The Forge Archives

This is split from The airplane issue
First, a full recap since it was impossible to split the thread:

Quote from: Paul CzegeMore 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?

Quote from: BankueiThanks 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.

Quote from: Jack Spencer JrThat 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?

Quote from: Paul CzegeI 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.

Quote from: BankueiTo 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".

Hi Jack,

Thanks for rescuing the topic!  Anything you'd like to tackle with this?(question is open to anyone else as well)

Chris

Hey, guys.

I disagree. I think we are talking about a fairly common human behavior but, perhaps, how it is applied uniquely to RPGs. Memories are more fluid and formed then we tend to like to think. But how often do we think we recall something perfectly and then find out that others remember it differently, and not just different in the sense of different POV but fundamental differences. How about a particular scene, hell, a LINE from a favorite movie you hadn't seen in years and then you watch it again and find out you had the wording all wrong, occasionally the meaning as well?

Memory is imperfect (one of the points of Memento IIUC) probably because it goes through a subconcious editing process. What did you have for dinner last year? Who was at your birthday party five years ago? The inconsequential is weeded out and with time most things become inconsequetial and with time, we remember what we want to remember even if it never happened.

Now lets look at this in a roleplaying situation. My friend once talked about trying to join the RPG club at college. To get things started, they went around the room asking what was the best experience you'd had in a RPG session. My friend & his roommate talked about the storylines and the characters working together that kind of shit. One kids talked about how he scored a critical hit on a dragon in Shadowrun-- a jargon-heavy description and it wasn't enough to kill the dragon.

I could riff on all this, but I think I'll stop for some feedback.

Hi Jack,

I don't think that anyone here is contesting the fluidity of human memory.  I think issue at hand is more of what influences selective memory in roleplaying in particular and specifically, how this interferes with the ability to observe actual play experiences AND how that creates problems for folks being able to link theory to play.  Lots of linkages right there, I know...

So, consider this;
Actual Play -> Observations -> Theory

With folks usually getting clouded in that middle part.  My point was that dysfunctional behavior(in or out of games) directly conditions folks to not recognize that behavior, it becomes accepted as the norm, an unstated, "Of course that's how things are", sort of deal.  GNS exists as a behavioral study of behaviors in gaming, and folks usually are unable to connect what GNS is talking about to their actual play, even when they can give examples that amount to paragons of GNS in action.

Comments? Thoughts?

Chris

Quote from: Bankueiwhat influences selective memory in roleplaying in particular and specifically, how this interferes with the ability to observe actual play experiences

Hrm. I would imagine that part of it is that a decent chunk of what goes on at the table is deadly-dull. At least I think so, and is therefore not worth remembering. This fragments the memory a bit. The dull bits are vital to linking what happened here to what happened there but they are forgotten for the most part.

Furthermore, I suspect what goes on in those dull bits is vital to any theory being put forth, but they are discarded from the memory because they are not as important as the results. Not so much the ends justifying the means as the means are completely unimportant so long as you have the ends. It's almost like a dirty little secret, like steerage in the shipping industry*

The ends are recalled but the means are forgotten so to talk about what really happens at the game table, it must be rebuit, in many cases from scratch


*To those unfamiliar: the Titanic, the most luxurious ship ever build (leaving aside it's fate for a minute). The rich and famous of the time sailed on her maiden voyage. Truth is, it isn't the first-class tickets that made White Star Line it's money but the 3rd class people down in steerage is what made the company its real profit.

I think i'm with Jack on this one.  We tend to lose focus and quickly forget anything that we didn't find compelling (for whatever reason).  Perhaps the problem is that most write-ups and analyses of games and sessions are done afterward.  This means that all the high points are hit, but we rarely are able to do a direct analysis of real-world play.  This, of course, isn't the case when play occurs online since you have an actual transcript of what happened, but i tend to consider online play to be lacking something.  Anyway, the solution would be a recording (preferrably video, though audio would be acceptable) of an entire session.  The problem that this raises is that almost everyone involved in theory plays, and so has the same ability to tune out the minutia of play.

There may be some way to come at things afresh, a way of looking at everything in the same meticulous way.  I just don't know what it is, perhaps some sort of intensive study with input from people who are non-gamers?  Maybe go recruit your your Sociologist friend or something...

Thomas

Hi guys,

I agree that boring stuff is quickly forgotten.  But, I think my point of dysfunctional denial is being completely overlooked though.  Let's consider a story that many people are familiar with:

GM: Ok, what are you guys doing?
Group: Shopping for stuff
John: I want to barter
(Scene devolves as John spends 30 minutes 'roleplaying' with shopkeeper, everyone else is bored)

Note:
1- No one just says, "This is boring, can we move on?" in most cases(but they do sigh, and make other "workaround" cues)
2- John says, "I like roleplaying" as the cause behind his actions, but his actions could be from a number of things, ranging from "I like immersiveness" to "I know the GM is going to force me to do something, so I'm going to steal the ball of control away for a while and show him!"
3- Everyone knows John does this sort of thing, on a regular basis, it is boring, but well remembered as a feature of John's play style
4- When asked about the game, everyone (except John) truly didn't enjoy that scene, but wouldn't be able to tell you that there's a problem with the way that they play.

This isn't a case of, "Oh, its boring, I forgot", this is a case of, "Yeah that part sucks, and so does this and this and this, but I had fun" after the player describes about 95% of the game time spent.  Doesn't this seem a little odd to you?

I am very actively comparing this to a dysfunctional relationship, compare this:  "Well, I don't like it when he yells at me, or breaks things, or forgets to call, or stands me up, or hits me, but he loves me."

Granted, this is an extreme example, but you'll notice the similarity is to first not talk about the issues as a group, and second, that after doing that long enough one is conditioned enough to forget what one feels about the situation at all("Oh, no, we're perfectly happy.  This is a wonderful relationship!")

What I am saying is that the reason most people have trouble digesting GNS, or even being able to make intelligent discourse on it, pro, con, whatever, is that folks in dysfunctional play are conditioned to not acknowledge play issues, or actual play as it happens.  Being unable to acknowledge that, they can only turn to hypothetical situations and can't make the connection between theory and actual play.

Comments?

Chris

Hi there,

Chris, beyond total agreement, I don't have much to say. Just add a big ol' "Yes" to your latest post from me.

Best,
Ron

Ah, i see what you mean.  I do believe you have a good point, but the question it raises is: Is there a solution?  Is there some sort of way to recondition players to play in a way that's enjoyable instead of the way they actually do?  Perhaps it would be a good idea to video tape a session and then let some other group of players analyze it and point out stuff like what you're talking about.

Thomas

Good idea, Thomas.  Friends of mine tape-recorded months worth of sessions we played. Only the character dialogue and  such were transcribed, but it would be interesting to hear that now...

Another reason for the the trend Paul talks about is that it's just easier to make up an example than to find one from real life play since life is less precise than we think of it as being.  A given instance of play can be hard to quantify in terms of GNS since motivation matters, and that's hard to pin down.  In Chris B's example, "John"'s explanations/rationalizations could give conflicting evidence about just what kind of conflict is going on. Though it's clear there is a conflict.

Quote from: Paul CzegeIt'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.

As with all of our experiences, we are constantly revising and re-editing our versions of "what just happened".  Not surprising it would be even more the case with vicarious actions as in roleplaying.  People focus on completely different things in their memories of playing, too, as the examples in the Jack's second post here show:  for some, the memorable parts are the successful rolls, for some the emotional experience, for some the cunning circumnavigation of puzzles and obstacles, etc.  We are talking about different games, strange to say.  I (almost) always encounter this when I try to talk theory with folks outside of the Forge: the vocabulary and frame of reference just isn't there. What puzzles me is why should it also be the case with us here? Is there a "solution" other than reminding ourselves to use concrete examples?

--Emily Care

Hi folks,

I'm glad that my example did the trick, I've had a hard time articulating this.  Its especially hard since with observation, many of the theory issues are obvious.  It's sort of like saying "the sun rises in the east" to people who refuse to open their eyes.  Upon opening their eyes, and looking for themselves, it become blatantly obvious, and no argument or discussion is really needed.

On note of "What can be done?" the issue isn't so much memory, as observation.  If you start applying the theory understanding that you have in play, you can see where the theory holds up or fails.  As a player or a GM, you can watch your own reactions or those of others and be able to judge not just the sort of play, but how true to life a theory stands.

The only benefit I would see in taping actual play is to go back and then point out things, "Ah, see!  That was a Narrativist decision!", "Look, he passed the ball!", etc.  The problem with this is assuming that you have someone (yourself included) in the group who can identify these behaviors.  If you're trapped in denial, you could watch it a thousand times and perhaps never pick up on the main issue.

Again, the point here is careful observation and awareness.  Observe what you like, what you don't like in terms of play.  Then identify it(whether its a simple as rolling lots of dice, to deep emotionally wrenching games).  Then try to find what facilitates that.

The key problem that leads us back to my example with John, is that John probably isn't concious of what the real reason is behind his behavior.  It could be something like he's attention starved and here's his little way of acting up and throwing a fit.  Since John isn't aware of what he wants, he doesn't know how to request it, make it happen, or get it.  So John will act out over and over, and perhaps never be satisfied.

The group is the Lost Gamer, sure that roleplaying has what they're looking for, can be more than what it is, but can't identify what that thing is.  They are unable to produce a concrete goal to aim for.  They're never happy with what they have, so they wander from system to system, tweak to tweak, genre to genre, GM to GM, and maybe, just maybe, they stumble upon what they've been looking for, although they couldn't tell you what it is, and wouldn't know what it is if they had to look again.

The source of this inability to identify what you want, is the very same thing that happens when people in dysfunctional relationships not only deny the situation, but have been conditioned to not acknowledge how they feel about the situation, making the denial complete.

The key component, I feel, to unconditioning, is to be observant in play, to recognize what's going on socially in an explicit manner(at least for yourself, if not being discussed amongst the group).  I'd say an excellent excercise would be to take a theory concept, such as, "IIEE", or "Gamist decisions" or something like that, as the topic for the night, and as you play, mentally note where and how you see it working, perhaps take notes.  You can do this as a player or a GM.  My Ball analogy came directly out of this sort of observation.

Chris

Edited to change one word

Well, the other problem with players recognizing what they are looking for is that most people don't have the sort of shared vocabulary that we do.  Let's look to theology for an analogy: once in a while a great genius is able to articulate some new ideas from scratch, but most people build their work on those that have come before.  Most players don't realize that all of this theory has been articulated, and thus aren't familiar with all the thought and analysis that has already gone into gaming.  Since the vast majority of people are not geniuses when it comes to the analysis of RPGs, they don't have anyway to analyze or describe what they are looking for.

The problem is one of Language.  Language is more than just the words, it is also the underlying set of ideas that is accepted by any specific small Language group (we generally accept the meaning of Narrativist as a single idea).  Since most players don't "speak the Language" that we have here, they can not analyze (even internally) what they want with any sort of articulation.

If the goal is to encourage players to analyze play, we will have to introduce those players to the Language of RPG theory.  Even if we don't go into the details of GNS or Social Contract we will need to bring the concept of analysis of RPGs and the idea that we can categorize things about them into the forefront.  Unless people think about RPGs as something that can be categorized and analyzed, they will not categorize or analyze them.

We can look at the book Understanding Comics by Scott McCloud.  Until i read that book, i had never considered comics in the light he portrayed them in.  I feel that RPGs are the same way, until we can bring people to the realization that you can analyze RPGs in the same way, people won't really think about it.

Thomas

Hi Tom,

To address your issue and Emily's:

QuoteI (almost) always encounter this when I try to talk theory with folks outside of the Forge: the vocabulary and frame of reference just isn't there. What puzzles me is why should it also be the case with us here? Is there a "solution" other than reminding ourselves to use concrete examples?

I think what folks are missing here is that the vocabulary, while useful, makes no sense when the idea cannot be pointed out because the person is incapable of observing it.  With my analogy of "Sun rises east", telling people about east is senseless when they can't identify the sun.  

To wit:  John the Barterer example uses no real theory terminology, yet completely demonstrates the issue.  How and why is it obvious?  Because it is a real life example, or similar enough one, that enough people have seen for themselves.  Again, once the eyes are opened, there is no contention over "What is the sun?"

You don't need to be a genius, just observant.  I'm not going to lie and say that its an easy thing, otherwise we'd have a lot less dysfunctional relationships(games or not) in this world.  

Bringing this back to the play issue, I highly suggest that any theory you have in mind, think about it seriously and hold it up to the light of actual play.  Compare the idea to actual experience, watch it in play.  

Consider the amount of controversy that occurs in GNS, yet also look at the amount of critics who are unable to pull up actual play experiences to work with.  This isn't saying that GNS is perfect, this is saying that actual play, what GNS is talking about, cannot be discussed, without actually looking at actual play!

Again, you cannot support, or deny, or really talk about theory with any sort of understanding without comparing it to actual play experiences.  To do otherwise is to talk about a cheesecake you've never tasted:

QuoteAnd 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 if I'm coming off a bit strong here, but we're reaching up into the zone of human behaviors and conditioning, definitely a bigger subject than gaming, but as roleplaying is a social activity for humans, we see how those behaviors affect it.  The ability to discern enjoyment/displeasure is vital to "improving" the gaming experience, for people as individuals, and as a hobby.  

Chris

Quote from: LordSmerfWell, the other problem with players recognizing what they are looking for is that most people don't have the sort of shared vocabulary that we do.  ...  Most players don't realize that all of this theory has been articulated, and thus aren't familiar with all the thought and analysis that has already gone into gaming.  Since the vast majority of people are not geniuses when it comes to the analysis of RPGs, they don't have any way to analyze or describe what they are looking for.

I tend to think that the vocabulary is minor compared to simply a willingness to analyze.  The problem that I more often have is a social one.  I find that many gamers simply aren't interested in analyzing what goes on in a game, for various reasons.  

To take a specific case, I have a problem in a present campaign -- this is a Lord of the Rings RPG campaign (the same one from the infamous "horseplay" example).  Basically, I think all four players have the feeling that the campaign is really boring at this point.  The problem is that we don't want to hurt the GM's feelings, it seems.  It seems that our sense is that he would take criticism of the campaign personally.  In particular, I feel that if I give him advice it would be taken as me telling him what to do -- which he would resent.  

We are social, and capable of talking.  We have been able to criticize the game system, say.  But in this case being friendly and social is working against talking about what I think are the more core problems with the campaign.  It certainly is not a lack of vocabulary, but rather a matter of social dynamic -- which I think is part of a gaming subculture: that a campaign as a whole is the GM's domain, and thus initiative for change has to start from there.

I agree with John on the vocabulary issue. It's not so much a lack of vocabulary so much as a lack of any desire to analyze and then figure out why you're not enjoying 95% of what goes on at the gaming table. The wife hates that I pick apart movies and I "can't just enjoy it." I've done the same for RPG and she's ticked I can't just "go with the flow." Forgive me to not wanting to go with the flow of stagnant water.

So I think it boils down to denial that you're not having any fun or at least much less fun than you could be doing other things or less fun if this or this or that was part of the game.

Yes it seems to go back to something I had been thinking: most people have no idea about roleplaying. That is, they don't understand it and therefore all they can do is imitate others, others who may not understand roleplaying any better. It's for reasons like this that original D&D had stats but no use for them until the Greyhawk suppliment and that the host of imitators that came out were thinly disguised rip-off, even to copying typos like "% in liar." Most people have no idea what they're supposed to do in an RPG and fewer still realise what could be done, thus having more fun most of the time. This sounds like great big synechdochy on the population's part. It also explains why diceless game are and continue to be met with resistance. RPGs are supposed to have dice, aren't they? Cards are slowly gaining better acceptance as flat dice that you don't roll, you draw.