RPGing and imagination: a fundamental point

[FrogReaver]

There's an argument that American cinematic culture doesn't present movies worth thinking about (I don't think that argument is worth rehashing), but I'd suggest that this is a surprisingly passive way to describe watching a movie. It may be that less is left strictly to the imagination than is for the reader of a book, but someone watching a movie could be (hopefully is) actively imagining things while watching.

I don’t entirely disagree with that premise, but I think only some movies to be as I described for my point to stand.

One big difference in older movies is that they leave plenty of gaps that the audience is expected to be able to figure out without being directly told. Essentially some imagination by the audience is required there - but it’s unclear that was actually a better technique than spelling it out for them.

 

[Hriston]

I assume this is the post you meant.

So bringing this back into context, when one is watching a movie, even though the movie writers, actors, directors were probably all imagining it, the one watching isn’t imagining anything, he’s watching.

That seems to more connect with my point than yours? So I’m a bit confused.

The writers were definitely imagining it or there would be nothing to watch. Are you proposing an RPG in which someone else has done all the imagining for you? How would that work?

 

[FrogReaver]

The writers were definitely imagining it or there would be nothing to watch. Are you proposing an RPG in which someone else has done all the imagining for you? How would that work?

Yes. Or at least most of it. See most any final fantasy game. Probably the older ones too but I’m less familiar.

Sorry, I guess I thought I was more clear about that than I maybe was.

 

[Thomas Shey]

IMO, there are better ways to express your overall attitude toward an idea than by simply being dismissive.

Again, this assumes you think any more than that is warranted. That's not required. I'll usually just ignore an idea I consider of that quality, but I'm not everyone.

Add a to me on the end. Problem solved.

No, really it doesn't. I've seen people utterly ignore any qualification clauses in a statement around here too many times to believe that solves the problem.

That usually depends on how that idea and reasons are being expressed.

Which is why I said its a moving target.

1. I don’t think people typically aggressively attack something for no reason.

No, probably not. That doesn't make their reason intrinsically valid, though. Sometimes the reason is "the very criticism itself bothers me". And I'll stand by the fact sometimes that's clearly the case.

2. If your reasons are aggressively attacking their idea, why shouldn’t they respond by aggressively attacking those reasons? Isn’t that what discussion is all about? I mean ideally everyone would be a bit more neutral - but passionate responses aren’t bad of themselves on either side.

Yes, but the question is, was "what's aggressively attacking the idea"? Ideas don't have feelings. I'm willing to say that when it gets a hot reaction, its not because they think the idea is being hurt; its because of other reasons, often because they identify too much with the thing being attacked. You see that about people criticizing designs of game systems all the time.

I mean, its not like there can't be reasons to be a little soggy about that; its not uncommon for people who dislike a game system to misrepresent it (as in either outright lie about it or imply things about it that aren't true, often for hyperbolic reasons, and if someone lobs that sort of things out there, they ought to expect some return fire. But often that's not the response, but doing things like suggesting there's something wrong with people who might have those issues brought up, though usually not directly.

 

[FrogReaver]

Again, this assumes you think any more than that is warranted. That's not required. I'll usually just ignore an idea I consider of that quality, but I'm not everyone.



No, really it doesn't. I've seen people utterly ignore any qualification clauses in a statement around here too many times to believe that solves the problem.



Which is why I said its a moving target.



No, probably not. That doesn't make their reason intrinsically valid, though. Sometimes the reason is "the very criticism itself bothers me". And I'll stand by the fact sometimes that's clearly the case.



Yes, but the question is, was "what's aggressively attacking the idea"? Ideas don't have feelings. I'm willing to say that when it gets a hot reaction, its not because they think the idea is being hurt; its because of other reasons, often because they identify too much with the thing being attacked. You see that about people criticizing designs of game systems all the time.

I mean, its not like there can't be reasons to be a little soggy about that; its not uncommon for people who dislike a game system to misrepresent it (as in either outright lie about it or imply things about it that aren't true, often for hyperbolic reasons, and if someone lobs that sort of things out there, they ought to expect some return fire. But often that's not the response, but doing things like suggesting there's something wrong with people who might have those issues brought up, though usually not directly.

Nothing you’ve said here is a defense for being simply dismissive. And to be clear - I don’t see even a possibility of there being any defense for it.

 

[darkbard]

Nothing you’ve said here is a defense for being simply dismissive. And to be clear - I don’t see even a possibility of there being any defense for it.

I have a defense for it: someone claims expertise enough to offer specific analysis of a game they've (1) never played and, (2) at most, only read descriptions of/opinions about or (3) skimmed in part. I think it's not only permissible but advisable to dismiss such a one's uninformed analysis. Especially if the person doubles down and refuses to learn the game, for real, and continues to insist their uninformed opinion is sufficient.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I assume this is the post you meant.

So bringing this back into context, when one is watching a movie, even though the movie writers, actors, directors were probably all imagining it, the one watching isn’t imagining anything, he’s watching.

That seems to more connect with my point than yours? So I’m a bit confused.

What RPG do you take part in where you simply watch? Some interaction is needed, no? Even if you're just watching something like Critical Role or another streamed game... you have to imagine that these people talking to each other are actually fantastic characters doing other things.

The active interaction is the key difference between watching a movie and taking part in an RPG.

Nothing you’ve said here is a defense for being simply dismissive. And to be clear - I don’t see even a possibility of there being any defense for it.

I actually was not simply dismissive. Earlier in the thread, when the idea of an RPG that doesn't require shared imagination was mentioned, I asked for examples. I offered some myself in the form of solo games... but those preclude the shared element of imagination.

So what would be an example of an RPG that doesn't require shared imagination? Can you offer any examples?

It's the absence of such examples that makes me think the argument has no merit. And, more specifically, the argument that someone who says RPGs require shared imagination is somehow dismissing others' play style. If that's the case, name the play style that doesn't require shared imagination.

If anyone could offer an example, then I think that would lend the argument some merit. Do you have any examples?

 

[pemerton]

IMO. Your definition excludes Final Fantasy, Skyrim, Diablo and even Boulder’s Gate 3 from being RPG’s.

Correct. As I believe I already posted upthread, I am talking about "TT" RPGs, not computer/video games.

The fiction in any CRPG doesn’t matter to the resolution either. You play through the same story, you are presented with the same predefined list of choices that always come up at exactly the same moment in game time and always have exactly the same outcomes.

Correct! That's why I am not including them.

For similar reasons, I don't count Choose Your Own Adventure or Fighting Fantasy books as RPGs.

I wouldn’t limit myself to looking at computer RPGs and then conclude all RPGs must have a world that can be viewed on a screen, and a character than can interact with the world via player input from a control device (controller or keyboard/mouse). This is what it looks like to tie medium to a particular style of game.

The style of game I am talking about is the one invented by Arneson and Gygax. It is one in which shared imagination is fundamental, as per the example of being able to declare I carry my friend through the pool on my shoulders even though this is not an action declaration for which a definition and mechanical resolution process already exists in the game.

 

[FrogReaver]

I have a defense for it: someone claims expertise enough to offer specific analysis of a game they've (1) never played and, (2) at most, only read descriptions of/opinions about or (3) skimmed in part. I think it's not only permissible but advisable to dismiss such a one's uninformed analysis. Especially if the person doubles down and refuses to learn the game, for real, and continues to insist their uninformed opinion is sufficient.

1. I disagree but I don’t think this is the place to dive into that because (2).

2. The dismissiveness on this thread didn’t occur because of that.

 

[FrogReaver]

Correct. As I believe I already posted upthread, I am talking about "TT" RPGs, not computer/video games.

Correct! That's why I am not including them.

For similar reasons, I don't count Choose Your Own Adventure or Fighting Fantasy books as RPGs.

The style of game I am talking about is the one invented by Arneson and Gygax. It is one in which shared imagination is fundamental, as per the example of being able to declare I carry my friend through the pool on my shoulders even though this is not an action declaration for which a definition and mechanical resolution process already exists in the game.

I think what you are talking about is just a medium observation - much like video games require a screen and a controller. It has little to nothing to do with what it means to be an RPG.