Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by clehrich, December 03, 2004, 01:18:00 PM
Quote from: LordSmerfYes, I believe we understand one another when it comes to chaos. ... Now, I have only just recently (in the past couple of days) begin to consider RPGs as chaotic. The result is that I am not currently comfortable discussing RPGs as chaotic on the macro scale in the way that we can discuss the entire body of myth as chaotic. That said, I would love to hear any thoughts you have on the subject.
QuoteWould ... you, or as you understand him would Levi-Strauss, say that myth is like language in that there is a highly structured system that at this point has not been identified. For example, in music we have the note, the chord, the measure, the phrase, and a whole heap of other structure. We are able to analyze music using the concepts. Myth is probably at least a little bit fuzzier, but do you think that similar structures also exist in myth as a whole?
QuoteUsing the music analogy, what is the size of a single RPG session? Is it roughly equivilent to a musical phrase? A movement? A single measure? If it is larger than a single note, which I suspect it is, then what constitutes the "notes" of RPG play? Or am I taking the music comparison too far?
Quote from: lumpleyChris (Lehrich), for the sake of me a mere dog-paddler, could you say briefly what's the "mytheme"? Or would it be more proper to ask, what are some example mythemes?
QuoteWhy isn't "the conflict" the RPG-eme? It seems a lot like phonemes and notes to me, in that you build more complicated and meaningful RPG-structures out of 'em, and if you asked me I could show you some examples and how they might go together, and you don't have a game without 'em.
Quote from: TonyLBCan a Game-ete (or whatever it ends up being called) be an action by a single player, or must it be some sort of interaction between two or more?
QuoteDo Game-etes make up the entire substance of play, or are they distinct things that develop in the rich, nutritive broth of player-chatter and rolling dice?
QuoteCan a game occur without creating Game-etes?
Quote from: clehrichCan a game occur without manipulating gamemes? No. But you have to understand, creating such things is almost never necessary: you borrow them from somewhere else, just as the Hidatsa don't bother inventing owl-bears but instead just borrow wolverines. And I think this process of borrowing has a lot to do with Social Contract negotiations about use of genre (in a very broad sense), source material, history of play, personal lives, and the much larger social spheres of players' lives.One of the really brilliant things about how this structural analysis works is that it demonstrates that it isn't necessary really to invent mythemes or structures; this is the bricoleur who just takes crap out of his shed and puts it together. The total result of this work is a new thing, and it's very much a creative act. But the procedure does not create new pieces: for Levi-Strauss such creation of new pieces is distinctive to the scientific approach as opposed to the mythic approach. I, like many others, am doubtful about this as a claim about science, but with respect to mythic thought it does seem to me that there is no need to invent anything because it's already provided to you by the vast totality of both nature and cultural context.
Quote from: Mark WoodhouseOr alternatively - to springboard off the notion that the creation of new mythemes is the work of empiricism - is it that we have too rich an array of possible signs and symbols?This problem, then, might be the motive for all the accreta of roleplaying games - mechanics, setting-as-text, the "geek culture". A ritualisation of the mythmaking enterprise that defines and limits the symbol-sets deemed appropriate for use in this effort.
QuoteI mean the basic sort of existential angst that lots of people (including me) often feel in the modern world, the sense of being adrift and more or less alone in a world that doesn't really mean a whole lot and over which one actually has little or no control. We seek out small social groups and treat them as worlds -- everyone does this, not just gamers -- in part because such worlds are meaningful and coherent, or can be so. And I think that the Simulationist gamer has a system by which to extend this from a loose, touchy-feely "getting together" sense of meaning into a deep, intricate, rich, and intellectually and emotionally satisfying world.