World of Design: The Lost Art of Making Things Up

In a previous article I shared differences between entertainment media and how it feels imagination is less often required of people today. What changed?

In a previous article I shared differences between entertainment media and how it feels imagination is less often required of people today. What changed?

ideas.jpg

Picture courtesy of Pixabay.

The most important thing that we've ever learned--the most important thing we've learned as far as children are concerned--is never, never let them near a television set, or better still just don't install the idiotic thing at all. It rots the senses in the head. It kills imagination dead. It clogs and clutters up the mind. It makes a child so dull and blind. He can no longer understand a fairy tale in fairyland. His brain becomes as soft as cheese. His thinking powers rust and freeze. He cannot think he only sees! –Mike Teavee, by Danny Elfman, from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.

With most forms of entertainment you need to use your imagination because there are things missing that you have to add in. Games are part of that. You need to imagine things that aren't actually there. How much imagination you need depends on what kind of entertainment.

“A Fairytale in Fairyland”

Let's differentiate imaginative play from an unfettered imagination, which is wild imagining separated from reality, with imagination in the service of problem-solving or real-world entertainment. This kind of thinking is something we learn early as children but society gradually becomes considered “daydreaming” as adults, a negative connotation. As such, an unfettered imagination tends to be the domain of children who have more time and freedom to imagine. But even in childhood play, things are changing.

“It Clogs and Clutters up the Mind”

For example, with video games much less imagination is required than with tabletop games, because the video game can show so much more (now with photo-realism). There's a tendency these days to expect games and life in general to be highly attractive. We expect movies to be extravaganzas with lots of computer-generated special effects. We can even make a young Arnold Schwarzenegger as in Terminator Genesys.

These are all aids to imagination. As a result, imagination is no longer required nearly as much in play as it was before, due in no small part because of corporate branding. Kids don't just get a set of race cars and have to imagine the rest. Instead they get cars from the movie Cars, or go-karts from Mario Kart, and so forth.

Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy is an example of the power of imagination. Originally it was a radio program in Britain, which I happened to hear when I was living there in the late 70s. Then it was brought to TV (same actors), then it was a book, then a series of books, then a radio program again, and then a movie, and somewhere in there I suspect there were video games as well. I've always thought the original radio program was more entertaining than the movie or even than the books.

As the history of Dungeons & Dragons has demonstrated, there’s money to be made in creating content. In the past, it was expected that tabletop board games have lots of attractive artwork and bits, often miniatures. The less multimedia a game has, the more imagination required. This is in part a shift for Fifth Edition, which placed “theater of the mind” as a viable playstyle that involves descriptions only and no board or miniatures. Theater of the mind eschews props, but they can easily become a substitute for imaginative descriptions. For example, I rarely use miniatures (but do use a board and pieces); yet many people won't play without them.

“He Cannot Think He Only Sees”

When we stop using our imagination, we are no longer “thinking” but only “seeing” – processing information instead of creating it. In comparison, it seems to me that imagination is used less in gaming than it used to. The sandbox style of play in D&D is very much associated with the old school renaissance (OSR) and thereby older adults. But perhaps it’s just shifted online. Children play Minecraft and Roblox, worlds in which players are encouraged to create something from nothing.

The tension behind open world video games is that it costs money to create them. Emergent play by playing in a sandbox-style world is risky; players may have an amazing experience by interacting with randomly generated monsters and other players, or they may find it boring and quit. Given the upfront investments in these types of games, it’s critical that they have a means of getting players to keep paying and coming back for more. One way is to brand them, which is why corporations want to create branded worlds that have a unique intellectual property. In video games, subscriptions are one means of guaranteeing repeat play and therefore access to the imaginative world.

In tabletop games, designers can try to help player imagination but the ultimate decisions about a designer’s work are with the publisher, not the designer. Because aids cost money. Of course if the designer self-publishes then the designer decides how to spend money in order to get aids to imagination. Since tabletop publishers can’t “turn off” your imaginative play, they can instead produce pieces of a world that you must buy one book at a time, or explore one adventure at a time ("modules").

Modules often provide player maps and other visual aids. The popularity of modules can even be argued as a failure of GM imagination. To be fair, it's also a matter of convenience in a world that poses a great many calls on one's time. Even if you do buy an adventure, the imagination of the DM and players is still required. No two games run from the same published adventure are alike.

In my opinion, the ability to use imagination has atrophied from lack of use due to changes in media. Can we do anything to change it as individual game designers? Probably not. The best we can do is keep producing and hope that tabletop games continue to offer something no other medium can provide: unfettered imagination.

Your turn: Do you see a difference in how gamers today use their imagination in tabletop play?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Lewis Pulsipher

Lewis Pulsipher

Dragon, White Dwarf, Fiend Folio
@Aldarc. You are projecting things onto yo me that simply are not true. One, do we really need to define creativity here? Two, how do you expect me to reply when these kinds of posts are just under the surface of any line of questioning? But I will say this, the reluctance I have to engage posters on this thread, is not unlike the stifling of creativity one feels in the atmosphere online (things are read with the least charitable lens, people are just waiting to attack you and what you say). Not a good environment for open discussion or creativity. It seems to me your definition of creativity is people going and saying what you want
 

log in or register to remove this ad

ed it to an overly-critical boss, but I suspect many of us would liken it instead to a lazy, chauvinistic employee who could coast by work with a lax boss who acted like one of the bros and being able to say what they want but then they suddenly find themselves frustrated when their new boss or increasingly ticked-off colleagues expect that the employee actually adhere to standards in their work product and ethical behavior.

No, just no. I likened online criticism and its omnipresence to having an overly critical boss whose hyper critiques of what you do make you a worse employee rather than a better one (because it leaves you in a state of constant second guessing yourself and makes you reluctant to take any chances). I think most people have a good idea about how real that is, what it feels like and how it relates to present day social media. That your posts are so angry and so quick to label and judge, is a reflection of exactly what I am talking about
 

Aldarc

Legend
@Aldarc. You are projecting things onto yo me that simply are not true. One, do we really need to define creativity here? Two, how do you expect me to reply when these kinds of posts are just under the surface of any line of questioning? But I will say this, the reluctance I have to engage posters on this thread, is not unlike the stifling of creativity one feels in the atmosphere online (things are read with the least charitable lens, people are just waiting to attack you and what you say). Not a good environment for open discussion or creativity. It seems to me your definition of creativity is people going and saying what you want
Yes. Defining creativity would be helpful here when you are again making vague arguments without evidence like in the bold. If you are feeling frustrated with how discussions in this thread or online is going or claiming that people are repeatedly misconstruing your argument, then perhaps it is worth evaluating whether the problem is not with others but a personal one and reconsider how you formulate your argument. It would not be the first time that either myself (or even the mods) have offered you similar advice.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
Mod Note:

Folks, time to chill out. I see little sign that this is constructive, and it is getting personal, which isn't acceptable.
 

Yes. Defining creativity would be helpful here when you are again making vague arguments without evidence like in the bold. If you are feeling frustrated with how discussions in this thread or online is going or claiming that people are repeatedly misconstruing your argument, then perhaps it is worth evaluating whether the problem is not with others but a personal one and reconsider how you formulate your argument. It would not be the first time that either myself (or even the mods) have offered you similar advice.

I always do this. I do stop and think about these things. I just am not reaching the conclusion you are here. That a handful of posters say something is the case, doesn't necessarily mean it is so. And this gets at the heart of what I am talking about managing how you respond to criticism on social media. It is easy to read three or four posters on a forum as indicative of the reality, or as having more weight than the thoughts of a single poster who they are opposed to. But that balance is going to shift tremendously depending on what posters are present, what forum you are on, etc. It isn't a good indication in my opinion of the validity of the criticisms. I can think of plenty of real world examples where a majority of people were clearly wrong about something.
 

I didn't read every bit of the thread, but I don't think I agree with Lew's original premise.

Just look at the breadth and depth of offerings in the RPG space today. Its amazing. We live in a golden age of RPG development, and also one of RPG popularity! Nor do I buy the premise that somewhat more specific mechanics inhibits creativity, particularly. In the old days you supplied some narrative for each of the endless identical swings and hits/misses you took with your classic D&D fighter. Actually, no, mostly you just repeated "I hit" or "I missed" and rolled some damage, and there might be a comment from the DM "the orc goes down", or maybe if its a key moment in a big fight the player might elaborate "I chop him in half with my axe" or something.

Now, in our 5e game, there are a variety of things that my PC can do (battlemaster) to mechanically differentiate the attacks he makes. OK, but that is just MORE FODDER for description. If I am really gunning for some bad guy, I might use Action Surge and Distracting Strike. Now, I am more likely to describe that, because it is actually kinda interesting and different. I have some 'hooks', but how I do it is up to me. The other day I described Distracting Strike as clawing a guy in the face, I never in all of my 20 years of AD&D play ever remember saying something quite like that.

Maybe that's not what people mean by 'creativity' though? I'm not sure... There are a lot of creative activities involved in RPGs. I don't think they've changed much...
 

pemerton

Legend
In relation to the claim that higher education students are better at handling material that is formulaic but weaker at handling material or tasks that invite judgement or creativity: I can only speak to my own experience here, which is teaching Australian students with exposure primarily to the humanities or social sciences. Over my two decades or so of experience there is only one generalisable change I would say I have observed: the quality of syntax in submitted work has declined, and I am fairly confident that this is due to composing work via word processing rather than via handwriting. There is no occasion where a contemporary student actually writes out his/her text from beginning to end of the sentence or the paragraph, and hence has to fully engage with its syntax.

As far as actual ideas are concerned, it remains the case that most submitted work is fairly similar and hews close to a generic template response, but work either at the bottom (fail or mere pass) end or the top (H1) end stands out for its distinctive way of framing and addressing the topic and arguments.

Moving from student work to academic work, in my fields - law and philosophy - I wouldn't say that I have seen any decline in creativity that I've noticed. Maybe if someone did a systematic study the result might be different? But there is nothing of this sort - in my view, at least - discernible to mere intuition and experience. There are tendencies to intellectual fashion, but I don't think that's a new thing.

The equivalent of social media in the context of academic writing is probably ssrn, Academia, etc: but I don't see that these have produced any particular trend towards homogenisation in the work that I get asked to referee, in the work I see presented at conference or workshops, etc. I've been invited to participate in events, contribute pieces to collections, etc, because of what is distinctive in my position or approach.

I can't comment from personal, insider experience about less intellectual/knowledge-oriented and more creative spheres. As an outsider it seems to me that a fair bit of low-quality fiction with a high degree of thematic overlap gets published these days. But that was true in those days too!

And I think it is the case that mass audio-visual media generates pressure towards "perfection" in performance, making it harder for merely talented amateurs to receive appreciation. Performances that would have received praise 100 years ago might now easily be judged as "sloppy". But I would at least like some concrete examples or comparisons to be provided to support the claim that this is leading not just to better technical skill but to a reduction in creativity or imagination in interpretation, composition etc.
 

pemerton

Legend
When it comes to RPGs, the idea that there is homogenisation in style or creativity strikes me as not credible.

30 years ago we have Over the Edge. 15-ish years ago we get In A Wicked Age, Dogs in the Vineyard and Burning Wheel. 10 years ago we get Apocalypse World.

I'm not the right person to talk about the current cutting edge of RPG design - my active games are Prince Valiant, Classic Traveller, Burning Wheel and Cortex+ Heroic with the occasional one-shot of other systems - but I don't think the trajectory I pointed to in the previous paragraph has suddenly come to a halt!

@Aldarc had a recent thread on this: Next Gen Games?
 
Last edited:

EzekielRaiden

Follower of the Way
@Bedrockgames
Often, when someone asks for the definitions of words used, it is because of what you said: two people looking at the same things and drawing incompatible conclusions. Most people view this as reflecting a misunderstanding between the two conclusions: that is, it is not necessarily that "one is right and one is wrong," but rather that differences of definition or strictness cause two positions to look logically incompatible when in truth they are compatible. Once those differences are understood clearly, the hope is that both sides can see that everyone was bringing something correct to the table, and that fruitful communication about these differences of perspective can give both sides something to learn from.

Since it is something I have now twice done for you, perhaps it will be useful to turn to succinct summaries? Because every time I have tried to summarize your argument, you have told me I'm putting words in your mouth or "projecting" onto you rather than engaging with anything I've said. Evidently we are getting some kind of huge disconnect. Drilling down to things like definitions and extremely clearly-stated, straightforward arguments are one of the ways to break through such disconnects.
 

@Bedrockgames
Often, when someone asks for the definitions of words used, it is because of what you said: two people looking at the same things and drawing incompatible conclusions. Most people view this as reflecting a misunderstanding between the two conclusions: that is, it is not necessarily that "one is right and one is wrong," but rather that differences of definition or strictness cause two positions to look logically incompatible when in truth they are compatible. Once those differences are understood clearly, the hope is that both sides can see that everyone was bringing something correct to the table, and that fruitful communication about these differences of perspective can give both sides something to learn from.

Since it is something I have now twice done for you, perhaps it will be useful to turn to succinct summaries? Because every time I have tried to summarize your argument, you have told me I'm putting words in your mouth or "projecting" onto you rather than engaging with anything I've said. Evidently we are getting some kind of huge disconnect. Drilling down to things like definitions and extremely clearly-stated, straightforward arguments are one of the ways to break through such disconnects.
I'm gonna quote this the next time I see someone nagging on keywords and proclaiming that natural language is the way to write RPGs...
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top