Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Iain, Ian, and You
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6048619" data-attributes="member: 2067"><p><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px">Our brains are divided. This is a biological fact, but it’s also something we see in the things our brain produces, from music, art, and food to society, governments, and economies. It’s also something we see in our games – in how they’re designed, in how their played, and in which ones we prefer. Come along with me while I discuss neurology, psychology, autism-spectrum disorders and, as always, your games.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><u>The Developer and the Designer</u></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px">You’re probably at least vaguely aware of the pop-culture psychology that talks about how different hemispheres of your brain affect your thinking. You might’ve heard or described someone who is very logical or good at math as “left-brained,” while your flaky artist friend you might call “right-brained.”</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px">A lot of this pop psych, like a lot of pop science, is misleading, focusing more on headlines and eyeballs than on the actual science. The brain shares what it does across the hemispheres, the structural differences can have little meaning, the brain builds and re-builds connections, and individual brains vary significantly. It’s kind of reckless to say something like “language is managed by the left side of the brain!” because ‘language’ is actually a pretty complex process and it pulls a lot from the right side of the brain. There may be a tendency, over many individuals, for the left side of the brain to favor certain aspects of grammar, but that is a less interesting headline even if it is more accurate.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px">That caveat aside, the ability of the hemispheres to favor certain actions and processes in general is real. Lateralization (as it is called) isn’t a myth, it’s just not the whole story, and its explanatory power is limited.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px">What is most interesting perhaps is that we see a pronounced effect of this in <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16209828" target="_blank">animals</a>. It's not a uniquely human phenomenon, it's something that even birds and fish do. Presumably, this is because it has an evolutionary advantage of some sort -- a division of labor an attention that can be useful. Animals tend to use their hemispheres to separate the world into information control and routine behaviors on the left, and novel events, emergencies, social pressures, and intense emotions on the right. As we’ve built on this underlying framework as humans, this has become complicated, but there are still some broad generalizations we can posit. The left brain tends to help us focus narrowly, specifically, in an ordered and mechanical way. The right brain meanwhile helps us deal with novelty, to understand big ideas, abstractions, metaphor, and uncertainty.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px">So it’s pretty clear what that might mean in game design and game play, right?</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/news/331441-heart-hero-mind-pigeon.html" target="_blank">Last week</a> I talked about Skinner Box D&D and Toybox D&D. <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/news/330387-beginning-end-character-death.html" target="_blank">A while back</a> I talked about mortality and gameplay vs. story (link). I’ve <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/news/331161-rules-rulings-paradox-choice.html" target="_blank">also</a> talked about rules and rulings. You should be detecting a theme here, an underlying tension between something that is concrete and specific, and something that is broad and big-picture and difficult to understand. There’s always an acknowledgement that we need both, but there is this tension.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px">And this tension is reflected in the structure of the brain of every person who picks up a dice and pretends to be another person, and then tries to marry those two sides of the brain at once.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px">So then you have two sides, and they reflect two broad distinctions in focus for the game. On the left, you have the developer – the gal who checks the math, who strikes the balance, who ensures that the format is the same, that no one is favored, that everyone is equal and that things shake out as you’d expect from the numbers.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px">On the right, you have the designer – the big-thinker, the story-maker, the one who inspires new ideas and drives development forward, who directs the ship into dark waters to explore novel concepts and large abstractions.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px">When a game is at its best at your table, the two are working in concert in every player. The math works right, the story is driving the action forward, everyone feels like they are on an adventure and no one stumbles over awkward mechanics. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px">When a game breaks down, it often breaks down along these lines, too. It becomes unmoored and meandering and unbelievable, or it becomes rigid and inflexible and overly rules-heavy. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px">My bro Iain McGilchrist breaks it down a bit here:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px">[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFs9WO2B8uI"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFs9WO2B8uI[/ame]</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><u>The Leftward Drift</u></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px">You might see that Iain spoke toward the end of that video on how the left hemisphere has been favored in history, perhaps unfairly. The logic insists on itself. You’d also be familiar with this idea if you’ve read much about <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence" target="_blank">emergence</a>, essentially the idea that things tend to become more organized without necessarily requiring outside guidance. Our societies, in many ways, do that -- more laws, more detail, more restrictions...they arise spontaneously, and appeal to our left-brained desire for order.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px">We can see this also happening in D&D: the more iterations and editions it has, the more rules and more detail and more balance and more “developer-y” the game becomes. As humans, we impose the predictability and reliability of the left hemisphere’s worldview on the riotous chaos and surprising unpredictability of our own imaginations and thought processes.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px">You can see this easily enough if you try to create a 1st level fighter by hand, by RAW. Do it in OD&D, then do it in 4e and compare the amount of calculation you do, the amount of rules you need to memorize, the amount of options you need to take. As D&D has developed, it has sought greater precision, greater definition, and greater detail.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px">Iain has a concern about this leftward drift, and I think it’s a concern shared by a lot of D&D players about the same drift in their beloved game: we’ve entered a paradoxical world. We’ve pursued fun, but we’ve found more rules and more details and more decisions than we’ve ever had before. We’ve come to see that the endpoint of rules development is to demonstrate the limits of rules development. The need to control our characters has led to paranoia: that we need rules and balance for everything. We’ve rejected the big abstract challenging obtuse metaphor, and we’ve reduced all the actions of our imaginary magical gumdrop elves to rules things. We get a hall of mirrors effect: rules interact with rules that interact with rules, without ever referencing the engaging undefined awesome they're supposedly drawn from.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px">This is the other side of the phenomena I talked about in the article on character mortality. What started with us taking a set of rules and imposing a personality on them has gone straight through to the other side where our systems now must provide rules for everything that imaginary character is capable of. Our desire for rules over rulings has somewhat turned into rules for the sake of rules, rarely drifting into the territory of the wild, the unknown, and the dangerously un-fathomable. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px">There’s a guy who can show us what that can look like in the human brain. A man with the same first name, in fact. <a href="http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2012/11/autistic-gamers-autism/all/" target="_blank">His name is Ian Bates, he loves World of Warcraft, and he has Asperger’s</a>. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px">[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fziRzD05yI"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fziRzD05yI[/ame]</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><u>Navigating the Corpus Callosum</u></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px">The video’s a pretty powerful demonstration. When you’re done reading my sterling words, I’d recommend you read Ryan Rigney’s article, too. It nicely captures what it’s like to be so ensconced in the left-brain worldview that you lose much of your ability to veer right when necessary, and how a game that fosters both interaction and attention to detail can help both sides. He was talking about World of Warcraft, but everyone reading this article already knows that D&D is even better at both! Take the lore of the Forgotten Realms, and put five people in a room with it, and you have more extreme detail and more extreme social interaction than the computer game provides.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px">Of course, Asperger’s syndrome is an extreme end. It’s over there with highly detailed rules modeling for every possible character option. That's all on the other extreme from the sort of free-form storytelling I pointed out in the rules vs. rulings article. Clearly, neither unilateral extreme is a good place to sit for long, but a truly versatile game would be able to be ultra-detailed and consistent at the rules-wonk's table, while still being open-ended and abstract and relational at the free-form storyteller's. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px">Your own game probably wades between these two poles, too. It might even change with the years or with the game. Most mentally normative people naturally resist the extremes. This is really a fairly uncontroversial statement, though you might not think it judging from some message board debates: none of us are quite as extreme or unreasonable we're likely to believe others are. The D&D rules even support this moderation. Even at their most intricate and detailed, or free and open, the D&D rules were never very totalitarian. Neither should we be.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px">The reason we might be is because we become reactionary. Iain’s talk implies that the tendency of our systems (including our games!) to have emergent complexity is something that we must be on guard against, so that it doesn’t replace our ability to adapt and change. Ian’s need for order, though rather extreme, isn’t entirely alien, either. As we’ve explored a few times in these articles, that order is valuable, and helpful. But if we panic in the face of openness and unpredictability, and we deride order and rules as more trouble than help, we being to vilify something that is inherently in each of us. Our brains are divided, but they are not split. We need to work in both hemispheres to keep our games engaging, fun, and entirely involved, or else we’re denying our natures.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px">Now, how this looks at any one table is going to be unique. We don’t all want the same rules, or want the same freedoms, for our own idiosyncratic reasons -- our tables aren't monolithically divided in the same way. So tell me about your games. What’s an example of a rule you really like for something abstract and disembodied? What’s a rule for something concrete that you’d like to ditch? Do you have die rolls for ordering a beer at the tavern? Do you surrender encumbrance rules and just wing it? Let me know how you tweak both halves of the brain, and get them to work together at your tables. When do you roll the dice and do the math, and when do you embrace something more chaotic and unpredictable and interactive than that?</span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="I'm A Banana, post: 6048619, member: 2067"] [SIZE="3"] Our brains are divided. This is a biological fact, but it’s also something we see in the things our brain produces, from music, art, and food to society, governments, and economies. It’s also something we see in our games – in how they’re designed, in how their played, and in which ones we prefer. Come along with me while I discuss neurology, psychology, autism-spectrum disorders and, as always, your games. [U]The Developer and the Designer[/U] You’re probably at least vaguely aware of the pop-culture psychology that talks about how different hemispheres of your brain affect your thinking. You might’ve heard or described someone who is very logical or good at math as “left-brained,” while your flaky artist friend you might call “right-brained.” A lot of this pop psych, like a lot of pop science, is misleading, focusing more on headlines and eyeballs than on the actual science. The brain shares what it does across the hemispheres, the structural differences can have little meaning, the brain builds and re-builds connections, and individual brains vary significantly. It’s kind of reckless to say something like “language is managed by the left side of the brain!” because ‘language’ is actually a pretty complex process and it pulls a lot from the right side of the brain. There may be a tendency, over many individuals, for the left side of the brain to favor certain aspects of grammar, but that is a less interesting headline even if it is more accurate. That caveat aside, the ability of the hemispheres to favor certain actions and processes in general is real. Lateralization (as it is called) isn’t a myth, it’s just not the whole story, and its explanatory power is limited. What is most interesting perhaps is that we see a pronounced effect of this in [URL="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16209828"]animals[/URL]. It's not a uniquely human phenomenon, it's something that even birds and fish do. Presumably, this is because it has an evolutionary advantage of some sort -- a division of labor an attention that can be useful. Animals tend to use their hemispheres to separate the world into information control and routine behaviors on the left, and novel events, emergencies, social pressures, and intense emotions on the right. As we’ve built on this underlying framework as humans, this has become complicated, but there are still some broad generalizations we can posit. The left brain tends to help us focus narrowly, specifically, in an ordered and mechanical way. The right brain meanwhile helps us deal with novelty, to understand big ideas, abstractions, metaphor, and uncertainty. So it’s pretty clear what that might mean in game design and game play, right? [URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/news/331441-heart-hero-mind-pigeon.html"]Last week[/URL] I talked about Skinner Box D&D and Toybox D&D. [URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/news/330387-beginning-end-character-death.html"]A while back[/URL] I talked about mortality and gameplay vs. story (link). I’ve [URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/news/331161-rules-rulings-paradox-choice.html"]also[/URL] talked about rules and rulings. You should be detecting a theme here, an underlying tension between something that is concrete and specific, and something that is broad and big-picture and difficult to understand. There’s always an acknowledgement that we need both, but there is this tension. And this tension is reflected in the structure of the brain of every person who picks up a dice and pretends to be another person, and then tries to marry those two sides of the brain at once. So then you have two sides, and they reflect two broad distinctions in focus for the game. On the left, you have the developer – the gal who checks the math, who strikes the balance, who ensures that the format is the same, that no one is favored, that everyone is equal and that things shake out as you’d expect from the numbers. On the right, you have the designer – the big-thinker, the story-maker, the one who inspires new ideas and drives development forward, who directs the ship into dark waters to explore novel concepts and large abstractions. When a game is at its best at your table, the two are working in concert in every player. The math works right, the story is driving the action forward, everyone feels like they are on an adventure and no one stumbles over awkward mechanics. When a game breaks down, it often breaks down along these lines, too. It becomes unmoored and meandering and unbelievable, or it becomes rigid and inflexible and overly rules-heavy. My bro Iain McGilchrist breaks it down a bit here: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFs9WO2B8uI"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFs9WO2B8uI[/ame] [U]The Leftward Drift[/U] You might see that Iain spoke toward the end of that video on how the left hemisphere has been favored in history, perhaps unfairly. The logic insists on itself. You’d also be familiar with this idea if you’ve read much about [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence"]emergence[/URL], essentially the idea that things tend to become more organized without necessarily requiring outside guidance. Our societies, in many ways, do that -- more laws, more detail, more restrictions...they arise spontaneously, and appeal to our left-brained desire for order. We can see this also happening in D&D: the more iterations and editions it has, the more rules and more detail and more balance and more “developer-y” the game becomes. As humans, we impose the predictability and reliability of the left hemisphere’s worldview on the riotous chaos and surprising unpredictability of our own imaginations and thought processes. You can see this easily enough if you try to create a 1st level fighter by hand, by RAW. Do it in OD&D, then do it in 4e and compare the amount of calculation you do, the amount of rules you need to memorize, the amount of options you need to take. As D&D has developed, it has sought greater precision, greater definition, and greater detail. Iain has a concern about this leftward drift, and I think it’s a concern shared by a lot of D&D players about the same drift in their beloved game: we’ve entered a paradoxical world. We’ve pursued fun, but we’ve found more rules and more details and more decisions than we’ve ever had before. We’ve come to see that the endpoint of rules development is to demonstrate the limits of rules development. The need to control our characters has led to paranoia: that we need rules and balance for everything. We’ve rejected the big abstract challenging obtuse metaphor, and we’ve reduced all the actions of our imaginary magical gumdrop elves to rules things. We get a hall of mirrors effect: rules interact with rules that interact with rules, without ever referencing the engaging undefined awesome they're supposedly drawn from. This is the other side of the phenomena I talked about in the article on character mortality. What started with us taking a set of rules and imposing a personality on them has gone straight through to the other side where our systems now must provide rules for everything that imaginary character is capable of. Our desire for rules over rulings has somewhat turned into rules for the sake of rules, rarely drifting into the territory of the wild, the unknown, and the dangerously un-fathomable. There’s a guy who can show us what that can look like in the human brain. A man with the same first name, in fact. [URL="http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2012/11/autistic-gamers-autism/all/"]His name is Ian Bates, he loves World of Warcraft, and he has Asperger’s[/URL]. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fziRzD05yI"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fziRzD05yI[/ame] [U]Navigating the Corpus Callosum[/U] The video’s a pretty powerful demonstration. When you’re done reading my sterling words, I’d recommend you read Ryan Rigney’s article, too. It nicely captures what it’s like to be so ensconced in the left-brain worldview that you lose much of your ability to veer right when necessary, and how a game that fosters both interaction and attention to detail can help both sides. He was talking about World of Warcraft, but everyone reading this article already knows that D&D is even better at both! Take the lore of the Forgotten Realms, and put five people in a room with it, and you have more extreme detail and more extreme social interaction than the computer game provides. Of course, Asperger’s syndrome is an extreme end. It’s over there with highly detailed rules modeling for every possible character option. That's all on the other extreme from the sort of free-form storytelling I pointed out in the rules vs. rulings article. Clearly, neither unilateral extreme is a good place to sit for long, but a truly versatile game would be able to be ultra-detailed and consistent at the rules-wonk's table, while still being open-ended and abstract and relational at the free-form storyteller's. Your own game probably wades between these two poles, too. It might even change with the years or with the game. Most mentally normative people naturally resist the extremes. This is really a fairly uncontroversial statement, though you might not think it judging from some message board debates: none of us are quite as extreme or unreasonable we're likely to believe others are. The D&D rules even support this moderation. Even at their most intricate and detailed, or free and open, the D&D rules were never very totalitarian. Neither should we be. The reason we might be is because we become reactionary. Iain’s talk implies that the tendency of our systems (including our games!) to have emergent complexity is something that we must be on guard against, so that it doesn’t replace our ability to adapt and change. Ian’s need for order, though rather extreme, isn’t entirely alien, either. As we’ve explored a few times in these articles, that order is valuable, and helpful. But if we panic in the face of openness and unpredictability, and we deride order and rules as more trouble than help, we being to vilify something that is inherently in each of us. Our brains are divided, but they are not split. We need to work in both hemispheres to keep our games engaging, fun, and entirely involved, or else we’re denying our natures. Now, how this looks at any one table is going to be unique. We don’t all want the same rules, or want the same freedoms, for our own idiosyncratic reasons -- our tables aren't monolithically divided in the same way. So tell me about your games. What’s an example of a rule you really like for something abstract and disembodied? What’s a rule for something concrete that you’d like to ditch? Do you have die rolls for ordering a beer at the tavern? Do you surrender encumbrance rules and just wing it? Let me know how you tweak both halves of the brain, and get them to work together at your tables. When do you roll the dice and do the math, and when do you embrace something more chaotic and unpredictable and interactive than that?[/SIZE] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Iain, Ian, and You
Top