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

pemerton

Legend
Novels written in the mid-20th century were far more descriptive - part of the author's job was to conjure detailed pictures of landscapes and action in the minds of the readers. Whole pages were devoted to descriptions of a house facade, dusk deepening in a forest, the carriage of a train. That's no longer the case. Descriptive passages in fiction today are far less common or detailed.

In RPGs, this has meant that setting, and describing that setting, has become less prominent.

<snip>

That's because RPGs are no longer about creating movies in our mind's eye. They're about characters and backstory and optimization and tactical combat and satisfying climaxes with big bad guys. They're not really about imagination anymore.
In RPGing, you seem to be conflating imagination with listening to narration from the GM. And you also seem to be conflating the general activity of action resolution with the very specific activity of resolving D&D combat using visual media.

As far as novels are concerned, I don't have even the beginnings of a comprehensive survey to offer. But my favourite mid-20th century author is Graham Greene. When I think of more contemporary fiction I've read - say Murakami's Wind-Up Bird Chronicle or Ahamd's The Lebs, two otherwise rather different books but ones that happen to be ready-to-hand at the moment - I don't see some radical contrast in descriptive content.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

EzekielRaiden

Follower of the Way
@Bedrockgames, AIR, has argued that things like social media leads to a lessening in the number of concepts that can be presented in RPG's. What he fails to understand is that it's not less, just different. Sure, you don't get prurient line art that's titilating to a 13 year old boy, but, instead, you get depictions of non-CIS couples in mainstream modules. Something that 30 years ago would have gotten the game banned faster than any amount of demonic scare.. Not less, just different.
Absolutely. Or, for an example rather near to my heart: you can have entire D&D fantasy novels written (in part) about an upstanding man facing social exclusion, adopting two beautiful daughters, working hard as a single father and raising them to be wonderful people...and then finding himself a man worthy of being his husband. When D&D was first published, such a story seeing print would have been completely unthinkable...even to the people who wrote D&D itself.
 
Last edited:

In RPGing, you seem to be conflating imagination with listening to narration from the GM. And you also seem to be conflating the general activity of action resolution with the very specific activity of resolving D&D combat using visual media.
I'm being specific in what I mean by imagination. I mean literally making pictures in your mind.
 

Absolutely. Or, for an example rather near to my heart: you can have entire D&D fantasy novels written (in part) about an upstanding man facing social exclusion, adopting two beautiful daughters, working hard as a single father and raising them to be wonderful people...and then finding himself a man worthy of being his husband. When D&D was first published, such a story seeing print would have been completely unthinkable...even to the people who wrote D&D itself.
It would have been unthinkable to even write it. Which shouldn't be blamed on the people who published the first D&D novels. Who knows how they would have reacted to such a manuscript?
 

In my own RPGing, at least, I just don't find any evidence to support this "reduction in imagination" claim. And I doubt that my own RPGing is that much of an outlier in this respect at least.
You're conflating creativity and imagination. They're two distinct things.
 

And if that were the only or even the most important point made, I would agree with you. But the core point made, every time the fear of new media arises, is that the new media are simply bad. Writing makes us incapable of thinking, because it causes us to only interact with dead ideas, not living ones. Mass access to paper makes us incapable of communicating in the classroom, as we dirty ourselves with chalk dust and use a consumable medium. The radio makes us disconnect from each other, the television makes us incapable of envisioning things, the calculator makes us incapable of doing math, the computer makes us incapable of creative thought itself.

Just an FYI, I don't do the text wall response thing. So if you want me to respond to every point you make, give me a paragraph response, and I will do so (edit: also just want to be clear that I am not intending to negatively characterize your post as a 'wall of text'---realized that sounded dismissive, I just dislike responding to multiple quotations from a single post)

But here I will just say, I am not saying social media or the internet is simply bad, in fact I think it is good. Just like I think books are good, the printing press was good, radio was good, movies are good, etc. All I am saying is 1) There is an effect and 2) Humanity seems to have a learning curve when it comes to big changes in communication technology (i.e. propaganda posters used to be much more effective, now we are more resistant to them; or the spread of religious conflict in Europe, at least in part, being accelerated by the ability to widely distribute the bible in the vernacular). When it comes to social media, I do think there are good things about it and there are bad things about it, like any other media. And I think people ought to be honest with themselves about how much things like overuse of social media and over-reliance on other peoples opinions on social media impact them. In myself I can see when I use social media too much it makes me less intelligent and less creative. When I use it in moderation, it makes me more intelligent and creative than I otherwise would be. When I rely too strongly on the opinions of people online (for example when I assume the opinions of people in a forum are a perfect reflection the broader opinions in the gaming community, or when I give them more weight than my own instincts, I find it stifles my creativity). More broadly I do think when you have everyone plugged into the same medium, you are going to see a homogenization of things like art, games, etc. And that is what I was pointing to. I don't think any of these negatives mean we should condemn social media. It is an important technological advance. But I do think it is important to reflect on how it might be impacting us, how it is impacting table play, how it is impacting the design we are doing. I know personally I had to make a conscious effort to stop listening to much of the online gaming discussion to restore my creative edge. Maybe other people have different experiences, but I also see evidence that the problem is out there among people in the hobby (and I don't think it really matters what gaming clique or group or platform you are in/on, if you are in one or allowing one to shape your sense of what is good in gaming, you are going to start looking and sounding like the people who also inhabit that space).

Also, in general, for gaming I think the internet and social media have been mostly beneficial. It has been a great boon to me because by being able to game online through platforms like Skype or discord, I have way more gaming opportunities now. It also enables me to communicate with more gamers. I just think being a bit cautious about its impact on oneself, especially when it comes to ones creativity, is useful.
 
Last edited:

Actually, it is quite with doubt that it has impacted our ability to remember things. The only thing you can say without doubt is that it has affected our desire to remember specific kinds of things instead of others. Having the written word, audio and later video recording, etc. has changed how we evaluate things for remembering. But we still have astounding women and men memorizing things, both written and spoken. Consider how much of a badge of honor it is among nerds like us (who play TTRPGs) to memorize Monty Python sketches--which are almost exclusively memorized from their sound, not the written words (not least because comedic timing in the spoken word is very different from the written one).

This one I do want to respond to. It is possible you are right, but if you are I would be genuinely surprised. When I was in school it was very common, when we covered things like the invention of writing and books, for teachers and our text books to say there was a big impact on our ability to remember things (in my own life I can see this with the shift from having to remember dozens of phone numbers to having them all saved on my cell phone so I don't have to remember them---this seems to have impacted my ability to remember other types of numbers and information). Now, like I said, it is entirely possible there has been some new information on this, or what I was taught was just something people repeated because it felt true (but I remember encountering it in text books for my ancient history, philosophy and media courses so I would just be very surprised if it isn't the case).
 

pemerton

Legend
In RPGs, this has meant that setting, and describing that setting, has become less prominent. Compare Gygax's lengthy outpourings of purple prose - whole paragraphs describing the eerie appearance of natural underground caverns - with the far more utilitarian and sparse descriptions in adventures today. You can read pages long reviews of RPG campaigns today, reviews that cover presentation, formatting, plots, NPC backstories, tactical challenge, etc., that barely talk about the physical environment that the adventure takes place in. The sense of immersion players might get from a ruined city, how evocative the mountain stronghold of the giants is - this doesn't fit into the dozen or so adventure elements reviewers opine on.

The confusion around exploration mode highlights the disconnect with modern players. Why does it matter what PCs do between encounters? What value is there in describing travel, or roleplaying the PCs exploring a necropolis? Let's get to the good stuff - the action scenes - and then lay out everything with minis or digital representations.

That's because RPGs are no longer about creating movies in our mind's eye.
You're conflating creativity and imagination. They're two distinct things.
You seem to be conflating listening to uttered words with forming mental images.

RPGing, at least as I experience, consists of just as many uttered words describing things as it always has done. Whether or not that involves forming mental images hasn't changed. What colour are the eyes of the treacherous priest in B2? Back in the early 80s we could play that module without having to answer that question, just as we can now.

But as far as imagination is concerned - the faculty or action of forming new ideas, or images or concepts of external objects not present to the senses - I see no difference. RPGing continues to involve, as it always has, forming new ideas about situations, events and possibilities that are not present to the senese.
 

Hussar

Legend
You can see this in fiction. Novels written in the mid-20th century were far more descriptive - part of the author's job was to conjure detailed pictures of landscapes and action in the minds of the readers. Whole pages were devoted to descriptions of a house facade, dusk deepening in a forest, the carriage of a train. That's no longer the case. Descriptive passages in fiction today are far less common or detailed.

Ok, there's two things.

Mid-20th century, people didn't read. At least, they certainly didn't read fiction. The idea of reading novels for pleasure was pretty far outside the norm for the vast majority of people in the mid-20th. Sure, read the newspaper, or a magazine, but, reading for pleasure? Fiction? Particularly Science Fiction or Fantasy? Yeah, not happening.

You realize that in the mid-20th century you could actually read every spec fic novel that was released, year on year without too much difficulty? We're talking maybe 20 novels a year, in a VERY good year. There's more original spec fic written and published in the last 10 years than was written in the 20th century. And that's not counting media tie in stuff like Star Wars or Star Trek. This is full on, original SF and/or fantasy. You couldn't possibly read all the English language spec fic that came out last year. You could barely put a small dent in it. We're talking several hundred novels for each of the fantasy and science fiction side.

So, how you could possibly claim that writers were more imaginative, more descriptive or more detailed in the past than now is mind blowing. How in the world did you come to that conclusion?
 

Ok, there's two things.

Mid-20th century, people didn't read. At least, they certainly didn't read fiction. The idea of reading novels for pleasure was pretty far outside the norm for the vast majority of people in the mid-20th. Sure, read the newspaper, or a magazine, but, reading for pleasure? Fiction? Particularly Science Fiction or Fantasy? Yeah, not happening.

You realize that in the mid-20th century you could actually read every spec fic novel that was released, year on year without too much difficulty? We're talking maybe 20 novels a year, in a VERY good year. There's more original spec fic written and published in the last 10 years than was written in the 20th century. And that's not counting media tie in stuff like Star Wars or Star Trek. This is full on, original SF and/or fantasy. You couldn't possibly read all the English language spec fic that came out last year. You could barely put a small dent in it. We're talking several hundred novels for each of the fantasy and science fiction side.

I agree that description length isn’t a good measure of how creative writers are (that is just a reflection of style trends). But plenty of people read fiction for pleasure in the mid-20th century
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top