The airplane issue

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

From the thread The problem with GNS, I was able to extract a single question of worth:

"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?' 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.'

I'd like people to address this question here in detail. I do have my own insta-answer in mind, but I'm more interested in what a variety of folks have to say than in holding forth mountain-top fashion.

One more point: "Heinrich," if that is the person's name (I have my suspicions), clearly roped most of the people in that thread into his baiting-game. I didn't see the thread until Tuesday morning, so the show was over by the time I read a single post. And you know what? He wanted to be shut down, playing the high-road card, and almost all of you bought it. I'm not real happy with that. I'm very tempted to isolate about seven posts from that thread and show you all what you did to feed his ego instead of stick with the points.

This thread is specifically about an idea. Ignore the inflammatory bullshit about how the Forge is "unequivocally opposed" to discussing what a game is (multiple threads falsify the claim). Ignore the observation that "Heinrich" only saw fit to present his argument after he'd managed to get people into a defensive tizzy. Do adopt the plane-metaphor he presents, for purposes of discussion. Let's see if it applies.

Best,
Ron

[Jeffrey Straszheim]

Ok, I'll try.

When we play, we're flying the freaking plane, so its pretty bog obvious what a plane is.  It may take us a while to figure out bernoulli equations and stuff.  But then, I'd rather learn to do barrel rolls and loop-de-loops.

GNS theory, then, is more like an experienced pilot, after finally mastering his Immelman turns, sitting down and trying to reverse enginner his plane.  Oh yeah, and to figure out those weird hot air balloon folks at the same time.

[Matt Snyder]

To be honest, Ron, I don't see much to discuss. The idea that the Forge "smacks down" any talk of "what a plane (i.e. game) does" doesn't seem too serious to me. That's pretty fundamental to what goes on here. How many times have we asked almost that specific questions, "What do you do?" when critiquing a designer or a game? I think this happens a lot (and in terms of theory, gets asked specifically in addressing Creative Agenda).

(Nevermind that I find the analogy really silly, and a not-too-cleverly-veiled insult. Does anyone else just shake their head like I do when alerted to the fact that we're degenerate barbarians and completely barren of astounding minds who know physics? It's just more of heinrich's baiting.)

There has long been an assumption in theories discussed here that what games do is provide fun. I _think_ you have stated yourself that this is the lowest common denominator. If we can't agree that RPGs are "for fun," then we can't begin to discuss other elements like dysfunction (which presumes that the function is FUN), incoherency, GNS modes and many other issues.

This is no small point, because it gets right down to the nitty gritty of some of the "art" issues that have been discussed in recent weeks. Lots of attention lately has been paid to examining aesthetics of games and whether RPGs are art (and whether the game itself is art or the play is art, or both).

I've already gone on record as saying I think RPGs can be art, and that play can also be art. But, while I appreciate the discussion regarding these issues, I'm far less interested in art than I am in fun. I see fun as the necessary component. I do not see art as necessary. This is why I asked in previous threads 1) How do ideas like baseling/vision help design games people can acutally play and 2) is all art necessarily entertainment (that is, fun to at least someone, even if the "fun" is enjoying the illuminating thought the "art" poses)?

Yes, I realize that this does not define RPGs as distinct from Monopoly or roller-blading or stamp collecting or whatever. I really don't care. I think the borders are so blurry, as Ralph has stated elsewhere, that such definitions are nearly impossible. How can one categorize sufficiently games like Universalis and , oh I dunno, basic D&D? Is Univesalis an RPG? What about octaNe?

To paraphase Damon Knight, RPGs are what I point to and say are RPGs. I don't find that illogical or so egregiously fallacious that we can't proceed with discussions as we've done here for literally years now. It is, to me, a non-issue.

Oh yeah, presumably, planes fly. Not provide drinks or chairs.

[Kester Pelagius]

Greetings Mr. Edwards,

I wasn't planning on commenting on this, but since you ask so nicely...

One more point: "Heinrich," if that is the person's name (I have my suspicions), clearly roped most of the people in that thread into his baiting-game. I didn't see the thread until Tuesday morning, so the show was over by the time I read a single post.

That's not the only thread you missed over the weekend.  But that's neither here nor there.  And that one is gone now anyway.  (Wasn't here, not to worry.)

This thread is specifically about an idea. Ignore the inflammatory bullshit about how the Forge is "unequivocally opposed" to discussing what a game is (multiple threads falsify the claim). Ignore the observation that "Heinrich" only saw fit to present his argument after he'd managed to get people into a defensive tizzy. Do adopt the plane-metaphor he presents, for purposes of discussion. Let's see if it applies.

The example isn't valid

The "plane" is a working model of an actual object, to reference it by example is to presuppose the GNS Theory to also be a working model of an actual object, which is being disclaimed.  Logical fallacy.

A better example would been to have compared the GNS Theory to UFOs and Aliens, specifically how the field of Ufology breaks down into "skeptics" and "believers" and how, to the "believers" the "skeptics" too often seem like "debunkers" and how to the "skeptics" the "believers" often seem like. . . well you get the idea.

Sadly such an example wasn't used.

Finally, just remember, if the GNS Theory is being compared to a Jet Plane, remember than jet planes (even in a post-apocalyptic future world) are known to have flown.


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

[Alan]

Hi all,

Ron, I'm not sure exactly what question you want addressed.  The excerpt you post seems to be suggesting "What is an RPG?" or "What does an RPG do?"  We've bounced that around a lot, so I'll refrain from that, unless you clarify that that is what you want.

While envisioning an rpg as an airplane, with all the knowledge and high tech that backs it up, I had an interesting thought.

Everyone has the RPG plane.  If you're human, you have it.  It's not a device cobbled together from knowledge gained through a hundred thousand years of technology - it's a gift of evolution.

The plane is a vehicle for reaching group consensus from subjective suggestions  - the interplay of human imagination, emotions, filtering beliefs, and the group process.  It's used at all levels of human social behavior.  

Given that we make games from most of our abilities, it would not surprise me that the social construction of reality was abstracted into a game.  It may have started millenia ago, when someone was telling a story and others suggested twists and turns.  This is a basic structure we can see reenacted when children respond to a story teller = or when they play Let's Pretend.

The only difference in the past three decades is that the process and the game aspect have been made explicit, based on understandings in simulation, game theory, psychology, etc.

The plane is a vehicle of group imagination inherent to homo sapiens.

[Clinton R. Nixon]

Wow - this is a great thread for discussion. I came into it with a specific idea, and Alan's post just changed my thought process tremendously. I think I can integrate the two, though.

If the plane is nothing more than group imagination - a beautiful metaphor, by the way, Alan - then RPGs have to be something. In this case, they facilitate the use of imagination in a structured environment. Now, I realize we've moved Heinrich's metaphor a bit from "plane = RPG" to "plane = what happens when we play an RPG." Bear with me, though.

The RPG is everything that gets that plane in flight. It's the ground controllers  telling it where to take-off and land, the dials that tell the pilot how the flying's going, the environment he's flying over, and anything else that affects the flight. Looking at it this way, the metaphor moves from "plane = what happens when we play an RPG" to "flight = what happens when we play an RPG."

Yep, I'm going in circles. Still, bear with me. When we fly, we use some sort of take-off and landing area, and we use some sort of flying machine. It might be a Cessna, or a 747, or a hangglider, or an ultra-light. This flying machine (and the sum of its facilitators) is the RPG. (See? I told you I'd get back to something close to "plane = RPG" metaphor.)

Why do we not examine what the flying machine is? I say we do. I say this site explores what the flying machine is better than any other. We've found that there's lots of different flying machines, and not all of them work the same way. There's similarities, and people who enjoy flying are interested in the various types of flying machines, but it remains that they are not all the same, and operate differently, and are flown for different reasons.

In that, we don't ask what a RPG is, because we know two statements to be true:
a) It's a blanket term that covers many different and separate things, much like "flyer" covers many things. Asking "what is a flyer" only results in "something that can fly," i.e. a way to express group imagination in a structured environment.
b) The individual flyers are more interesting, and we are examining them every day.

[Bankuei]

Hi folks,

I think the key point of heinrich's concern is "What is the value of GNS in the face of folks who can't even fly?"...to which, of course, using Alan and Clinton's input, is that folks are flying all the time, they just don't know how or why it works.

This, of course, makes perfect sense.  Some folks have a feel for aerodynamics, and they can pilot very well, others do not(hence, the attitude, "All that matters is that you have a good GM/pilot").  GNS is the study of different machines and manuevers and the aerodynamics and figuring out what works well together.  Type A plane does these manuevers well, under these conditions.  "If you try to pull a barrel roll in a 747, you're going to have a hard time of it..."

So what does GNS do?  Simple, as a pilot(roleplayer), I know I enjoy certain manuevers.  GNS is simply a general theory as to what planes best work for what manuevers, and what sorts of manuevers can be pulled off together in formation without folks crashing into each other.

Chris

[Matt Wilson]

What I inferred from H's question was something like the old "I can't define pornography, but I know what it is" thing. Do we use GNS to define what an RPG is?

Do we? Maybe that is a good question.

My thought is that GNS doesn't attempt to explain what an airplane is. Instead, it's more like a tactics manual for people who already know how to fly. It makes some assumptions that there is in fact a shared opinion of what an RPG is, but it inludes a category that's more like "anything that allows a person to fly," rather than simple airplanes. Donjon is a biplane, Sorcerer is a helicopter, Universalis is a hot-air-balloon. and so on.

So really it's not so important to know how an airfoil creates lift, so much as knowing that some flying machines make it easier to do barrel rolls.

What kind of flying do you like to do? That's GNS to me.

[Kester Pelagius]

Greetings Chris,

I think the key point of heinrich's concern is "What is the value of GNS in the face of folks who can't even fly?"...to which, of course, using Alan and Clinton's input, is that folks are flying all the time, they just don't know how or why it works.

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 great that everyone sees a silver lining for the allusion, but is it just me or was the underlying point the original poster was skirting around that the GNS Theory is "broken" and being used by the blind to lead the blind?

The allusion here isn't to the plane but to the post-apocalyptic setting.  (Thus the intimation being that the GNS Theory is a chaotic mess.)  Though the interpretations placed upon the airplane allusion, I have to admit, are rather elegant.  Nice work.

Course I could just be reading too much into the post.

So what does GNS do?  Simple, as a pilot(roleplayer), I know I enjoy certain manuevers.  GNS is simply a general theory as to what planes best work for what manuevers, and what sorts of manuevers can be pulled off together in formation without folks crashing into each other.

Good answer, but was that really the question being asked by the original poster?

Maybe it's just me but, from what I initially read, I really didn't see much of a direct up-front point.  *shrug*


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

[jrs]

Ron, I'm not certain what idea you want discussed here; is it how is RPG/GNS like a plane, or can theory be discussed without defining its practical application?  It seems that the current discussion is following the former, when I had assumed the latter.  Maybe you can clarify.

Here are my thoughts.  Aerodynamics as a descipline can and has been studied without reference to the plane.  Classical theories of aerodynamics existed well before powered flight.  The plane is a result of those theories or rather an example of the theories in application.  This is the primary reason why the analogy doesn't work for me.  In addition, I oppose the post-holocaust setting which implies we've forgotten what a game is.  To turn it around, what is a plane?  An object that utilizes the principles of lift, thrust, and control to achieve flight?  A method of transport?  A terrorist weapon?  A silvery bird in the sky?  Superman?  I think you run into the same problem talking about planes as you would talking about games.  As an occassional flyer, I'm much more concerned about the length of time for security and checkin, the accuracy of flight schedules, the size of my carryon, and who will be sitting in the neighboring seat than coming up with a definition of a plane that the pilot, crew, ground support, and all the passengers would agree on.  Defining a plane becomes immaterial when you're already accustomed to using it.

More to the point, the plane analogy implies that the "passangers" are not fully utilizing the plane, which is not the case with the theoretical (and practical) discussions at the Forge.  We're not sitting earthbound with no interest in flight.  Quite the opposite.  Game play is achieved and improved through the discussions here.

Julie

[Clinton R. Nixon]

Kester,

Did your post have a point besides to derail the discussion? Ron started this thread, not Heinrich. He asked a specific question, and the text from Heinrich he quoted was very obvious about using planes as a metaphor for RPGs.

I saw no answers in your post, just an attempt to muddy the waters of discussion.

[Wormwood]

It seems to me that the flight is the basic idea of play, rather than game. Play has several strong features which seem to fundamental parts of RPGs. In particular: exploration, social practice, and general learning. The plane itself, in that context is a game, it's the context in which play is facilitated. It does this through constraints, (It's not unreasonable to call games just constrained play, or constraints on play. In fact that definition seems to include quite a few popular definitions for game, including Wittgenstinian language games.)

To carry the metaphor further, I would say that constraints facilitate play, but also necessarilly restrict it. The analogy is to an aircraft wing, it provides life (if oriented correctly and designed appropriately) but also provides drag.  Those two features are inseparable.

In the interest of pulling the analogy to a stretching point:

The GM could be said to resemble an engine. Hence designing a GM-less game is a-kin to glider design.

While there may exist good models for play and the effectiveness of a given game, as there could be for a given aircraft, both require an actual test to verify. The details simply become too complex to rely upon models for complete assurance.

Still trying to decide what Ligher than Air and VTOL's are ...

  -Mendel S.

[Clinton R. Nixon]

People,

Julie had a good point above: the metaphor is useful for discussing if we actually examine what a RPG is, and if we do, how we do it. The metaphor itself is not the point.

I may have started this when I attempted to deconstruct the metaphor to show how it operates off a fallacy. If so, I apologize.

[Bankuei]

Hi Kester,

My basic view of heinrich's post was that it was more of an attack rather than an opening for discussion, hence why I avoided the initial thread.  Here, we're talking about the idea of whether GNS serves "a purpose" when most people don't get it(at least that's what I'm reading from heinrich, perhaps he or someone else can clarify if i'm off here).

So, what is roleplaying, what is a game?  These questions really don't need to be defined anymore than "What is music?  What is art?"  because these questions have been asked over and over, and very little has come from exploring them.  Folks who play games don't need to know "what it is" anymore than a muscian sits around wondering "what is music?" as opposed to simply making it.

Why are some people stuck in that "post-apocalyptic" world, with no education?  Rather simple- conditioning.  Dysfunctional behavior, and dysfunctional play is a matter of conditioning.  "I'm not having fun, but I won't say anything, instead I'll be an ass about the rules".  "You're not doing what the 'story' is about, so I'll injure your character", etc.  

You have a bunch of folks who aren't willing to openly say what's going on in a game that is based on communication.  Then you also have the general consensus that its not only not cool to talk about what's really going on, its also not cool to recognize it, so you become conditioned to turning your head.

The basic theory and understanding of "What is roleplaying about?" is obvious to anyone who observes without letting the conditioning take over.  When you sit down, and think about actual play, or play and be observant, the stuff in GNS becomes terribly clear.

Instead of using observation and trying to figure out how flying works, people take it as an attack on their personal piloting skills.  And rather than talk about the issues where there are accidents and crashes, folks would rather not admit those things happen.  Roleplaying is a social game, and unfortunately it brings all those ego issues that come with any social activity.

So is this a case of the blind leading the blind?  Well, I can attest from personal experience that GNS has led to more functional play for me, but unfortunately, for most people, like the Matrix, you're just better off showing them than trying to explain it.  For people who've never had very functional play, they can't possibly imagine the difference in what it means.    It's about the same as me trying to explain the taste of a great cheesecake over the internet to someone who's never tasted it.

And most of the controversy over GNS comes from a bunch of people who aren't willing to bake the damn cheesecake for themselves to taste it(learn it for themselves), and then declare anything from, "Cheesecakes don't exist!", "They must taste like crap, because not everbody's eating them!", or "It's really just like chocalate cake, but with a different name!"

Sorry to throw in another analogy there, but really it defines the sort of behavior I see regarding attitudes about GNS.

Chris

[epweissengruber]

Most of the replies have dealt with the plane analogy.  They address the pertinence of a definition of game and role-playing to any theory about games.

But, Ron, would you like to see us address the pertinence of a theory of games to GNS theory, or would you like us to attempt a definition of what games are?