Aesthetics and Reality

[jdagna]

I don't know. I've got this feeling that this notion of "fictional narrative coloring your play" can be stretched so far that there's no way around it; at the same time, I think that taken as stated, it is not unavoidable.

I'd agree that the concept of fictional narrative coloring play can be stretched ridiculously far.  In fact, don't fictional narratives color our views of reality to begin with?  If so, then even an attempt to simulate reality would be influenced by the fictional narratives that color our understanding of reality.

What comes to my mind is journalism.  Think of the difference between these headlines:
"Drug addict kills three"
"Gun owner kills three"
"Church-goer kills three"
All three can be equally true at the same time; but each will tell a different story using the same facts.  Furthermore, all three could be considered "unbiased" reporting.  

Isn't this why books are divided into fiction and non-fiction (instead of fact and non-fact or something else)?  Non-fiction isn't necessarily true, it just purports to be.

With such blur between fiction and reality in real life, I think it's fair to say that systems like GURPS (Basic) strive to establish a simulation of reality as opposed to a simulation of genre.  Are there particular biases?  Of course.  Is the GURPS reality the same as the Palladium reality, or your personal one? Of course not - just like your reporting of a factual event isn't identical to anyone else's.

I would actually include a large number of games into the reality simulation (or non-genre) group, depending on which term you prefer.  We might disagree over individual titles or elements within the title, but I think recognizing a non-genre book shouldn't be any harder than identifying a book as mystery, epic fantasy, space opera or horror.  And yes, we'll even disagree over what exactly constitutes each genre but I don't think that disagreement invalidates the usefulness of genres to classify works of art.

In the end, both aesthetics and reality are going to be found to some extent in everything.  If our definitions of fiction and non-fiction can distinguish when reality or aesthetics has taken the lead, I don't think we should have any trouble determining when genre or reality has taken the lead in an RPG.  And, as has been pointed out, sometimes the advertising on a book's cover doesn't accurately portray which element is really leading.

[Jason Lee]

A. To what extent does this specific sort of incoherence overlap with GNS incoherence, if at all?

From where I'm standing it directly overlaps, as in that's what we're actually talking about.  The tradeoffs between Sim and Nar, while leaving Gam priorities out of the discussion.  Sure, not in a refined sense...but I think I'm getting a view into the past of GNS in this discussion (which is fascinating for someone like me who doesn't exactly agree with the theory - I think I'm beginning to see its necessity).

On another topic:  MJ and jdagna, I agree.  Thank you for presenting the agruement better.

[Le Joueur]

Okay guys,

Unless you missed the point, I'm talking strictly about my opinion.  There is no expectation of truth or fact to what I'm saying.  I'm talking strictly about my interpretation of what I've seen/see.  To that end I only need to clarify what I've said where it has been misrepresented or misunderstood.  There's no reason anyone needs to agree with my interpretation of things.  It isn't especially important that anyone understands, however I feel it necessary that it is stated clearly.  This apparently isn't so.

I don't know. I've got this feeling that this notion of "fictional narrative coloring your play" can be stretched so far that there's no way around it; at the same time, I think that taken as stated, it is not unavoidable.

I started play with OAD&D. Now, in OAD&D there's a long list of fiction that was considered inspirational source materials. At the time I hadn't even heard of 90% of the stuff; even now, I'm sure I haven't read quite a lot of what's listed there. I came to OAD&D in some sense looking for a Tolkienesque experience within a game. Did I find it? Well, yes and no. Did the books influence the way we played?...I'd read quite a bit of fantasy that was not so cited).

The mistake here is I'm not saying specific 'source material including movies, television, books, and other fictional narrative,' just such in general.  Since your play of Original Dungeons & Dragons was influenced by some 'fantasy that you'd read,' you brought those expectations to the table.

I'm saying, in my opinion you wouldn't find Original Dungeons & Dragons interesting without this influence.  Furthermore, I'm saying that such 'influence' is never absent in role-playing games.

...You could argue that I'm allowing the "fictional narrative" of modern realism to "color my play...."  ...I don't buy it.

That I am.  You're not expected to "buy it" because it's just my opinion.

I certainly agree that a game that is trying to give form to a known narrative source ought to emphasize those mechanics which will realize that source material over those that will create "realistic" results.

...It's quite another [thing] to insist that all games are trying to recreate some fictional narrative source material...[and] is patent arrant nonsense.  ...If it intends to mean that all games are about something that is represented in other narrative sources which they are committed to emulate, it's already demonstrably false (the summary dismissal of GURPS notwithstanding, it is only the clearest example of this).

The only mischaracterization here is that I'm supposedly saying that all games are "committed to emulate" something necessarily fictional.  I never said they were committed to doing anything.  I said I felt that being "about something that is represented in other narrative sources" is unavoidable.  I most definitely am not saying that every game is 'trying to be about something.'  I'm saying that they can't help but 'be about something.'

Given that, I wondered what it would be like if the designers consciously 'took advantage' of what their games resembled rather than trying to use some 'work to make the game experience plausible enough to be accessible to many people by familiarity with what they know in real life,' to do less work.

Just the wild speculation based upon the opinion attempted to be expressed.  Not the point.

I'm sorry, Fang:  All Generalities are False.

And I've always taken that to mean they can be generally true, but should not be expected to apply to all cases.  (Except you're just being funny, as in "All extremists should be shot" is an extremist statement.) Furthermore, this does not mean that everything stated as a generality is false in all cases.  (Simply because I say "All men are essentially good" and that's false does not mean that "No men are essentially good.")

There are games committed to attempting to emulate reality, in which narrative fictional sources are irrelevant.

Not in my opinion.  Likewise, simply lacking a specific or singular source does not alleviate that idea that a game with fantasy elements (for example) is '[working] to provide an experience reminscent to some "source material including movies, television, books, and other fictional narrative"' that is fantasy.  To me, this is inescapable.  Besides, it's just the old truism that 'nothing is without being influenced.'

Why is it so important to prove my opinion wrong?  What happened to 'agreeing to disagree?'  If I say that everything ever written is influenced by something else, of course it is meaningless, because it goes without saying.  If I take that notion down to role-playing games, it is no less meaningless.  If I take it and say, garsh wouldn't it be neat if writers saved themselves a lot of work by taking advantage of this 'meaningless' truism instead of attempting 'completism,' why is it drawing so much impassioned response?

It's just an opinion.  For the sake of civility, if you don't agree, please drop it.  I am sorry I ever put it up in the first place.  If it is something you don't agree with, instead of picking it apart, trying to disprove it, accept that you don't agree with it and let's talk about something we don't all have opinions on.  Constantly mischaracterizing my opinion such that it needs to be reclarified (just so we can drop it), wastes time.

Fang Langford

p. s. This is as bad as the time I said I thought that all gaming attempted to be more aesthetic than reality.

[Jason Lee]

Fang,

A funny little thought has just crept into my head.  Your opinion seems very similar (note:  I'm not saying identical, you can figure that out) to the big horseshoe theory of GNS - that Sim cannot be an exclusive priority, that it's just a dial that is adjusted on the Sim spectrum with Nar on one endpoint and Gam on the other.  Maybe someone who knows more about this theory can expand on the idea.  Maybe there is something you can work with in this theory.

[Le Joueur]

First of all, this isn't a theory; it's an opinion.  Theories are potential facts.  Opinions are mislead observations.

A funny little thought has just crept into my head.  Your opinion seems very similar (note:  I'm not saying identical, you can figure that out) to the big horseshoe theory of GNS - that Sim cannot be an exclusive priority, that it's just a dial that is adjusted on the Sim spectrum with Nar on one endpoint and Gam on the other.  Maybe someone who knows more about this theory can expand on the idea.  Maybe there is something you can work with in this theory.

If memory serves, the Beeg Horseshoe theory fell apart because it confused Simulationism with Explorationism in general.  Furthermore, I was under the impression that no GNS stance is considered to be exclusive (no game, nor "instance of play," is 100% any mode).

Beyond that, my opinion is not GNS dependant no matter how much you want to confuse the 'work to provide an experience reminscent to some "source material including movies, television, books, and other fictional narrative"' with following Narrativism.  My opinion is just as relevant when talking about a Gamist game.  I think that a Gamist game that doesn't 'work to provide an experience reminscent to some "source material including movies, television, books, and other fictional narrative"' at all would be drab indeed.

But I only bring this up because I don't want my opinion confused with being a theory or a GNS priority.

Fang Langford

[Jack Spencer Jr]

GURPS Basic. I did. Modern day. No set genre that the players were aware of. No special powers. We switched to GURPS because we felt the firearms were more realistic than what we were playing (Hero).

One of the reasons I especially like generic systems is because one can use them to set genre-expectations on their heads. That's a major strength. And when you've contra-genreed then you need some base-line reality to fall back on.

Hey, Marco.

I don't see how any of this counters what I said. Part of the problem is that we are dealing with very slippery terms like "realism" and "genre." I did note that the realism of GURPS firearms was one person's opinion (albeit one I recall hearing elsewhere) and comparative realism does not necessarily mean one is indeed more realistic, just less unrealistic than the other.

We would have to examine the game you mention to determine if there is a genre it would fit in, but I think that would be a fruitless pursuit because genre is, as I had said, slippery. Besides, why bother when you had pretty much backed up my point:

"One of the reasons I especially like generic systems is because one can use them to set genre-expectations on their heads."

That's what I said. GURPS is meant to be used in conjunction with some kind of genre expectation either from a world book or developed by the players themselves. Whether the expectations they arrive at fit into any established genre is irrelavant. What matters is they have them, most likely they came from somewhere. Possibly several sources.

Thanks for helpiong me clairify my point. :)

[Sylus Thane]

Hey Fang,

I completely and wholeheartedly concur with your opinion.

That's all I have to say about that.

Sylus

[M. J. Young]

...it's just my opinion....

Why is it so important to prove my opinion wrong? What happened to 'agreeing to disagree?'

(Emphases in original.)

Somehow, Mr. Langford seems to be suggesting that if he states something is his opinion, no one should argue the point. I must not be understanding his use of those words.

If by saying "It's just my opinion" he means that it is not true and can't be defended, but is just some fantasy he has about the nature of reality that he likes to entertain and thought we might enjoy or perhaps indeed gain some benefit from, what does he expect from us? Does he expect the sort of paternalistic praise given to children who draw simple crayon pictures to receive the encouraging words that they have created great works of art? Does he want us to say that what he thinks is very nice, leave it posted, and then ignore it?

Most people who say "It's my opinion" mean something more on the order of "I believe this is true;" if they qualify it as "It's just my opinion" it is possible that they mean "I believe this is true, but really have no evidence to support it and can't defend it at all."

Now, in the former case, when someone says "I believe this to be true," we naturally expect to be able to challenge and question the statements, to attempt to draw out from them what they really mean and clarify our own positions (particularly if contrary) in an effort to reach some better understanding of reality. Perhaps in the end we would agree to disagree; but until we've established what the alternative positions are, we can't really even do as much as that. The most we can do is agree that we don't care what anyone else thinks--and that's not true, at least on my part.

In the latter case, I suppose we have to come to grips with why someone would bother to tell us that they believe something to be true for which they have absolutely no evidence or support. I can think of two possibilities for that, as well.

The first is that they by raising the issue are hoping that people will present them with the evidence both for and against their position, so that they can come to a better understanding of whether what they believe is viable and credible, and what its weaknesses might be.

The second is that they are announcing to the world that they are opinionated fools who don't care what the truth of the matter might be but have made up their minds and don't wish to be confused by the facts.

Since I refuse to believe that the generally articulate and intelligent Mr. Langford is in this last category, I am genuinely mystified as to why he has objected so vehemently to my single post on this thread, and several times emphasized that his entire position was, if I can so characterize it from the various phrases he used, "nothing more than an opinion".

I am quite comfortable with the idea that Mr. Langford believes all narrative is dependent in some form on prior narrative, and that he thinks it will always make for a better game to turn to the narrative rather than reality in designing game systems. I think he's mistaken, and that in making this mistake he is limiting himself in the possibilities--particularly for the design of a game with as much promise as Scattershot.

I also think that in the examples I gave, the influence of prior narrative was minimal. When I said that I had read other fantasy, I specifically did so in the context of stating that I did not feel the D&D games we played in any way modeled the fantasy I had read. For what it's worth, I believe that our key players were not fans of fantasy literature or films, and had never read even Tolkien nor seen such fantasy films as were available at that time--they were science fiction fans with a penchant for Atari games and other games who found in D&D an interesting exercise in game tactics and story creation.

I maintain that if stating that play was influenced by the existing corpus of fantasy narrative means no more than that we were aware that such a corpus existed which had similarities to what we were doing, it is meaningless. It's like saying that the fact I have visited Atlantic City a couple of times affects the way I play Monopoly, or my studies in World History in eighth grade have had a significant influence on how I play Risk.

I certainly agree that if you are attempting to emulate or draw from the narrative corpus of a particular genre, it is good to use rules that emphasize such tropes over those that emphasize reality; I also suggest that to the degree you are attempting to capture the feeling that this is "real" (whatever you take that to mean), it can be useful to use mechanics that attempt in some weak way to model reality.

I also find it offensive that you would imply that when you state that something is your opinion, that means no one should disagree with it. It is generally recognized that we who write are stating our own opinions. Saying so does not alter the fact that we have put our ideas forward for scrutiny, comment, and objection. Defend or accede or acquiesce or ignore, but don't get defensive.

--M. J. Young

[Le Joueur]

M. J.,

With all due respect, I'm surprised by this type of challenge coming from you.  Throughout both this thread and its predecessor, I've been confounded by an inability to communicate.  Last time I resorted to draconian methods to end it.  This time it isn't my thread and I wasn't terribly comfortable entering it, but felt that as much as I was being cited, I couldn't 'leave it be.'  In trying to graciously withdraw I seem to have insulted you; this was not my intent.

Most people who say "It's my opinion" mean something more on the order of "I believe this is true;" if they qualify it as "It's just my opinion" it is possible that they mean "I believe this is true, but really have no evidence to support it and can't defend it at all."

Not that there is no evidence, but that I'm incapable of communicating it.  Either it is considered meaningless and dismissed or it is regarded on the plateau of extremes and unrealistic.

Now, in the former case, when someone says "I believe this to be true," we naturally expect to be able to challenge and question the statements....

Sadly, of late questions are very few and challenges seem inconsiderate.  Even your post is scant on questions.  Do I serve anyone's interests constantly responding to challenges not to the idea but to the generalizations?

In the latter case, I suppose we have to come to grips with why someone would bother to tell us that they believe something to be true for which they have absolutely no evidence or support.

I thought I could explain it...that it might have been useful.  I see that even if I did manage, it'd be regarded as no more interesting than 'design deliberately.'

The second is that they are announcing to the world that they are opinionated fools who don't care what the truth of the matter might be but have made up their minds and don't wish to be confused by the facts.

That's me, the madman.  Very clever, Mr. Bond.

I am quite comfortable with the idea that Mr. Langford believes all narrative is dependent in some form on prior narrative,

That half is right...

...That he thinks it will always make for a better game to turn to the narrative rather than reality in designing game systems.

And that mischaracterizes it as an extremism.

I can't seem to communicate the difference between 'plain design' and design with the perspective of some knowledge of 'pleasing design schemes.'  Or whatever my point is.

I also think that in the examples I gave, the influence of prior narrative was minimal.

...But never absent.

I maintain that...it is meaningless.

And I disagree; can we agree on that?

I also find it offensive that you would imply that when you state that something is your opinion, that means no one should disagree with it.

That is not my intent, but that no one should bother to agree with it, nor attempt to understand it.

I have been trying to hold out the olive branch of "agreeing to disagree."  My purpose is to shift the focus off my single opinion so that it may return to the original topic of this thread.  I brought this opinion up mostly because of the "If Fang will let it" comment.

We are at an impasse because a breakdown in terminology.  "Genre" and "realism" are both being used in many different ways.  I've tried to be very clear about 'what I mean' about these issues.  If I cannot make a point about subtleties due to persistent misuse of terminology, I can 'give up' and state that my opinion is meaningless because we have no common language.  What do I say to close an argument (we're past discussion here) I have neither the time nor inclination to salve?

"Please ignore the opinion of a person whose perspective you aren't willing to take the time to understand."  Rather than pick apart the presentation of a subtle idea that bothers you, either admit you don't understand or simply agree to disagree (as I said).

I apologize that I am incapable of explaining this concept.  I offer the agreement to disagree because none of the responses thus far have even touched upon the 'theatre of the subtle concept,' but instead mire in the overt issues.

What can I say that we may give up on me making my point clear?  No one seems to care to ask questions in order to comprehend it.  Even limiting myself to responding to gross misrepresentations of my words is turning this into a back-and-forth 'nothing new created' thread.  In the absence of constructive or advancing dialogue, I seek to end it offering my opinion as unbelievable.

Should we go on?  Howso?

Fang Langford

[clehrich]

Well, I'm not the moderator round these parts, folks, but I think that unless someone wants to take up these questions in terms of a model (GNS or otherwise), as I proposed a bit earlier, this thread has pretty much run itself into the ground.  If I have any weight, having restarted the thread on my own recognizance, I say this:

Either add something new to the discourse, preferably by responding to the proposed model, or let it lie.

Ron, I'd ask that we wait and see if anyone wants to take it up; if not, feel free to exercise a kill.  I'm about ready to wash my hands of this, and Fang has made it very clear that he is too.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

Chris is acting entirely on his rights as the initiator of the thread. You read his post, people - what he said there, goes.

Best,
Ron

[Emily Care]

I seem to have stirred a wasps' nest.

buzzz-buzzz

A. To what extent does this specific sort of incoherence overlap with GNS incoherence, if at all?

B. I recommend that we refer to Baseline (or something of the kind) instead of reality; retaining "reality" as a term seems to spark all sorts of difficulties incidental to the actual point at stake.

C. I recommend that we scrap "genre," "source," and everything of the sort.  Again, they spark all sorts of problems.²  How about Vision?

D. I think we need to come up with some classification for the different types of intersections that get rendered in mechanics.  There's physics and so forth, of course, but there are also what might very loosely be called narrative concerns.  I don't think we want "narrative," owing to overlap with GNS, and "story" seems a disaster waiting to happen.  Furthermore, I don't think that material reality plus (loosely) narrative elements cover the complete range.

Thus:  as Baseline intersects with Vision, mechanics are formulated to represent that intersection.  These mechanics will render, in more or less detail, a range of factors (materiality, fiction/story/plot/narrative elements, etc.).

E. The diagnostic issues are, then:

(1) Is prioritization of factors appropriate to the Vision?
(2) Is the balance of emphasis in mechanical rendering appropriate and adequate to the range of intersection?  That is, does it stress one or the other side of Baseline/Vision?
(3) Does the totality of the game's material support these mechanics, such that it is clear how the various pieces work together?[/list:u]

Great round up, Chris.  I liked your initial post, too.  Pulling order out of the chaos, and makin it clear. Now about the question:

D. I think we need to come up with some classification for the different types of intersections that get rendered in mechanics.

Baseline and Vision are excellent terms.  They are (as I see it) non-controversial, and get at the relative nature of the concepts.  Also may make it easier to remember that what's going on is communication of a shared vision, rather than interaction with some static "thing" out there that one is bringing into being in the game play. (I'm thinking of how one can get hung up on the details of how a system varies from the source material--I like the word Referent, but I was a semiotics geek back in the day. )

Let's see: where do Baseline and Vision intersect? How can mechanics help the crossover be smooth? Baseline is what everyone can assume is true.  (I see it as choosing a horizon if one is in null-g, a useful, though arbitrary choice that allows everyone to share a perspective).  Vision is the artistic creation that one/some people wish to share with the whole group. Hopefully creating a new Baseline--(Hey, that's got another meaing too--back to Ron's band metaphor.)--on which to riff.  

So areas that Vision butts up against Baseline:  stuff we've talked about like character death (or lack thereof), magic, superheroic feats etc.  How/why that happens needs to be shared so that when it happens in game folks can assimilate it into their world view.

How do I say the next thing without saying "g*nr* conventions"?  This is seperate from narrative concerns, though that would be one too.  What makes up a Vision? Setting, situation, goals, descriptions?

Thanks for bringing the discussion back to a constructive vein.

Regards,
Emily Care

[M. J. Young]

To Fang: Please accept this as my apology.

I certainly understand what it's like to explain something repeatedly in the face of others who don't seem to understand what seems clear to me. In fact, just this past week I was doing that on the participationist/trailblazing thread, and at the same time by e-mail with someone talking to me about the wormhole theory of time travel. Whether it is something you are unable to express clearly enough (I've had many of those ideas over the years) or some subtlety I'm just not grasping, I did raise the tension level some with my first post, perhaps, and that was not necessary.

I still don't get it, but hope that as Scattershot develops this idea of relying on the fictional narrative rather than emulating reality will show itself through the design. I look forward to it.

Look at the bright side: obviously you know that it's going to take some work to communicate the new ideas to some of us old guys, so you know where you're going to have to do the work.

--M. J. Young

[clehrich]

Emily,

Many thanks for your responses.  Let's see...

Baseline and Vision are excellent terms.  They are (as I see it) non-controversial, and get at the relative nature of the concepts.  Also may make it easier to remember that what's going on is communication of a shared vision, rather than interaction with some static "thing" out there that one is bringing into being in the game play. (I'm thinking of how one can get hung up on the details of how a system varies from the source material--I like the word Referent, but I was a semiotics geek back in the day. )

It's funny, I originally thought of Referent as well, but decided (1) not everybody is a semiotics geek like you and me, and (2) I think Baseline is also a referent; furthermore I think probably both are better understood as signifieds and not referents, but now we're down to a conversation of about three.

Let's see: where do Baseline and Vision intersect? How can mechanics help the crossover be smooth? Baseline is what everyone can assume is true.  (I see it as choosing a horizon if one is in null-g, a useful, though arbitrary choice that allows everyone to share a perspective).  Vision is the artistic creation that one/some people wish to share with the whole group. Hopefully creating a new Baseline--(Hey, that's got another meaing too--back to Ron's band metaphor.)--on which to riff.  

Interesting.  That's not how I meant it, but I want to think for a minute about which version is more helpful.

What I meant was that every game lives in between Baseline and Vision, necessarily, and that therefore it's an entirely aesthetic question as to whether the balance is appropriately maintained.  The difficulty is then how to think about what goes wrong when it does go wrong, because it's not terribly schematic.

Your version suggests a perpetual pull against Baseline and toward Vision.  The advantage here is that Vision is prioritized, which may seem a smoother use of the word; the difficulty is that it seems to obviate the need for Baseline at all.  Am I misunderstanding?

I'm currently thinking that the version I put forth evades the whole Genre thing because you're never in it; that is, insofar as genre arises, it's as something exterior to actual play (Vision), and it's a question of ideal-types rather than actualities.  By your formulation, I think the tendency is to think that we can actually play Star Wars, which simply means that everyone's going to think "genre" and write "vision."

How do I say the next thing without saying "g*nr* conventions"?  This is seperate from narrative concerns, though that would be one too.  What makes up a Vision? Setting, situation, goals, descriptions?

Yes, that's the $64,000 question, isn't it?  I'm not really sure, at the moment.  Seems to me that if I ever have any time to think intelligently on this forum again, the thing to do would be to analyze some game with a clear and well-known Vision, considering actual play examples, and see whether we can come up with some kind of schematization.

You know, the more I think about this, the less it seems to me to have to do with GNS issues at all.  Ron, am I right about this, do you think?  Seems to me we're talking about "that which is Explored"; since GNS is (very broadly)about how one goes about Exploring, I don't see much overlap.  If I've got that straight, is there a general term for this problem in the Big Model?

Thanks for bringing the discussion back to a constructive vein.

Bless you, Emily, for (1) saying that, and (2) responding constructively.  Let's see what happens now....

[Emily Care]

It's funny, I originally thought of Referent as well, but decided (1) not everybody is a semiotics geek like you and me, and (2) I think Baseline is also a referent; furthermore I think probably both are better understood as signifieds and not referents, but now we're down to a conversation of about three.

Yay! Semiotics geeks! Huzzah!  What would Piaget do?

I see this has been taken up on a different forum.  Let's see what happens indeed...

--EC

:)