Elegance and Deliberateness

[Ron Edwards]

Enjoy the thread, gentlemen. If the perceived value is there, and it seems to be, then I won't interfere further. The priority is peace. If you don't want to cite me, nothing says you have to.

However. I've bled quite a lot so that the Forge can exist. All of the concerns raised here in this thread, which permit the current topic to be discussed, at all, come from that effort, and System Does Matter is the heart of it. "Design" does matter, yes. You can say it here, now, because I fought for it. Yeah, I'd like some credit.

Best,
Ron

[Harlequin]

(Thanks, Ron.)

I think there's something pretty powerful, in trying to haul things back over to the search for elegance.  As I distinguish it; I think we all have some idea of how to achieve coherence, and as Fang says, we're trying to go one better.

Something is hinting itself at me, in a combination of:

I mean it seems odd to me that we're trying to discover a scientific way to produce an aesthetic.

and

If content and form are perfectly balanced, you have beauty (elegance), something undesirable in the aliens, but very desirable in lots of other art-objects.

Chris is talking about examples from aesthetic theory, which is exactly what we're struggling back towards, as it applies to game design.  And while I, too, would like some indicators from Chris - any signal books on it you can think of? - for those of us who haven't studied the general theory, I'll bet you three apples that we'll find that the peculiar nature of the RPG artform means we have to break that mold in a few places anyway.  Mike is summing things up with his "kill the engineer" comment - that theory is only going to get us so far.

But that brings us back to techniques, which are what theory talks about, but actual design really does.  We have a few on the table, but some of them - like my "filters" thought - may just be us folks talking through our hats, and may turn out to be worthless in practice.  So I think we do need to come back to the question of elegance - as distinct from coherence - and take a few more whacks at technique.

Even if we can't define it, I think that all of us here have a functional, personal definition of 'elegance' which will serve for now.  We can come back to definitions if the lack thereof turns out to be pernicious, but I'm not sure it will be.  Not all games may want to attain elegance; much of what's on the market certainly doesn't seem to value that as a goal.  But at least locally to this thread, we acknowledge it as desirable.  Nobilis, for me, remains top of the heap for the quality of elegance, and we want to find ways to compete for that spot. :)

We've established that holistic coherence is one tool we can use to work on attaining elegance.  We have examples of coherent, inelegant design, but none so far of incoherent, yet elegant, design.  That's a clue.

Chris' post suggests that elegance may best be achieved through a balance between message and form, and that's something we have not explored.  He also suggests that it may be achieved through making the form (the window) refract the message clearly, which is part coherence and part something we haven't covered... incoherence can obscure the message, but perfect coherence may not be all it takes to refract it ideally.  The distinction is probably where artistry takes over, but there may still be meat on that bone nonetheless.

I like the thought of balance.  The idea that when someone comes to your game, they get an even mix of the overt content and the symbology, themes, and other arty parts.  What's "even?"  Well, obviously it depends on the artist... and on the reader.  But I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that we may find that the rule is this:  Design in such a way that the most dense reader doesn't miss your message, and the most sensitive reader doesn't miss the content.  That might be a very good "filter" to pass over a partly-finished work, and keeping a sense of that balance in mind might be what it takes to work toward it through the process, too.  (I think Mike's example of writing it to a five-page summary may be a specific instance of the application of this.  I'm not sure.)

Dunno... does that spark any inspirations for anyone?

- Eric

[Mike Holmes]

Uh, Fang, I didn't "miss it". I agree with Ron on this one. You seem very much to me to just be piling up language on what's already known. I said that before, and you seemed to agree then. Now Ron put's in the context of his theories, and suddenly he's "dictating"?

It seems to me that this is just another case of you adopting a viewpoint, and calling it yours as if original. And then Ron has to show that x=x? How about you show us how your theory is actually Y? How is this not all about making a game that's focused on it's priorities? How is that not System Matters? Maybe we just misunderstand you. That's fine. Make us understand.

The idea that this is all an aesthetic is exactly the point that Ron has been talking up for the last, I dunno, six months?

Eric, I'd actually agree that it's worth looking for what Fang calls Tools. Yes, there are ways to do this stuff better. GNS is one, for example. Now there may be other ones, but that's what the general theory here is about.

It's like Fang has said, "we need better ways to design games." To which the only answer can be, "well, sure." But asking for better or newer tools, without even an idea of where we're going is like looking for a needle in a haystack. The point is, it's not original to say that there are probably better ways to do things. Originality is actually finding those ways.

And dudes, if I had a better theory I'd be here crowing it to the high heavens. There seems to be an implication on Fang's part that we've got some secret to how to design a game. Well, I sure don't. You just do it.

As Ron said, you can continue to discuss this if it seems to be doing something for ya. But I haven't seen anything so far that's done anything. The closest is your assertion that we look at the parts and how they interrellate. Which is a good idea, I guess, but hardly innovative. I mean how else do you perform analysis? Fang already knows this one, as does any successful designer.

Mike

[C. Edwards]

I mean it seems odd to me that we're trying to discover a scientific way to produce an aesthetic.

(Is it scientific to discuss balance, color pallet, positive and negative space, in painting? I would be a fool to think understanding these terms would give me the tools to be a great painter. They do help me learn what I can from 'the old masters.')

Those things cannot make you a great painter but they can make you a competent one.  That seems to be the problem here. The 'GNS' and the 'System Does Matter' essays talk a great deal about the 'moving parts' of a game design and how and why they matter. It may be implied in those essays but the finer points that go beyond the 'moving parts' is not actually discussed. It's the equivalent of a manual relating to the building of automotive engines, it doesn't give you anything on how to go about hammering out a well defined body that will take the best advantage of that finely tuned engine. It's related to the difference between 'The Pool' and 'The Questing Beast'.

I'm not saying that Ron's essays need to go into anything other than 'how to build a healthy engine'. That is (arguably I suppose) the most important element to be dealt with in game design. But there are those aesthetic issues that take into account the whole composition that include and go beyond the 'moving parts'. That's really all this thread is about, digging around and trying to find some solid, aesthetics based hand holds that can help improve the overall level of game design. Yeah, it may resemble thrashing, and maybe it doesn't need to be done, but all this seeming hostility over the matter is just misplaced.

Please don't read any harsh feelings into this post. I've only made it because I care a great deal about both sides of the issue.

-Chris

[Mike Holmes]

Please don't read any harsh feelings into this post. I've only made it because I care a great deal about both sides of the issue.

-Chris

On the contrary, Chris, that was eloquently said. And I apollogize for the acrimony that I may have projected here. Again, if anyone has a particular direction they'd like to run down, I'm more than happy to participate.

Mike

[Le Joueur]

Hey Mike,

I'm sorry Ron's tone has rubbed off on both of ours, but I would like to take a moment to clarify things.

It seems to me that this is just another case of you adopting a viewpoint, and calling it yours as if original.

I just don't understand what the problem is here.  From above it should be clear that I never thought of the subject being discussed was in any way original.  What I've been doing is explaining a perspective I've never had in language that makes it possible for others in my recent position to understand.

Why does that mean I'm claiming some kind of originality?  How is that 'stealing someone's ideas?'  I honestly never came across these in a form I could digest; if I had recognized them I would have attributed the concepts in a heartbeat.

Is that the problem?  Do people think I'm stealing the ideas of another and calling them mine?  I really had no idea when I started this.  Honestly, (and I'm trying to be earnest here) if someone had gone, "This is the same as '[insert quote].'"  I'd be more than happy to have said, "Hey, you're right, I wonder how I missed that one."

Instead I get a couple of (seemingly harsh) short lines like "I did that" and "How is that not what I did?"  No quotation, no comparison, and all of a sudden I have to prove I'm original?  That makes no sense, especially since I'm not sitting here going "This is so original and it's mine," I'm basically saying, "Wow, look at this; I haven't thought of it this way before."

How is this not all about making a game that's focused on its priorities? How is that not System Matters? Maybe we just misunderstand you. That's fine. Make us understand.

I'm really not sure how to take that Mike; this kind of reduction is pure provocation.  It seems only geared at getting a terse verbal response from me so that you can feel superior because you provoked me or made me defensive.  The same way you could take a new theory in mathematics and say, "How is this not Calculus?" "How is this not algebra?"  But that isn't how mathematic theory works.  When someone comes up with a theory they've never seen before and they earnestly describe it to their peers.  Sometimes time passes before someone goes, "Oh that's just the theory of So-and-so, written differently [here's the reference]."  When that comes up people read both and go, "You're right, it is the theory of So-and-so."

Only that isn't what's happening here.  I've encountered an idea like none I've ever conceived.  This does not mean it isn't out there.  Neither does it mean I haven't read it; I've read a lot of things that I didn't understand.  I presented this idea in the worst possible way, incorrectly using all the wrong terms and got harangued for it.  I deserved it that time and withdrew.  (I allowed myself to be provoked into trying to sum it again and the same ensued.)  I finally discovered a way to elucidate my thinking and presented it.  Several people liked it and added to my understanding.  Not once did I call it "Fang's theory" or in any other way demand proprietary rights to it, because I don't know that it's original.

Suddenly Ron jumps in and states that it is nothing new, he already thought of it, and I should have given credit where it was due.  I admit I allowed his seemingly dismissive tone get the better of me, but I stand by the fact that I don't understand what he's comparing this to.  Now you jump in with "Make us understand."  That's illogical; you're asking me to go to Ron's body of work, redigest it such that I am supposed to find the prologue of what I have presented that I hadn't seen there in the first place, and then prove that it isn't what I've said?  That's entirely dishonest.

I would like to compare these ideas to what has gone before.  But I can't because nobody has cited where they come from.  I don't hold any special attachment or personal trademark to these ideas, nor would I have a problem with attributing them to some greater work, only I can't because I don't know where that is.  Everything I have put into this thread has been entirely for the purpose of helping others understand.  Certainly this grows out of System Does Matter but it is not literally contained within that work (as far as I can tell).  Certainly this is a reiteration of 'focus your game on its goals,' but so far I've never seen this specificity in commentary regarding those issues.

I was under the impression that you did understand, that many people did.  I don't understand why you and Ron are now so possessive of game theory that you demand that I've said nothing of originality or novelty in the face of his work.  Yet neither of you has pointed to what part I'm supposedly retreading.  I would gladly go, "Oh, your right, that is what I was talking about; darn if I missed the first time," if only you or someone else would point it out.

It's like Fang has said, "we need better ways to design games." To which the only answer can be, "well, sure." But asking for better or newer tools, without even an idea of where we're going is like looking for a needle in a haystack. The point is; it's not original to say that there are probably better ways to do things. Originality is actually finding those ways.

Mike, if this is the some of the problem, then I'm sorry.  I'm sorry that I've wasted your time or offended you.  In this thread, I've presented a viewpoint new to me, one that contains elements of design I had never considered before.  I'm sorry if a new way for Fang to look at stuff isn't the needle you were looking for, but it seems to have helped a few others as blind as I.  I'm sorry I didn't sit on this idea until I had a fully formed movement ready to storm the castle of ideas, that I merely said, "Hey, look over there."  If this ground has been covered, please give us the links so we needn't go over the same territory.  I'm sorry if I've invented the screw and not the driver, especially since the implication is that everyone is already using phillips'.  All I can say is "I didn't know."

All I can do is offer to learn these 'old ways,' if you'd be so kind as to point me to them.  If I can make up for taking credit for someone else's work, I'd really like that.  I've looked over these other thoughts and ideas as far as you've presented them and didn't see them.  Perhaps I'm too near-sighted, I'd appreciate a little help understanding rather than this kind of condemnation:

I fail to see anything in this thread, from top to bottom, which has not already been established - and widely employed at the Forge - by the essay, System Does Matter.

And I'm having a very hard time seeing how anything in this thread says anything different.

I'm claiming credit where it's due, as part of the process of citation that we practice here.

And it is condemnation when you add:

You can say it here, now, because I fought for it. Yeah, I'd like some credit.

Does this mean that the new editorial policy is I have to state everything Ron has written is my influence at the top of every thread?  It sounds harsh, but the truth is I am influenced in all matters of game design by the work of Ron Edwards.  I cannot think of higher praise than to add to this body, his body, of work.  I doubt a word he has written (or drop of blood he has spilled) has gone by that hasn't affected what I'm doing.  If I begin a topic I haven't seen referenced before must I precede it with a laundry list of everything Ron has done?  Are we facing a new dogma?

What happened to camaraderie?  The old, "Hey that's like System Does Matter," and "You're right!  It adds this."  Now I get, "I'm claiming credit where it's due..." as though I've just repeated the clearest of Ron's essays word for word.  I really don't get it.

I've created no new ground.  Invented no new aspects.  I only recognized something I hadn't before and thought to bring it to light.  After two threads of nasty snarky remarks, I sought to be upbeat about it.  I've rewritten everything I've posted at least twice (except, unfortunately this post) on this thread to eliminate anything that could be construed as 'shots' at the people I've clashed with over this idea.  I've gone out of my way to sound positive even when criticized.  And that makes it sound like I feel I've revealed some great secret?

At last I can understand some of the outside criticism of how people post on the Forge.  If this isn't pressure to knuckle down to dogma, I can't imagine what is.  If this were a colloquial forum, I'd expect polite reminders that I tread where others have before, not these salvoes of "I fail to see..." and "I'm claiming credit..." and "...because I fought for it."

Fang already knows this one, as does any successful designer.

An interesting salutation.  By no one's measure am I a successful designer.  You, all by yourself, have reviewed my only work as unplayable in this very thread.  It certainly hasn't seen print.  I have never designed a complete game, nor presented such to anyone.  I did not know any of what I have presented in this thread before sometime early last week.  If my epiphanies must measure up to some standard of innovation before I should consider posting them, I can hardly think of anything worth posting.

I can't understand how you can say that it is a good idea and condemn it for being less than innovative in the same sentence.  I just don't understand all these unsubstantiated attacks.

And if that's the way things are around here, let's shut this down right now.  This thread is closed.  I've got better things to do than share a fresh perspective on old ideas with people who I thought might gain just a little from it if it doesn't fit editorial dogma.

Adios

[clehrich]

Chris Edwards hit the nail on the head, for me.  Let me first try to intervene in the confusion about GNS and System Matters.

As Chris points out, these are primarily tools of fundamental competence, sometimes referred to here as "coherence."  Indeed, it has been said on many occasions, by Ron and Fang among others, that GNS isn't really all that helpful if your game is going very well; it's most useful diagnostically, for picking out what does not work, and why.

What Fang is groping for in this thread, and I think Emily and I are groping for in the one on Aesthetics and Reality, is a functional aesthetic for moving beyond competence.

If the game is broken, all the aesthetics in the universe are going to amount to cheap pretensions, sort of art-house beret-wearing tripe.  But if it's very good, why can't it strive toward something more?  I've brought this up a couple times over the last few months, and what I usually get as a response is, "Yeah, well, we're not there yet."  Well, maybe we should be.  I mean, nobody would have developed all those incredibly complicated tools and techniques about painting if they didn't want to create beauty.  Saying we need to develop all the techniques before we get to beauty is misguided.

Somebody suggested that I post a lot of stuff about art theory, but frankly I don't think that's going to help at the moment.  The analogy is far too weak, first of all, between a fixed visual object (e.g. a painting) and a dynamic, cooperative object (an RPG).  Second, nobody seems terribly clear on what sort of object we're discussing: is it the text of the game as art object, the game in play as dynamic object, or what?

My suspicion, as I duly noted somewhere in those interminable debates about religion in RPGs, is that the best analogies are going to be ritual and myth as they exist among so-called "traditional" or "archaic" societies.  But we're not going to get at that without some pretty serious theory, and I have my doubts as to whether the debate is really going to happen.

Anyway, that's how it looks to me from here.

[Harlequin]

Fang - You and me both, same degree of "ouch, hey!", same response.  Yours beat me to the punch (mine was mid-edit), but let's not let it dissuade us entirely.  I think, and you think, that we covered something useful here, possibly original but nevermind, something that is at this point being obscured by emotion.  Closed it is.  The idea of building toward an aesthetic is not going to get dropped for good, and by declaring this thread closed hopefully we'll all remember that there's more friendship and collegiality here than there is choler.

If you need it, take a couple days, deal with other things than aesthetics and elegances.  I'm considering it, but you also may find a new thread with a new take on all this open before then.

Lots of fodder here to not be abandoned.  Maybe we'll go back to the thought of writing unwritten rules... something I derailed with my initial post simply because I thought it was lovely but had nothing cogent to say about that end of the topic, at the time.  For which you have my apology, because I think you created that gem out of nothingness and we stomed it as we raced down another road...

- Eric

[Jack Spencer Jr]

I guess what I'm working with here is how #s 2, 3, and 4 (the 'stained glass window') work together in service of #1.

Well, yes. The stepps are not quite steps, you see. This reminds me of the arguement a few months ago where I argued that grocery shopping was not cooking while other argued that it was a part of cooking. Not to get back to that again, but there were two facts which both sides were talking past each other:

[*]Shopping is not cooking. It is shopping. A different activity unto itself.
[*]However, shopping is a necessary step in preparation if you are going to cook anything.[/list:u]
My point here is, while the activity of shopping is not the activity of cooking, even by the greatest stretch of the imagination, the activity of cooking does not exist in a vacuum. Someone had acquired the necessary ingredients that are being cooked, most likely by grocery shopping in this day and age. Plain and simple.

By all of this I mean that the six steps of art McCloud identify do not exist in a vacuum either. Things done in each step effect the other steps, obviously.

But what you're discussing here is content in RPGs. This is a fairly tricky topic, IMO. It's almost like talking about content in a writing program. The programmer creates the program for writing, but it is up to the end user to actually utilize it in writing stories and, ultimately, the content.

Most development in RPGs I've noticed have been step 2 driven, making statements about the art form of RPGs more than any content form. Universalis is probably a prime example since it challenges may old notions of how an RPG "should" be.

But this is not to say that the game designer cannot add content or guide the eventual content of the RPG by way of the design.

[Ron Edwards]

Ummm, both principals on this thread have requested that it be closed.

Bold text and categorical statements aside, those were requests only, but I'm honoring them.

Closed, folks.

Best,
Ron