Raymond Chandler and GNS

[shaheddy]

I don't have a question really, nor am I sure this is the proper place to post this, but here goes. I just wanted to share the following fascinating passage from Raymond Chandler's "Notes on the Mystery Story":

Readers are of too many kinds and too many levels of culture. The puzzle addict, for instance, regards the story as a contest of wits between himself and the writer; if he guesses the solution, he has won, even though he could not document his guess or justify it by solid reasoning. There is something of this competitive spirit in all readers, but the reader in whom it predominates sees no value beyond the game of guessing the solution. There is the reader, again, whose whole interest is in sensation, sadism, cruelty, blood, and the element of death. Again there is some in all of us, but the reader in whom it predominates will care nothing for the so-called detective story, however meticulous. A third class of reader is the worrier-about-the-characters; this reader doesn't care so much about the solution; what really gets her upset is the chance that the silly little heroine will get her neck twisted on the spiral staircase. Fourth, and most important, there is the intellectual literate reader who reads mysteries because they are almost the only kind of fiction that does not get too big for its boots. This reader savors style, characterization, plot twists, all the virtuosities of the writing much more than he bothers about the solution. You cannot satisfy all these readers completely. To do so involves contradictory elements.

Perhaps I'm reading too much into it, but this seems a fairly decent description of GNS (where the S is rather ghoulish here), with a fourth thrown in that one might call D for Designer (Designist?), or A for Aesthetic. Anyway, just wanted to share the feeling of deja vu I got when reading this.

[TonyLB]

I think there is the possibility of an Aesthetic Creative Agenda in roleplaying too, but that the style of the medium itself is not yet historically developed enough to give people more than glimmerings of it.

I've had glimmerings though:  moments when I said "Oh, that technique was very artfully executed... and I value that craftsmanship, completely separate from any other creative agenda it might be in service to."

I wish I had more Actual Play that highlighted the idea.  Without it, I can only offer unfounded, slippery intuitions.  Not really a strong basis for discussion.

[Christoph Boeckle]

If roleplaying is indeed a possible art form, as Jonathan Walton suggests for example, then an Aesthetic CA might come to light.

Then again, a lot of art is considered art after it has been thouroughly analyzed and experienced a number of times.
RPGs are difficult to analyze (problem of transcript) and are unique experiences. What's more, often it will not appeal to outside observers, who can't possibly share all the personal references a gaming group can have.

Can an rpg book be considered as art? If yes, does that mean that actual play will be art?
The comparison between Chandler's types and GNS has this problem: books are proof-read and passive. RPGs are improvised and dynamic.
Is the Aesthetic CA excluded because of this difference? Jazz is well known for it's improvised musical pieces, but the public at least is passive.

just my random 2 cents ;)

[Caldis]

Just to throw a wrench in the discussion, I dont see any Nar in that list, just three Sims and a Gam.  No surprise really that there is no Nar since reading someone elses work does not give one the ability to shape the story as it unfolds.  

What's listed here are three different approaches to sim play.  It's all about connecting to the imagined events while not necessarily shaping them.  People connect to the 'story' in different ways, the visceral gore holds an attraction for some, the intellectual aesthetic for others, emotionally connecting with the characters for another.  Getting each of those experiences is simply a different form of Sim, creating them would be different forms of Nar.

[Thor]

I think that the Aesthetic CA is what we talk about when we say " System Matters".  We can appriciate the correctness of the chargen of a particular system the way a reader discusses the appropriatness of the names of characters in a Pynchon novel.  

That said I think we spend too much time (myself included) talking about how our medium is like and unlike other mediums. TV didn't become an artform (I'm sure some think it never did, but check out the comercials that's where the art is) untill it stopped trying to copy radio and film. I think that too often we focus on some aspect of other artforms which we wish to emulate and less on what we can do with the features we have that no other medium has.

[shaheddy]

Caldis said:

Just to throw a wrench in the discussion, I dont see any Nar in that list, just three Sims and a Gam.

The way I was looking at it was not so much modes of play - as you point out, reading is necessarily passive - as instead value systems. Players are invested in certain aspects of play just as readers are invested in certain aspects of the reading experience. The difference is in what the players can do about it.

As for the Aesthetic, the whole idea of "Art" is incredibly loaded with issues of authority, so that asking whether RPGs are an "art form" is, well, difficult. (I haven't read the other thread yet.) But to sidestep a little, I'd say I'm with Thor, that when one is appreciating the way a system works, the "artfulness" of the mechanics or techniques, that's precisely an aesthetic sense. What I had in mind was something like, "Wow, I love the way dice work in combat!" or "Wow, the GM is an amazing scene-framer!" or some such.

TonyLB said:

I wish I had more Actual Play that highlighted the idea.

Or take the example of the tour de force - I ran a Memento-style Dnd adventure once, where the players went through three days of a mission in reverse order, complete with amnesia and issues surrounding memory and regret. The novelty and cleverness of the thing impressed the players and contributed to their play experience.

Anyway, I also don't want to advocate adding an "A" to GNS. Three letter acronyms are better, and besides, I think A (or D) is already implicit in the Model.

[timfire]

(Hope this isn't drifting th thread.) There are plenty of "reasons" people play. Some want to hang out with friends, some want escapism, etc. But why people play is a different issue than what they find "fun".

CA is about "fun". I think that whole "Aesthetic" thing falls into the "reasons" category (or more specifically, it falls outside the "fun" category).

I can appreciate how well designed DnD (3.x)e is designed, but doesn't mean I'll enjoy playing the game. More specifically, I can appreciate the aesthetic of the game and still be playing GN or S, (just like I can be joking around with my buddies and still be playing GN or S).

This idea has been discussed before, though maybe not quite in these terms.

[Jasper]

It seems to me that the "aesthetic" goal doesn't relate much to the shared imagined space.  And I think a real Creative Agenda would have to.  It would have to inform your decisions about what goes on there.

Now maybe you could imagine someone saying "I'm going to have my character jump off that bridge just so I can use the falling die mechanic, which is way cool." Or "Jared's great at colorful fight descriptions, so I'm going to maneuver him into a fight because I want to see that."  But this seems more on the level of social contract to me, influencing the Agendas from a higher level.

Possibly I haven't considered all the facets of what "aesthetics" could entail, so it might influence the SIS as much as anything.  Anyone have a sense of that?

[Vaxalon]

We had an aesthetic moment tonight in Sky Prophets.

One player had his character say, "That's the first sign..." and another player awarded fanmail for working in the phrase, because it fit so well with the title of the series.

[DevP]

I've actually thought for a while about the possibility of an Aesthetic CA, although it might be slightly different than what's been mentioned (and I'd love some links to these previous discussion, if anyone has them). To me, an Aesthetic CA is easily found in Wushu: the game doesn't have much to support very G or N priorities, and while S is possible, I've experienced the CA of play to be the creation of cool stuff for the enjoyment of other players. I'm talking about the produced actual play interacting with the SIS, not the rules themselves.

If I'm correct, a CA should (by definition) describe something of why a player is interacting with the SIS in a certain way at a certain moment. So, in Wushu, I am inspired to describe my renegade cop as "falling backword through a glass window (+1) firing upward as he freefalls (+1) with tears streaking down his chin (+1)" because each of those SIS details seems to be an aesthetically pleasing element; I'm not trying to fulfill any of the other standard priorities. This might be incoherent if mixed with other priorities; for example:

[*] I'm not adequately fitting into what my character may do, or working on imagining the world in itself, but rather am just treating the world elements and props to move about in constructing aesthetically beautiful piees. (My understanding of definitional Sim is a touch shaky, so this might not be wholly conclusive...)
[*][N] This stylistic set piece is pretty, but distracting from addressing of the premise; if the premise was "what will a cop on the edge do?", I've instead sent the character sailing through a window without necessarily making a statement on the premise one way or the other.
[*][G] I'm not trying to seriously beat the challenge ahead, but merely going for a pretty set piece, perhaps frustrating other competitive players. (An aesthetic CA could mix nicely with a gamist/competitive CA, since players often desire to impress/compete with each other about their creation of good aesthetics.)
[/list:u]

Am I missing something?

[timfire]

If y'all want to continue talking about an Aesthetic CA, it would probably be a good time to start a new thread.

That said, Dev, what you're talking about sounds like pretty standard Sim, where you all are just "celebrating" color as Ron might say.

It's like when people play a Star Trek game. (Some) People play Star Trek because they like the "coolness" of the Trekkie universe. Ie, they like the "aesthetic". It *sounds* like its the same with Wushu, except it's not the Trekkie universe, its whatever the default Wushu universe is. Do you know what I'm (very inadaquately) getting at?

[Caldis]

If I'm correct, a CA should (by definition) describe something of why a player is interacting with the SIS in a certain way at a certain moment. So, in Wushu, I am inspired to describe my renegade cop as "falling backword through a glass window (+1) firing upward as he freefalls (+1) with tears streaking down his chin (+1)" because each of those SIS details seems to be an aesthetically pleasing element; I'm not trying to fulfill any of the other standard priorities. This might be incoherent if mixed with other priorities; for example:

[*] I'm not adequately fitting into what my character may do, or working on imagining the world in itself, but rather am just treating the world elements and props to move about in constructing aesthetically beautiful piees. (My understanding of definitional Sim is a touch shaky, so this might not be wholly conclusive...)[/list:u]

Am I missing something?

I'd say you are.  Sim doesnt require an emphasis on the world as a whole it requires an enhanced focus on one or more of the base elements of role playing (Setting, Situation, Character, Color, System).  Those aesthetically pleasing elements you've listed are a mix of the base elements and if that mix is the reason you are playing then you are playing sim.  


I'd also like to point out that the glossary definition of Creative Agenda is "The aesthetic priorities and any matters of imaginative interest regarding role-playing".  Trying to claim there is a Creative Agenda based on aesthetics is either redundant or confusing.