RPGing and imagination: a fundamental point

[niklinna]

it strikes me that we are really discussing social theory and that the disagreements are fundamental to that and only tangentially related to rpging.

So what does social theory say on all this?

A bold claim! With no explanation whatever. Why don't you tell us what social theory says on all this? (By all means feel free not to.)

Why make comments just to try and inflame?

Indeed, indeed.

 

[FrogReaver]

A bold claim! With no explanation whatever. Why don't you tell us what social theory says on all this? (By all means feel free not to.)


Indeed, indeed.

What is particularly bold about the suggestion. I don’t get it.

 

[niklinna]

What is particularly bold about the suggestion. I don’t get it.

What's this? Could it be a...diversion?

Rather than asking other people to support your claim (it certainly was not phrased as a suggestion), you could perhaps try to support it yourself first.

 

[Umbran]

It says 'this is definitely not an attempt at diversion in order to move the conversation past my crumbling position'

What's this? Could it be a...diversion?

Rather than asking other people to support your claim (it certainly was not phrased as a suggestion), you could perhaps try to support it yourself first.

Mod Note:
Folks,

Please keep the conversation constructive. Thanks.

 

[FrogReaver]

Rather than asking other people to support your claim (it certainly was not phrased as a suggestion), you could perhaps try to support it yourself first.

I asked an open question - how does social theory or micro sociology or whatever the proper term is talk about small group dynamics?

We all agree social theory or sociology or whatever the proper term is covers that, right?

We all agree that what one of the most contentious aspects of what we are discussing here is small group social interactions in the backdrop of an RPG, right?

Am I mistaken on any of that?

 

[pemerton]

The problem of RPG design is not, in general, a problem of "social theory". In that respect I don't see that RPGing is any different from a bridge club.

The problem is one that is well-known from childhood imagination games: in circumstances where its inherent in the play of the game to produce conflicting conceptions of the imagined situation ("I shoot you dead!" "No you don't, because I duck!"), how doe we generate agreement, without play just turning into story-telling (which dissolves the conflict by stipulating one person alone as the generator of the fiction)?

 

[FrogReaver]

The problem of RPG design is not, in general, a problem of "social theory". In that respect I don't see that RPGing is any different from a bridge club.

the disagreements in this thread aren’t about design. They are about the social interactions of the participants, ie: negotiation, assertion, clarification, the importance of preagreements/norms for socially navigating this complex interaction. Etc.

The problem is one that is well-known from childhood imagination games: in circumstances where its inherent in the play of the game to produce conflicting conceptions of the imagined situation ("I shoot you dead!" "No you don't, because I duck!"), how doe we generate agreement, without play just turning into story-telling (which dissolves the conflict by stipulating one person alone as the generator of the fiction)?

what you are describing here is a social problem and one potential solution for it.

 

[pemerton]

the disagreements in this thread aren’t about design. They are about the social interactions of the participants, ie: negotiation, assertion, clarification, the importance of preagreements/norms for socially navigating this complex interaction.

As far as I can tell, the only point of difference is that, like Vincent Baker, I find it more productive to frame the issue from the point of view of what are we trying to achieve via our design? (ie eased and constrained negotiation), whereas @clearstream and maybe you seem to want a vocabulary to describe the phenomenology of play once the design problem has been solved.

 

[clearstream]

As far as I can tell, the only point of difference is that, like Vincent Baker, I find it more productive to frame the issue from the point of view of what are we trying to achieve via our design? (ie eased and constrained negotiation),

Easing and constraining assertion can also be a design goal.

whereas @clearstream and maybe you seem to want a vocabulary to describe the phenomenology of play once the design problem has been solved.

For sure. Certain design shortfalls (see various cases up-thread) will evidence themselves in playtest through forcing unintended negotiation. This does not mean that designs encouraging negotiation during play are faulty! That depends on the design intent.

 

[FrogReaver]

As far as I can tell, the only point of difference is that, like Vincent Baker, I find it more productive to frame the issue from the point of view of what are we trying to achieve via our design? (ie eased and constrained negotiation), whereas @clearstream and maybe you seem to want a vocabulary to describe the phenomenology of play once the design problem has been solved.

Speaking for myself, one reason I want to describe the phenomenology of play is because the language being used to describe what we are trying to achieve via design doesn’t adequately describe the kinds of games I want to see designed - ones where participant assertions are the norm and negotiation is minimized. If I can describe the phenomenology I can describe what I want to see achieved via the design.