The airplane issue

[M. J. Young]

I was reading and reading and reading and reading through this thread, and wondering why it seemed so unfocused, as if no one had any clue what the question really was; and then right at the end, people got it. By that time, I'd formulated some thoughts of my own.

The question:

"Heinrich" wrote,

I have to wonder what the value of GNS and the role playing theory on this site is if it remains unequivocally opposed to asking the question, 'what is a game?'

That is the question; put another way, can you legitimately discuss theory about something called a game if you never formulate a definition of "game"?

I've got some reactions to that; but the analogy,

It's like a post-holocaust environment in which Mad Max is holding college level courses on aeronautics. Only no one knows what a plane is. So instead, they hold classes on everything you can do in one. You can sit in them, for example. You can be served drinks. On the outside, the plane has two wings and a nose, but those features aren't directly related to what you can do inside the plane. Once you have mastered this, you get your degree.

The above example is actually a good one. Because in the post-holocaust environment there are no physicists around who can calculate force, thrust, vectors, momentum... So out of necessity they dispense with the question 'what makes it go?' Better yet, when someone asks 'what does the plane do?' they get smacked down, and are told, 'Don't ask what it does, just look at the sum of the details. That's all a plane is.'

Was made part of the issue because

Do adopt the plane-metaphor he presents, for purposes of discussion. Let's see if it applies.

So how does the analogy relate to the question?

The point of the analogy is that people in that world don't know what a plane is or what it does; all they know is that there are things people use to do on a plane, and so they teach you how to do the things people use to do on planes. Not having any notion about the plane flying, they don't talk about flying the plane.

What Heinrich is saying about the game theory here is that we don't have any concept of what a game is or what a game is for; we're only talking about things people do when they play games, and we don't even know whether the things people do when they play games are relevant to the actual "playing games" concept because we don't have a definition of "game" or "playing".

Thus, presumably, we have no basis to say that cheese doodles and Mountain Dew are not part of the essentials of playing a game (although, heretic that I am, I do not recall ever having Mountain Dew at a game); we have no basis for saying that breaking for pizza is not an essential part of playing; we have no basis for saying whether or not a table or chairs are part of the game. These are all equally part of what happens as the things we do discuss--the kinds of decisions players make, the way characters are generated, the various sorts of resolution mechanics that are used. We think these are part of the game, and that those other things are not; but on what basis do we think this? Why shouldn't Mad Max think that sitting and serving drinks are essential parts of being in planes, if he doesn't know what planes are? Why should we distinguish GNS or DFK or Stance or Credibility as aspects of play, and cheese doodles, Mountain Dew, Pizza, chairs, and tables as not part of play, if we don't know what "play" is?

So, Heinrich says, all of our game theory is only so much nonsense if we can't answer the question, what is a game?

I disagree. I think Chris Lerich has done a fine job of elucidating the religion example--we don't have to define a religion to talk about similarities and differences between things we call religions. If you've got a definition of what a game is, you then face exactly the problem he perceives: when something appears that does not fit the definition, do you revise the definition, or exclude the new item? To recall another of Heinrich's metaphors, how can you tell the difference between a piece of music which fails to comply with the form we call Sonata and one which expands that form in new directions? How can you tell the difference between something that is not a game and something that takes the idea of games to a new level?

It is the more difficult because I don't believe that all role playing games need to be games by any strict definition; it is further complicated because I don't think (as long as I'm being unorthodox) that GNS categories only apply to role playing games--I think that role playing games may be the only area in which all three are commonly found, but I see G/S distinctions in wargaming and S/N distinctions in literature and improvisational drama. So I see GNS as particularly useful in role playing games, but not restricted thereto. Thus I don't see a need to define role playing games or even games in order to use GNS; I can see identifying GNS as "human activity which appears in certain entertainment or creative contexts with explorative elements" (which all of the above and others are). Is a documentary film a simulationist example of a movie, a romance perhaps narrativist, and a murder mystery gamist? It could be.

Thus if I don't contain role playing games entirely within games, and I don't contain GNS entirely within either, I don't see any need to attempt to define these.

I hope this is what Ron was seeking; it's what I see, anyway.

--M. J. Young

[Jack Spencer Jr]

I have to wonder what the value of GNS and the role playing theory on this site is if it remains unequivocally opposed to asking the question, 'what is a game?' It's like a post-holocaust environment in which Mad Max is holding college level courses on aeronautics. Only no one knows what a plane is. So instead, they hold classes on everything you can do in one. You can sit in them, for example. You can be served drinks. On the outside, the plane has two wings and a nose, but those features aren't directly related to what you can do inside the plane. Once you have mastered this, you get your degree.

The above example is actually a good one. Because in the post-holocaust environment there are no physicists around who can calculate force, thrust, vectors, momentum... So out of necessity they dispense with the question 'what makes it go?' Better yet, when someone asks 'what does the plane do?' they get smacked down, and are told, 'Don't ask what it does, just look at the sum of the details. That's all a plane is.'

If I understand correctly here, the physics which makes the plane go is game or this definition of game that was not being discussed or whatever. This assume that game makes an RPG go. I say this is true for some RPGs but not for all.

[Valamir]

MJ,  Thanks for that summary.  I was having trouble finding the parallels in the analogy he was going for.

[Paul Czege]

Heinrich's airplane analogy amounts to an argument against the value of inductive reasoning. He's saying you can't take your experiences and observations and create a useful theoretical model, that instead you need to start from atomic truths and build your theoretical model up, deductively. Of course that's ridiculous. Effective reasoning combines both induction and deduction. But by couching the whole thing as an analogy, he enables us to confuse poor use of induction, and not having enough information, for a fundamental flaw with the inductive method. It works, in part, because the "culture looking back" aspect of the analogy evokes for us other archeological inductive failures. What the hell is that crystal skull anyway? But ultimately it's a specious association. We aren't a culture looking back. We're a culture examining itself. And since we can readily test our hypotheses through actual play, why the hell would we ignore the wings of the plane?

More interesting, perhaps, is the question of why an argument against the use of play experiences as the foundation of a theory is so often found agreeable to folks in online discussions. Chris Chinn and I had a conversation about it last night. His observation is that most often when you ask a roleplayer to examine a concept in the light of actual play, they mentally pull up hypothetical or idealized instances of play. And that totally clicked for me. I've had those conversations. It's almost as if the experience of actual play isn't wholly there for the other person to draw upon...like it has been retroactively edited or something. Is it possible the foundation of GNS in the examination of play experiences is actually at odds with the psychology of getting enjoyment from play? Is the mental record actually incomplete?

Paul

[Bankuei]

Hi Paul,

Thanks for bringing that up, I've been trying to figure out a way to introduce the topic, and you've bridged it rather nicely.  My point was that for many people there is a mental disjunction in making it from Actual Play to Observation to Theory.  The heart of this inability to recognize what's going on seems to stem from dysfunction...

Anyone who's dealt with dysfunction, in games, or in life in general will recognize these behaviors:

1) Don't talk about it("Don't say you're bored")
2) Because you can't acknowledge it, you need to work around it("I'm mad at you because you were rude so I'll be an ass about the rules!")
3) Deny its existance as part of a coping mechanism("Of course I'm having fun, I just hate this, that, that, and that about it")

Because GNS grew out of observation of dysfunctional play, and dysfunctional behavior conditions folks to NOT recognize it, it doesn't take long to see how hard it is to point out what is going on to folks who are defensively maintaining their mental illusion.  This would seem to me to be the cause of folks constantly shifting over to hypothetical situations as opposed to concrete experiences.  

Bringing this back to the plane analogy, again, this is folks not willing to admit that crashes do happen, and because of that, being unable to analyze why and how, in order to prevent crashes in the future.

Chris

[Jack Spencer Jr]

That is quite possible Paul. I am sure we've all seen movies we do not rememeber very well. They simply didn't impress us so they did not make a memory. Why shouldn't RPGs be the same way. But then, anyone see the episode of Red Dwarf when Rimmer was telling the story of the best game of Risk he'd ever played and bored the others to tears?

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

Chris (clehrich) wrote,

Why toss up this analogy as bait in the first place? I mean, you say that "It's not the specific airplane-as-physical-object metaphor that interests me, so much as the details-vs.-function contrast," but that means you have already chosen what you consider the correct answer for yourself, and are (unconsciously, I think) to some degree looking for others to find it as well, validating your reading. Doesn't this worryingly support some of what Heinrich is accusing us of?

That's pretty harsh, Chris. I don't think your inference that I'd come up with an answer already is valid, or at least, not an Answer. Cut me some slack for being unwilling to shrug something off without at least shaking it a few times. Or, if you will, acknowledge that I wasn't as good at eliminating the analogy/question through logic as you were. Same thing.

You're also reaching pretty far with your "looking for validation" suggestion. Motives aside, the point is whether people have answers or points to make regarding the analogy (or the question it represents, rather) which will help me explain my thinking better. I've seen some pretty interesting stuff about that so far, again, much of which will make it a lot easier to deal with this question in the future. I don't consider a thread dedicated to that purpose to be wasted time.

The next question is whether that purpose has been realized yet. Given M.J.'s post in particular, I think it has. Anyone feel any need to keep this going?

Best,
Ron

[Paul Czege]

Hey Jack,

I am sure we've all seen movies we do not rememeber very well. They simply didn't impress us so they did not make a memory. Why shouldn't RPGs be the same way.

I think we're talking here about something specific to RPGs, something other than just forgetting the boring parts of a movie. You don't have to forget parts of movies in order to enjoy them. The question is whether  idealized recollections of actual play are the result of the effort of enjoying roleplaying in particular, and how that impacts the wider acceptance of a theory based on the examination of actual play.

Paul

[Bankuei]

Hi Jack,

To clarify a bit better with Paul's point, you may forget parts of the movie, but generally you can identify whether you liked the movie, was unimpressed, or disliked the movie.  Within gaming, you have a mental divorce on the part of some people as to their personal experience with the game, as well as the divorce from "what is happening" around the table as opposed to "in game".  

Chris

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

Please take the questions raised by Paul's post to a new thread. I can't split them off easily because his post contains two paragraphs, one of which belongs right here, and the other of which prompted this new discussion.

Best,
Ron

[M. J. Young]

The next question is whether that purpose has been realized yet. Given M.J.'s post in particular, I think it has. Anyone feel any need to keep this going?

Only that I need to apologize to Chris Lehrich for mispelling his name. I don't always proofread my posts, and even when I do I don't always catch everything.

I'm glad I was helpful.

--M. J. Young