effort needed to create the 'visual presentation' database is of a completely different magnitude as the payoff, IMNSHO.)

Fang Langford

p. s. For your information, I loved playing Final Fantasy IX 'for the kids' as much as any game I've run (and I don't have a problem with words).  We read the dialogue to them with real panache and 'camped it up' a whole bunch; it was a blast.  We're eagerly awaiting XI.  (Can't seen to like the even numbered ones, don't know why.)

[contracycle]

What (the hell) is wrong with words?!?

I've told you - the transmission rate is too low.

If there is nothing wrong with words, why did TV replace radio as the dominant mass medium?  Why is advertising so strongly image based?

Anyone who has a problem with them either a) lacks confidence or b) needs practice.  

Thank you for patronizing.

This is missing the point anyway. I don't really care what senses are replaced by the technological innovations, it is whether you are the one providing the stimuli. If your gaming is such a 'one way street' (out of your head, images only go playerward), then I can't help you; you missing a good three-quarters of the fun.

No, I am most certainly not missing three quarters of the fun.  And lets not get carried away wioth the one-way street thing either; my play is not a lecture delivered straight to the players, nor am I passive and pliant as a player.  All you are describing is a preference for co-creation, which you will find I have consistently described as not being to my taste, for good or ill.  I don't particularly whether that suits you or not, my Explorative desires demand that the world be a) apparently objective and b) complex.  This means that the volume of data is large - has to be so.  

Now how long do you think it will take to describe all the details your example suggest are necessary? Okay, the gamemaster gets to cheat, preparing much in advance, but what about the players? For example, I'd say that spellcasting, like throwing an illusion, is going to be just about as labor intensive (or else the gamemaster will misunderstand just as badly).

you know, I have already addressed this - and as I said, it will depend on how smart the tools are, becuase of exactly this limit - which is nothing more than the comms-rate limit restated.  But I have every confidence that not only will we have tools that smart, but smarter.  Maybe not yet, but we will.

A good description does exactly the above. Specific words (the "proprietary...tags"), held in common, yield subtly modified imagery in the imaginations of the players. Those same imaginations are exactly what "knows enough about plausibility to 'fill in the rest;'" best of all they're free.

and

Let's improve on that, let's allow the 'end of the system' the players are connected to subtly influence how it is presented to them, much like browser controls on the world wide web

And for the n'th time, I regard that as a Bad Thing.

I'm saying I just don't get how going all 'techy' is going to solve the problem without making a huge number of complications or concessions. If the 'tiny details' like stairs and such are not being conveyed, resorting to computer imagery won't improve on that much, you're just as likely to forget to create an image as to say part of the description (more so, I'm afraid).

I thought MJ gacve an excellent description of the problem.  No, I am not likely to "forget" the stairs when creating an image, becuase that is when I will be free to concentrate on the creation.  I am much more likely to do so in the heat of the moment.  This also obviates the player forgetting, which I cannot control.

That's why I say 'bunk' to all this techy talk. I like dreaming about gadgets as much as the next guy, but when it comes to gaming, I'm like a neo-Luddite; I don't think it's necessary or useful. Furthermore, I make the case that, if we did conjure up all this technological role-playing aids, we'd find ourselves creating yet another form of expression. One that ultimately wouldn't be role-playing games anyway.

Really?  You've been driven to desperate destitution by ruthless capitalists and feel the need to destroy the means of production which have themselves destroyed your livelihood?

It may well be a different form of expression - bring it on, say I.

I've said repeatedly that I don' wan't to cut off existing channels of body language and voice, and it is for that reason I do not use NWN.  That does not mean that there is no role for technology to play.  I regard such a claim as franky shortsighted.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

Fang, Gareth, it's pretty clear where each of your sets of social and aesthetic concerns are coming from. Both of you have stated the respective personal case in full.

So, can I ask that you do the "H'm, you do it differently" dance and be happy?

Best,
Ron

[Le Joueur]

What (the hell) is wrong with words?!?

I've told you - the transmission rate is too low.

And exactly what makes you think that the data-entry/display cycle of the proposed 'visual presentation' system would be anywhere near as fast as simply saying it?

If there is nothing wrong with words, why did TV replace radio as the dominant mass medium?  Why is advertising so strongly image based?

Sorry, you've lost me; words are the most dominant form of communication and advertising is idea-based.  Television is how both are presented (especially with words all over it), hence the pictures.  Notice they don't actually show sex in advertising, they present the idea of it with words and pictures.  Radio does it with words and music; the medium does not vary the fact that they're presenting ideas.  So you're there with yer 'mates...

What's wrong with words?

They're faster, more common, need less exposition, derive more from context than most images can, and quite frankly are easier than creating actual imagery.

This is missing the point anyway. I don't really care what senses are replaced by the technological innovations, it is whether you are the one providing the stimuli. If your gaming is such a 'one way street' (out of your head, images only go playerward), then I can't help you; you missing a good three-quarters of the fun.

No, I am most certainly not missing three quarters of the fun.  And lets not get carried away with the one-way street thing either;

Hey, make an ad hoc argument, face an ad hoc argument.

...My Explorative desires demand that the world be a) apparently objective and b) complex.  This means that the volume of data is large – [it] has to be so.

And you repeated dodge my point that such a large volume of data becomes several factors more work to present as technological images than as words.  If you must craft every step on the stairs, light them, and set the angle, how is that easier than saying 'there are stairs outside?'  (You've got no argument from me that it is more descriptive than what you do now, but there's no way you can convince me that it could be done more easily than words.)

Now how long do you think it will take to describe all the details your example suggest are necessary? Okay, the gamemaster gets to cheat, preparing much in advance, but what about the players? For example, I'd say that spellcasting, like throwing an illusion, is going to be just about as labor intensive (or else the gamemaster will misunderstand just as badly).

You know, I have already addressed this - and as I said, it will depend on how smart the tools are, because of exactly this limit - which is nothing more than the comms-rate limit restated.  But I have every confidence that not only will we have tools that smart, but smarter.  Maybe not yet, but we will.

I'm not going to debate it here, but simply put, short of telepathy, language will always be more efficient.  Defending this pipedream is creating a straw man with passive aggressive techniques.  I'll not argue it.

Let me put it another way, why don't you practice your verbal communication skills while we wait for the impossible?  Isn't your complaint mostly about your own failings and not those of language?

...yield subtly modified imagery in the imaginations of the players

...subtly influence how it is presented to them

And for the n'th time, I regard that as a Bad Thing.

So, let me get this straight, you don't want player participation, input, or sharing in your vision?

Yet you proclaim that it isn't a one-way street.

Okay, I'm confused...

And you know what?  I don't care.  Yours is such a minority opinion, I'd be hard pressed to find another with it.

I'm saying I just don't get how going all 'techy' is going to solve the problem without making a huge number of complications or concessions. If the 'tiny details' like stairs and such are not being conveyed, resorting to computer imagery won't improve on that much, you're just as likely to forget to create an image as to say part of the description (more so, I'm afraid).

I thought MJ gave an excellent description of the problem.  No, I am not likely to "forget" the stairs when creating an image, because that is when I will be free to concentrate on the creation.  I am much more likely to do so in the heat of the moment.  This also obviates the player forgetting, which I cannot control.

I don't seem to be able to communicate this to you.  Unless you plan on using a linear story or railroading, the problem of detailing an entire world (remember the players can go anywhere) factor the amount of preliminary work to an unbelievable degree.

It's like this, either you detail out the whole entire world to the complete satisfaction of what you worry about forgetting, even though the players will never get to more than a fraction of it, or you create some of it on the fly.  I just can't believe that you think it is any less likely that you'd forget stuff doing either of these than what you are doing now.  I say it is more likely since, short of telepathy, these systems would be more work than talking.

It may well be a different form of expression - bring it on, say I.

I've said repeatedly that I don' want to cut off existing channels of body language and voice, and it is for that reason I do not use NWN.  That does not mean that there is no role for technology to play.  I regard such a claim as frankly shortsighted.

Oh please.  Again with the false dichotomy?  What kind of straw man are you building here?  (Either I must advocate the telepathic 'visual presentation' suite or eschew the electric light?)  To put my point into these terms, wouldn't the effort to perfect your verbal skills have far more payoff per the amount of work than ignoring them for the sake of technological inclusiveness?

I'm saying that if you can't understand the difficulties that make verbal presentation a problem, using any other kind of media will ultimately provide a similar problem.  If you can't understand how to convey ideas to your players (by not understanding the players perceptions), it won't matter what technology you use.

I don't care what media or combination you choose, thinking that 'different than what you have now' is better without having 'to work for it' is naïve.  Choose whatever combination you like (technological or otherwise), these same problems will dog every step.  Until you address your problems dealing with communicating ideas (not words, picture, sounds, or graphics) because of the differences between 'how you see things' and 'how they see things' you won't make any progress.  Why not use the most available medium to practice communicating ideas, words?

So again, what is wrong with words (first)?

Fang Langford

[Le Joueur]

Whoops, cross-posted.

[Ron Edwards]

See, that's exactly what I didn't want to happen.

For anyone who's interested, the above exchange between Fang and Gareth is now being moderated.

You play differently with different social aesthetic priorities. Neither of you has "what role-playing is" in your pocket. Both of you have explained your positions.

I can see no further benefit to dialogue, as you're now engaged in picking apart one another's posts, and I smell the stink of ego.

The thread is now closed. If anyone wants to follow up on its contents, please start a new thread.

Best,
Ron