Stages of Development and Roleplaying Theory

[paulkdad]

Background: The thread, "Meaning at the beginning, middle and end" got me thinking about the active construction of meaning in RPGs, which in turn got me thinking about something I haven't studied in a long time: reader response theory. Since I hadn't  read any response theory since about 1990, I poked around the Web to refresh my memory. I came across an interesting article by Abigail Housen that takes response theory further by assigning responses to distinct stages of aesthetic development.

What I want to do is approach roleplaying as an aesthetic experience, and translate these stages of development into roleplaying terminology. If it works, it might give us another tool for understanding what is happening when people play RPGs.

First, I'd recommend that you read the pdf file found here:
http://www.vue.org/download/a_brief_gde_dev_thry.pdf

Or if you prefer something shorter, you can find a brief summary of Housen's work here, instead:
http://www.matthewdallman.com/housenintro.html

Note that it is perfectly legimate to say that these stages of aesthetic development are hogwash, but for the sake of argument, let's not. I'd like to take them as a jumping off point for discussing their relevance to RPGs, to see if a little "cross-fertilization" can help us understand roleplaying better.

Also, if we need to define terms, that's fine. But for now I think these two articles are fairly clear and I won't attempt to duplicate them here. It does seem to me that the descriptions of assimilation and accommodation (page four of the pdf) tie-in perfectly to Tony's EAAE discussion, but that's another matter entirely... In any case, here is my perspective on how these stages of aesthetic development might be applied to roleplaying.

First, I'd like to say that there is no value judgment implied by this theory. It isn't right or wrong for a person to be at any of these stages. Aesthetic development theory is intended to be descriptive, not condemnatory.

Second, I realize that to really find a correlation, I would need to conduct experiments similar to Housen's aesthetic development interview (ADI). So any connections drawn here are purely hypothetical in nature.

Third, each of these stages represents a broad range of options. I have attempted to describe them in terms that illustrate their differences from one another. In short, I have ignored any transitional periods between the stages. I left Housen's terms intact to emphasize the similarity between RPGs and aesthetic experiences in general.

Housen's Stages of Aesthetic Development, applied to RPGs:

Stage I: Accountive – The accountive gamer doesn't possess a vocabulary for discussing roleplaying, is unaware of differences in Stance and System, and makes frequent use of like/dislike statements to describe roleplaying games. Additionally, s/he weaves the game into a personal narrative, in which all the components of the roleplaying experience are merged into illustrative (and often emotionally charged) stories. Don't be put off by Housen's use of the word "storyteller" here. I think of it instead as a folk tale--the experience is adopted "as is" and becomes a part of her/his personal narrative.

Stage II: Constructive – The constructive gamer has some tools for understanding what happens in a roleplaying game, and can differentiate between Author Stance and Actor Stance (even if s/he doesn't actually use these terms). S/he may be familiar with one System or many, but definitely has a preference for what is comfortable, predictable, consistent and known. S/he expresses these preferences as authoritative judgments, so that familiar RPGs are "the best" and unfamiliar RPGs are "weird" or "dumb". S/he differentiates roleplaying from other types of play, and maintains a degree of detachment when discussing her/his roleplaying experiences.

Stage III: Classifying – The classifying gamer makes use of the vocabulary and tools of roleplaying theory and criticism. S/he is fluent in the vocabulary of roleplaying games, and seeks to use this terminology to construct a formal method of interpretation. Roleplaying games are understood according to their place within an established theoretical canon. S/he sees the act of interpretation as one of viewing the roleplaying experience from an objective distance, and then applying the accepted and authoritative terms to its interpretation. S/he is eager to experience new games, but approaches them as opportunities to apply and test her/his system of classification.

Stage IV: Interpretive – The interpretive gamer has internalized the tools for understanding roleplaying, and no longer uses them from a position of detachment. Authoritative interpretations are no longer the issue, because s/he only uses the critical interpretative framework to better understand her/his authentic personal response. S/he engages in roleplaying experiences intuitively and interactively, and views each new game as an opportunity for fresh insights and comparisons to emerge. Thoughtfulness characterizes this stage, as the interpretive gamer reflects consciously on the internal processes and effects associated with the roleplaying experience.

Stage V: Re-creative – The re-creative gamer no longer interprets the roleplaying experience looking for personal connections, but rather is able to engage it on a purely personal level as if greeting a lifelong friend. A deep engagement with a game over time grows into a personal relationship between gamer and game that is mutually creative, and transforms both. The roleplaying experience is simultaneously internal and expansive, both deeply affective and producing moments of enlightenment. Intimacy characterizes this stage, as the re-creative gamer dissolves the boundaries that protect her/himself and seeks simply to deepen a trusted relationship.

[J. Tuomas Harviainen]

I certainly recognize key stages in myself and others that very much fit together with these.

However, what I'd criticize is the progression. Instead of this model, I would think that several of the stages exist as parallels that correlate with certain player's personality traits. So that the paths start to diverge after Accountive.

For example, I've met a lot of "escapist" style role-players who seem to have jumped directly from Accountive to Re-creative, as this fits their need to escape the mundane world for a while. And I find it very hard to see them as the apex of a developmental process.

Additionally, Classifying and Interpretative are described here in terms that seem intended to uphold an out-dated Diltheyan dichotomy between "explaining" and "understanding" things. The whole things smells a bit too much like an agenda of "what's best".

Nevertheless, this is something deserving further (critical) investigation, I think. Maybe through breaking the cathegories, but by keeping the traits they describe at the same time.

A very nice find.

-Jiituomas

[paulkdad]

JTH;

Thanks for the reply. Though I come at it from a different angle (hermeneutics rather than psychology), I wholeheartedly agree that it looks like a hierarchy based upon degrees of internalization. If Housen wanted to be clear that it isn't a hierarchy, she should have used something like colors instead of numbers to represent the stages.

The way I get around that numbers/hierarchy problem is to focus on them as representative of time and familiarity with the art form. Since her starting point was simply "Why does this person spend more time looking at a painting than this other person?" I think this is really what she's trying to explain. It also seems like there wasn't any other way to answer this question other than an appeal to a deepening personal relationship with the art. Her question forced her conclusions.

What I find fascinating is that the stages describe some weirdness in my own development as a roleplayer. Having had 2+ decades of practice making art, I'd like to think that I at least have a personal relationship with my own work. But this doesn't automatically translate into an ability to approach other activities on a similar level. What it does, is it cements a desire (often, a frustrated desire) in me for this type of relationship.

So, I think that I did attempt to make the jump from stage II to stage IV, but only in part has it been successful. For me, knowing the options (if I want to avoid saying I need to know the correct terminology) presented by RPG theory is helping me to recognize the gaping holes in my understanding, which in turn increases my familiarity with the activity. And since I value the process of internalization, I sometimes find it annoying to have to go back and "do my homework". So in that sense, Housen's categories ring true for me.

Also, I think the stages do a pretty good job (on a descriptive level) of explaining some of the conflicts between roleplayers. For instance, stage I does a better job of explaining the "munchkin" phenomenon than any other I have seen. After all, stage I is focused on retelling the tale, which is a pretty good way of explaining why some players create 30th level demigods with +10 swords of nuking (better than an appeal to gamism, in any case).

I've met a lot of "escapist" style role-players who seem to have jumped directly from Accountive to Re-creative, as this fits their need to escape the mundane world for a while.

That's odd, because I've gamed with a lot of purely escapist roleplayers, and not one of them has ever exhibited anything but stage I or II behavior. Perhaps we're not seeing "escapism" in quite the same way...

[J. Tuomas Harviainen]

Thanks for the reply. Though I come at it from a different angle (hermeneutics rather than psychology), I wholeheartedly agree that it looks like a hierarchy based upon degrees of internalization.

It's precisely from a hermeneutic viewpoint that I find the theory problematic. It follows "basic" development theory so closely that when translated to an environment where multiple layers of interpretation exist simultaneously as a norm (i.e. role-playing), the structure becomes too constrained. If, for example, it is subjected to Ricoeurian ideas on interpretation, it looks like a divisive model where explanation and understanding are intentionally defined as incompatible so that one can be called better than the other. It's explicated Vorverständnis divided into segments so that the author can call her own pre-understanding superior to that of others.

If Housen wanted to be clear that it isn't a hierarchy, she should have used something like colors instead of numbers to represent the stages.

To me, at least, it very much looks like a hierarchy. Especially since Housen is referencing other hierarchies as models for her own, and uses words that denote a progression from one thought-pattern to another. in addition, her use of absolute language (such as "exposure to art over time is the only way to develop") clearly marks the text as having an agenda.

The stages indeed depict certain player/art viewer tendencies quite well, but the conclusions drawn from them are ideological, not actual results that can be be objectively deduced from the stages she describes.

That's odd, because I've gamed with a lot of purely escapist roleplayers, and not one of them has ever exhibited anything but stage I or II behavior. Perhaps we're not seeing "escapism" in quite the same way...

The "Stage 5 escapists" are (relatively) common only in larp environments, where they can successfully spend time in-character without having to confront reality even in the form of rules (as long as they stay out of areas where that might happen).

-Jiituomas

[paulkdad]

JTH,

Thanks for your interpretation. I like your comments, and this discussion is helpful in figuring out what (if any) relevance this has.

If I were to sum up our ideas, I'd say that where you see hierarchy in the model, I just see difference. Is that correct?

Let me make a brief case for developmental theory without hierarchy: I see connections to (for instance) Piaget preventing me from saying that any stage is "better than" any other. For example, certainly I wouldn't say that a five year old child is "better" than a three year old child, simply because the five year old is at a different stage of development.

To me, each stage is simply a sampling from the larger population of "museum goers", and the differences between these theoretical stages arose out of two things: their (the viewers') reported viewing habits and Housen's basic question (which is one of time).

OTOH, I'd say that no study is free of bias, and you are certainly right that Housen finds a difference between explanation and understanding. Would you say that there is no difference, or are you just being careful not to place them in a hierarchical structure? I'd agree with the latter, and it isn't my intention to classify any roleplayers as "better" than any others.

Unfortunately, I'm afraid we're going to digress so far into other things that it's not going to be an "RPG theory" discussion anymore. I hope you don't mind if I try to direct it back towards gaming for a moment.

I'm looking at these categories as something that might be helpful in understanding the IS of each individual player. Yes, there is the SIS, and yes the layers of meaning in the SIS make hermeneutics difficult (if not impossible), but the mind of each individual roleplayer is also a factor. And looking at the perspective of each individual roleplayer as their stage of aesthetic development is an interesting way to look at it.

And the reason I went down this path is because I don't find GNS to be very helpful at all. From what I've read here, I would be more apt to say that GNS shapes our gaming experiences at least as much as it describes them. I think the type of play created by those who strongly subscribe to GNS theory is done in a way that reinforces the paradigm. And the process of reification turns GNS into a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Like the article here on "ritual discourse" in RPGs, I think what happens in an RPG is not so different that it requires us to "reinvent the wheel". For instance, what we're seeing when we ask questions like, "Where is this player coming from?" is really the perspective from which the roleplayer approaches play. And this question, I believe, is better answered by an appeal to already existing psychological (and perhaps hermeneutical) theory. These theories would also allow us to address questions that existing roleplaying theory leaves untouched, like boredom, overstrain, and even levels of development. Not that I'm seeking the one right answer to these questions, but I'm simply looking at roleplaying theory as being much less innovative than it's typically seen here.

EDIT: I should have said, "...as being unnecessarily innovative, because it's describing things that might already be well defined." I am not implying that the people here are not creative individuals.

[J. Tuomas Harviainen]

If I were to sum up our ideas, I'd say that where you see hierarchy in the model, I just see difference. Is that correct?

I honestly hate to say this bluntly, but this is more a question of you wanting to adapt a clearly hierarchical model to a non-progressional use. Which is fine, but requires the relinquishing of the concept of "stages" and statements like "...are no longer the issue."

Housen's structure is favoritist, because it presupposes a learning patter that develops from a crude form to internalization and states that this is a result of exposure. It not only reports, but places on a refinement scale. What your adaptation needs to do is cut away such unintentional left-overs of her arrogance.

and you are certainly right that Housen finds a difference between explanation and understanding. Would you say that there is no difference, or are you just being careful not to place them in a hierarchical structure?

To see them as equivocal or to place them in a hierarchy beyond answering a singular question would be bias. Both are tools for comprehending elements, distinguished by subject and function, and neither of them is inherently superior outside its specific context.

And looking at the perspective of each individual roleplayer as their stage of aesthetic development is an interesting way to look at it.

It's interesting, yes, but in my opinion flawed if the categories are seen as developmental stages and not views tied to personality issues.

(I'd love to debate the self-fulfillment, methodology and untouched issue questions, but due to certain texts of mine being in process at the moment my opinions on those subjects will have to wait until copyright issues are settled.)

-Jiituomas

[paulkdad]

JTH,

It's interesting, yes, but in my opinion flawed if the categories are seen as developmental stages and not views tied to personality issues.

EDIT: Now that you mention "personality issues" your objections make much more sense. You see it as discriminatory because (for instance) some of the "Ts" in the Myers-Briggs scheme just by virtue of who they are wouldn't be allowed to progess beyond Stage 3. And the fact of the matter is, it sucks to know your own abilities and have them dismissed by a frelling theory.

In that case, I'd certainly be willing to drop it. You're right. There is no need to chain certain people to a lesser stage of development.

Thanks again for the stimulating discussion.