Forked Thread: "The Death of the Imagination" re: World of Warcraft

[Mercurius]

So is it your opinion that a GM running a published adventure is supressing his imagination and his time would better be spent designing his own campaign worlds? In fact, he's really supressing his imagination if he doesn't design his own system.

That is not at all what I am saying. In the context of your question, what I am saying is that A) A self-designed campaign world exercises more imagination than a pre-designed one (at least in the creation of it; in actual play it doesn't matter as much), and B) only certain activities actually "suppress the imagination," and they have to do with imposing imagery through some form of (probably visual) media, such as computer or TV. I see no possible negative effect in terms of the imagination from playing tabletop-style D&D.

And as someone pointed out early in the thread, D&D can itself vary in "imaginativeness." About six or seven years ago I was in a group in which there was a debate about using miniatures, which were increasingly becoming a part of our game-play. At first we just used them in combat then we started using them almost as board game pieces, moving down hallways and such. At that point one of the players objected, saying it was interfering with his ability to imagine what was going on; he wanted to get rid of miniatures entirely. I can't remember the details, but I think we decided to tone it down and reserve them for combat only. At the time I was mixed--I wanted to use them for combat for the obvious benefits they offered, but didn't like our increasing reliance upon them. And the fact of the matter is that when you are looking at a physical object or representation you are not imagining something (or at least it is more difficult); now one might be able to switch back and forth, which I think is the ideal approach so that you get the benefit of both worlds, but external images can become an obstacle to internal images, if one relies upon them.

In the case of video games there is no room for internal images, or more specifically, image-making (imagining), especially in extremely absorbing games like World of Warcraft and Everquest. This is obvious while playing, but one could object that if you aren't playing then you can create internal images. But the question becomes, where do those images come from? Are they self-generated or remembered from something external? As some people have said, it seems that the more one plays such games, the more the images dominate their consciousness. Of course this extends beyond video games (anyone who has played a lot of chess in a short period of time knows the experience of having chess moves in your head when you're trying to fall asleep...kind of a hassle!).

My view is that there is a spectrum, a hierarchy if you will, that has to do with the degree to which images are self-generated or come from some external source, whether memory or sensory. The very act of self-generation (of images and ideas) works and develops the "imaginative muscle". The less one self-generates, the less one uses the imaginative muscle, and the weaker it becomes.

(Now of course one may play WoW 4 hours a day and counter-act this effect to some degree by engaging in other imaginative activities--like playing tabletop RPGs; but you could say that is like eating donuts then going to the gym--the effect of each is relative to the prevalence of the other).

I will say that from reading this thread and the experience of those that feel they have been negatively impacted by WoW, and their subsequent "recovery," I don't think computer games and tv will actually "kill" (as in destroy) imagination, except in two cases: 1) Through very long-term and extremely excessive use; and 2) In very young children, especially before the age of 7, who are developing the imaginative faculty during that time. It seems that what happens with adults and adolescents when they play video games is a combination of the generally agreed upon "time sink" and the more controversial suppression or numbing of the imaginative faculty which, thankfully, seems to reverse when excessive usage ceases.

This thread has helped me better understand and refine my own perspective, which will hopefully continue to evolve. If someone were to present strong evidence that playing WoW and other video games, as well as watching television, in more than moderate amounts, is NOT suppressive of the imagination, I would be happy to change my opinion. Or it may be that I change by opinion through further contemplation. But from everything I've experienced, read, studied, learned from educators and psychologists, as well as the anecdotes in this thread, my opinion stands, if adjusted slightly (again, in that it seems that, in adults at least, the effect is more of "suppression" than of "permanent damage").

 

[Rel]

My mileage has apparently varied. In fact, I'm getting such good mileage over here that I'm letting my 7 year old daughter drive sometimes. It's awesome.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

First of all, what I said has been supported by a few peoples' experience within this thread, as well as those of different educators, psychologists, and other theorists and philosophers. I am also going on my own experience with various media, especially television and, to a lesser degree, the internet. I am also going on other sources, educational theories, etc. So I am not just posting this opinion in a void.

Odd.... I've DONE psychological research on video games, game theory, development, etc..... and I can't find anything in your claims that any self-respecting psychologist would touch with a 10-meter cattle prod.

The personification of imagination is fascinating. The continuum from good imagination to ZOMG broken imagination is amazing. Too bad the concept of mythic archetypes came along. On your scale, there are officially no pure acts of imagination possible in a narrative format, as far as I can tell.

In any case, to retreat to the original point of this thread.... I have actual DATA suggesting that playing video games and tactical games sit next to learning a musical instrument as the only 3 truly generalizable skills that have been studied.

Getting better at Halo (as a random example of one of the games actually studied) ALSO makes you better at about a dozen other tasks, mostly involving hand-eye coordination, motion tracking, etc, but also resource allocation, tactics, etc. Almost every other task you do in life actually only makes you better at that one thing ONLY.

Also.... for the 3 people who felt less imaginative while playing WoW.... you took away your brain's idle time. Instead of spending your idle time cooking over ideas you were vaguely conscious of or not even noticing, you were concentrating on playing the game. Achieve Zen Koan Mastery: Farming Netherbloom! and you can idle imaginatively while playing the game. It's a real time-saver. But, as many here suggested, you simply allocated your time differently, and saw an effect on other activities.

Apoptosis.... I was in the field for about 6 years, and the literature on these issues in my experience is spotty, badly founded, and a complete disaster. Like 90% of psychological research, the PI's previous research, personal habits, and biases are more obvious contributors to the claims in the results and discussion than the actual data. There's a reason I moved back into straight biology after grad school. Blech. Good luck getting a cohesive story from it. I couldn't.

 

[Hussar]

I fell behind due to Real Life busy-ness, so I might not be able to catch up entirely, but I wanted to at least respond to this:



First off, let me clarify by saying that I may have been a bit harsh on fanfic in that it certainly could be very imaginative. The main issue for me is that the writer isn't creating their own world but writing within an already established universe. That is, they aren't "giving birth" to something new in terms of a setting or context, even so than the typical D&D campaign world. A D&D campaign world uses certain already-established tropes and may (or may not) play with them, tweak them, customize them. But fanfic takes it a step further by using an already-created world.

This is not to say that fanfic cannot be good fiction, it can. I am not talking about quality of writing, characterization, plot, etc. I am talking about the act of imagination.

You could say that there are (at least) three basic levels, in this context, of the degree of derivation, also equating with how much the creator/writer has to actually create: 1) fanfic; 2) D&D-style (or any pre-determined style) of campaign setting (or novel); and 3) what could be described as an "independent" creation. And of course it is really a greyscale, especially between the latter two levels, because even the most "independent" worlds will have elements of other worlds, and everything has its influences (nothing exists in a vacuum).

Examples of the three would be, respectively, writing fanfic or running a game in a pre-made setting (e.g. The Forgotten Realms); creating a campaign setting in a basic mold (e.g. homebrew D&D worlds, traditional epic fantasy or sword and sorcery novels, etc); and creating a world and/or story with relatively unique elements (e.g. Talislanta).

But of course derivation is only one cross-section of imagination, because truly weird stuff--while being less derivative--could less imaginatve or "creatively juicy" than other more traditional works (I often find that extremely weird fantasy creations are less substantial, even imaginative, in that they try too hard to be unique).

It really depends. But my point being, the act of imagining can be more or less active, more or less from oneself, more or less "one's own."

So, Howard wasn't being creative when he used the Cthulu mythos in his writing? Tolkien wasn't being creative when he used traditional myth and legend to build his Middle Earth?

In the end, you're splitting hairs - X is more creative than Y. Maybe true. But, that doesn't make Y uncreative. Any more than playing WOW makes you less creative in other activities.

The entire point of this thread is that you have not made any causal linkage between a person's level of creativity and playing WOW.

 

[Mercurius]

Odd.... I've DONE psychological research on video games, game theory, development, etc..... and I can't find anything in your claims that any self-respecting psychologist would touch with a 10-meter cattle prod.

I disagree, but we probably have very different ideas of what a "self-respecting psychologist" is.

The personification of imagination is fascinating. The continuum from good imagination to ZOMG broken imagination is amazing. Too bad the concept of mythic archetypes came along. On your scale, there are officially no pure acts of imagination possible in a narrative format, as far as I can tell.

Again, it depends upon what we mean by a "pure act of imagination." I certainly think it is possible.

In any case, to retreat to the original point of this thread.... I have actual DATA suggesting that playing video games and tactical games sit next to learning a musical instrument as the only 3 truly generalizable skills that have been studied.

Getting better at Halo (as a random example of one of the games actually studied) ALSO makes you better at about a dozen other tasks, mostly involving hand-eye coordination, motion tracking, etc, but also resource allocation, tactics, etc. Almost every other task you do in life actually only makes you better at that one thing ONLY.

I certainly agree that playing video games can improve certain skills. But I'm talking about imagination, which is of course a multi-faceted word and hard to sharply define.

 

[Mercurius]

So, Howard wasn't being creative when he used the Cthulu mythos in his writing? Tolkien wasn't being creative when he used traditional myth and legend to build his Middle Earth?

In the end, you're splitting hairs - X is more creative than Y. Maybe true. But, that doesn't make Y uncreative. Any more than playing WOW makes you less creative in other activities.

The entire point of this thread is that you have not made any causal linkage between a person's level of creativity and playing WOW.

Again, you are looking at this as an either/or when it is a matter of degree (which is why I used the word "spectrum"). I would say the evocative power and "archetypal resonance" of Howard and Tolkien is indicative of a powerful use of imagination.

And again, I didn't say that "Y is uncreative" (if Y = fanfic), I said--as you rightly note--that it is less creative than X (X = original work). Further, "creativity" and "imagination" are over-lapping, but different, words. I don't use them synonymously.

What sort of causal linkage should I be making? I'm not trying to prove anything or present a theory for peer review, which is funny that some took it that way. I was asserting an opinion, a hypothesis if you must, and throwing it out there for discussion (actually, the first post was a way of further explaining my view to Fifth Element, who took issue with my comment on the "death of imagination" via WoW). And it was backed up by several anecdotes, which were disregarded or explained away by the most vociferously against my view. This is not to say that three anecdotes are rock-solid proof, but that they mean something, that they were all expressed eloquently and an obviously strong degree of thought and care in their expression.

And to be clear once more, I am talking about imagination, not creativity. As I said, the two overlap but are distinct. And specifically the ability to self-generate images, to use the "imaginative muscle," which could be called "creative imagination" as opposed to "creative problem-solving," which is more analytic and probably not as effected by video games.

 

[Rel]

I certainly agree that playing video games can improve certain skills. But I'm talking about imagination, which is of course a multi-faceted word and hard to sharply define.

Except you are sharply defining it to mean "visualization" as near as I can tell. Because you refuse to recognize any of the benefits that people say they derive from such games in other areas as imaginitive. Simultaneously you seem to ascribe any ill effects, ranging from being tired after a late night of WoW to simply lacking extra free time due to playing a lot, to being a loss of imagination.

It's a bit frustrating and continues to feel rather condescending.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

My mileage has apparently varied. In fact, I'm getting such good mileage over here that I'm letting my 7 year old daughter drive sometimes. It's awesome.

Britney? Is that you?

 

[Fifth Element]

But I'm talking about imagination, which is of course a multi-faceted word and hard to sharply define.

I think you'd better define it if you're going to make assertions about it. Otherwise we fall into:

"I think your assertion is seriously flawed, because of this."
"But that's not exactly what I'm talking about."

Also, what Rel said.

 

[Mercurius]

Except you are sharply defining it to mean "visualization" as near as I can tell. Because you refuse to recognize any of the benefits that people say they derive from such games in other areas as imaginitive. Simultaneously you seem to ascribe any ill effects, ranging from being tired after a late night of WoW to simply lacking extra free time due to playing a lot, to being a loss of imagination.

No, I am emphasizing the visualization aspect of imagination, because it is the easiest to get a hold of and, as I see it, back up with logic ("use it or lose it").

What are some benefits of video games that you consider relating to imagination?

As for the last sentence, I see them as different. As I wrote in a previous post, I see the "ill effects" as largely two-fold: timesink-related and actual impact on imagination due to the "suppressing" effect illustrated by the anecdotes. I did not say that "being tired" equates with a loss of imagination--they are obviously distinct.