Topic: Mechanics as symbol-sets (split)
Started by: Montola
Started on: 1/15/2005
Board: GNS Model Discussion
On 1/15/2005 at 11:28am, Montola wrote:
Mechanics as symbol-sets (split)
clehrich wrote: Okay, I'm going to have to sit down and read this essay carefully. What you describe here, in terms of cultures favoring one type of representation over another, sounds simplistic but at the same time plausible. I suspect that one could in fact find fairly consistently, through semiotic analysis of different modes of discourse about mechanics, a set of claims about different mechanics being preferentially either indexical or iconic, with the further claim that this makes them better in the sense of stronger representations. What would be striking about this is that it puts such discourse solidly back in line with more traditional ways of talking about representation, in the sense that the assertion that such-and-such a way of representing is more "true" is an extremely common one with nearly infinite variations.
Hi!
Nice to hear our paper has attracted attention. Since I (or the googles I use) found this only today, I'm bit late commenting.
In the semiotic model the emphasis is in how a role-playing diegesis (a subjective construct, bit like SIS) is constructed by a participant. The signifier-signified relationships we talk about are only the relationships of how non-diegetic becomes diegetic. (Or how non-diegetic is articulated into diegesis).
And here we can use the distinctions.
Let's take an example of a medieval-style fantasy cloak: You can create an indexical medieval-style fantasy cloak with hard labour, using diegetically plausible materials, working styles and cuttings. Or you could create it the easy way from polyester with sewing machine.
The both of these cloaks' cloakness is indexical. But the former cloak's appearances are also potentially indexical (the cloak is pretty identical within diegesis and outside it). But the latter is iconical, as it only resembles the cloak it is meant to be. You could also take a playing card, write "Cloak" on it, to create a symbolic cloak. The card-cloak's cloakness is symbolic only, while its appearances might be iconic (if there's a picture of the cloak in the card) or symbolic (if there is only description).
However, before and after the sign makes the transition into diegesis (I think this is related to Huizinga's magic circle of playspace) it may have other meanings we don't address in the paper. An orange scarf may be an index in the sense that it is the very same orange scarf within diegeses. Orange scarf carries symbolic meanings from Ukrainian politics, and in the game world it might mean that the guy using one is probably a member of the guild of fire wizards (or whatever). These interpretations we do not address.
(Allow me to complicate it a bit further. If there is a game rule that fire wizards are recognizable from the orange scarves, an orange scarf symbolizes fire-wizardness in our sense. But if there is only a social rule within the diegetic game world, then, within the limits we have set in our paper, the scarf is primarily not a symbol. Because in that case the meaning the scarf carries through the boundary of diegetic is not primarily symbolic).
Our discussion on what is preferrable in different kinds of games is mostly done through discussing what kind of game experience and what dangers of misinterpretation the various ways have. We aimed to avoid normativeness, leaving the decisions on these issues in the hands of the reader.
Regards,
- M
On 1/15/2005 at 6:06pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Mechanics as symbol-sets (split)
Hello,
M, welcome to the Forge! You'll notice I've split your post into its own thread, from Mechanics of symbol-sets. That's merely a policy to preserve discussions as time-dependent.
So, everyone, check out the parent thread, and join in here.
Best,
Ron
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 13058
On 1/17/2005 at 7:37pm, clehrich wrote:
RE: Mechanics as symbol-sets (split)
Now that I've read the article carefully, and read your nice restatement here, let me expand on my previous remark, where I said that I think the Peirce-style semiotic triad is ultimately going to be ineffective.
Clearly the preliminary division of icon/index/symbol is a valuable one, and should be applied broadly throughout RPG discourse.
What's lacking, however, is the symbolic politics of dominance. It seems to me that your article takes this up indirectly as a matter of preference and effectiveness in (especially) LARPs. But there is an important issue here of who gets to decide what's in and what's out, what's the "right" interpretation and whether this or that form of immersion is desirable, and the like. In the article, there is a strong implication (perhaps from the Turku pespective?) that immersion is desirable. But that's a political claim, and what requires further analysis is how the ideology of symbolic manipulation comes into RPG discourse. For that, we're going to need stronger structural and post-structural perspectives; I think Lévi-Strauss, Bourdieu, and Bell are the most likely to pan out helpfully.
On 1/17/2005 at 8:26pm, Montola wrote:
RE: Mechanics as symbol-sets (split)
Chris wrote: What's lacking, however, is the symbolic politics of dominance. It seems to me that your article takes this up indirectly as a matter of preference and effectiveness in (especially) LARPs. But there is an important issue here of who gets to decide what's in and what's out, what's the "right" interpretation and whether this or that form of immersion is desirable, and the like.
Hmm... this depends on whether you're talking on the level of an individual game or a gaming (sub)culture.
I comment some of this in my article Role-Playing as Interactive Construction of Subjective Diegeses in 2003's book As Larp Grows Up. There I discuss the ultimate subjectivity of the diegeses (and the non-existence of an all-encompassing diegesis), claiming (with other words) that a shared imagined space does not exist, because it's not very much shared. Hence, it's not a big deal who get's to decide what's diegetic, because it's very contractual, and always subject to struggle and arbitration.
On the level of culture it's another thing -- if you're talking about how the gamemaster power is constructed and whether it should be deconstructed (more).
Personally, I believe in turkuist division of work, having single auteur (comparable, perhaps, to theatre director). This comes from my belief that though all role-playing games are not art, some of them may be, and having single auteur with single vision increases both the risk and the potential of the game, and is hence desirable.
Our paper is indeed a bit coloured by immersionism (not extreme turkuism though). However, it's usable from other angles as well -- for instance, I think that gamist approach benefits from diagrammatic approach, and even requires it. What's a stronger diagram than the 5' grid recommended in the new editions of D&D?
To clarify; though our personal views lean towards immersionism, we don't claim that all role-players seek immersionistic play, nor do we claim that it would be the best way to play.
Chris wrote: Clearly the preliminary division of icon/index/symbol is a valuable one, and should be applied broadly throughout RPG discourse.
Thank you for the compliment. For the sake of honesty, though, I've been told that there exists certain criticism on old-school semiotics that might affect our views when we get it read through. Me and Loponen might be back with new bag of tricks on this pretty soon.
- Markus
PS. Oh. If you're really quick, you could still sign up into Knutepunkt 05 (that's Solmukohta or Knudepunkt in Norwegian), which is held in Oslo in the end of February.