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

log in or register to remove this ad

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 couldn't be more wrong. Reading, in terms of the number of people who read and the number of books they read, peaked in the mid-20th century. Reading fiction has been in decline for decades.

The Pew Research Center reported last week that nearly a quarter of American adults had not read a single book in the past year. As in, they hadn't cracked a paperback, fired up a Kindle, or even hit play on an audiobook while in the car. The number of non-book-readers has nearly tripled since 1978.

In 1978, Gallup found that 42 percent of adults had read 11 books or more in the past year (13 percent said they'd read more than 50!). Today, Pew finds that just 28 percent hit the 11 mark.



The Bureau of Labor Statistics most recent American Time Use Survey found a decline in leisure reading—a record low 19% of Americans age 15 and older reported that they read for pleasure


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 might only be 20 speculative fiction novels written a year from the 40s-70s that are still widely read today. But there were hundreds a year being published, even if much of it was pulpy by our standards. Stuff like the Lensman series, Doc Savage, and Perry Rhodan had hundreds of titles, with global numbers published in the millions.

Ever heard of Lionel Fanthorpe? He wrote 180 science fiction books in the 50s and 60s. How about Walter Gibson? He wrote 282 Shadow novels in the 30s and 40s. Andre Norton wrote 250 novels, most of them before 1980. Poul Anderson wrote over 100 books. Jack Vance and Michael Moorcock each wrote over 70, most of them before 1980. Isaac Asimov alone wrote or edited more than 500 books.


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?
Have you attended any writing workshops or read any writing guidebooks? Because I've done loads of both. And they all point out that styles of writing are always changing, and one of those changes is that fiction today is more concerned with the interior lives of characters than in the past, while being less concerned with presenting detailed depictions of fictional settings. In general, people used to read to be transported to other worlds in their imagination. But TV, movies, and videogames gradually took on that immersive role. Now people read to be transported into the heads of other people. Writers today are advised not to imitate the descriptive style of writers from 30 years ago, as it's unappealing to modern readers.

Do you honestly think you couldn't tell just by reading a few pages (or even paragraphs) of a novel written in 1970 and one written today which was contemporary?
 
Last edited:

Aaron L

Hero
I agree. In much the same way that dwarves are all Scottish, or tend to be portrayed that way. Once that took hold, for a lot of people, they have trouble with a dwarf who's not a Scottish stereotype.
Ugh, I can't stand that crap. It feels like the entire Dwarven race has devolved into beer-swilling, pseudo-Scottish, Chaotic Neutral Barbarians. And I hate it.

I also think part of the reason is because of the diversification and break down of media into tiny little pockets and bubbles of barely-interacting segments, such that no one has a shared base of reference anymore and therefore larger mindscape structures can no longer be built up out of shared references (or because the shared references that do exist are far too shallow themselves to be able to stand anything more weighty being built atop them.)
Just as no one has a shared base of facts anymore, no one has a shared base of Fantasy anymore, either, and therefore it has caused most of the Fantasy landscape to become much more shallow and superficial because no tall structures of Fantastic mindworks can be built upon such unstable ground.
 

hawkeyefan

Legend
While I agree that reading for pleasure was very common throughout the 20th century, I don’t think that it has negatively impacted the imagination. And the same goes for other media. They have impacted imagination, to be sure, but to claim some kind of diminishment just seems a bit of a stretch.

As for the shift in how fiction tends to portray imagery, I think it’s more an increase in the basic level if knowledge that people have. A writer doesn’t need to describe general scenery in as much detail precisely because most readers will have a greater capacity to do so themselves.

Someone in 1920, for example, will have less exposure to geography beyond what they experience daily. A desert? A jungle? A canyon? Their capacity to understand these things relied on the author being able to suitably explain them.

A reader in 2020, however, will have an understanding of these things based solely on the words. The specific image they picture in their mind will vary from person to person, and yes it may be influenced by media....but so what? Isn't that the author’s goal in 1920? Writers today write with the expectation that their reader has a wider understanding than one in 1920, generally speaking.

No, I don’t think this idea has much merit. I also don't think that this is the relevant area for examining imagination in RPGs. The GM is an imperfect substitute for the author in this comparison.

To me, how a game allows or facilitates a wide array of actions by the players and what those players choose to do with those actions would be a better metric. I don’t think it requires a lot of imagination by a player to choose between casting a pre-defined spell or declaring an attack, for example.
 

Fenris-77

Small God of the Dozens
Supporter
I regularly use my students experiences with video games and movies to help them write better fiction, and invariably works really well. So there's that.
 

Khelon Testudo

Cleric of Stronmaus
I think I can refute this with two words: Critical Role.

While Mercer does use miniatures for combat, the many thousands who follow critical role get a tiny picture of them. By far the biggest source of the artwork and cosplay are images painted with Mercer's words, and those of his players. And many many thousands are sucked into his fiction. His campaign world is his own. Imagination isn't dead, and people flock to it when they see it offered.
 

pemerton

Legend
To me, how a game allows or facilitates a wide array of actions by the players and what those players choose to do with those actions would be a better metric. I don’t think it requires a lot of imagination by a player to choose between casting a pre-defined spell or declaring an attack, for example.
Right. This is what I was trying to get at upthread, both through general points and with the play example.
 

hawkeyefan

Legend
Right. This is what I was trying to get at upthread, both through general points and with the play example.

So this may be a bit rambly, but I have a few thoughts about some of the topics in this thread.

I find the focus of a discussion on imagination in RPGs being the ability on the players' parts to mentally picture what the GM is narrating to be a bit odd. Is it a measure of the players' imagination, the GM's, the designer of the module or other published work? It's unclear, and each of these carries a lot of assumptions.

I think there are many areas we can examine imagination in gaming, and each would have a different focus. Imaginative game design is likely a different thing from imaginative GMing which is different from imaginative play. Yet, all three of these things clearly can influence one another. But at the same time, I think strong imagination in one area can overcome a shortcoming in another.

So a GM and or the players can overcome a shortcoming in design, or the design can strongly encourage imaginative play in folks who would otherwise just take the prescribed actions offered (i.e. "I hack it with my sword" or "I cast fireball").

Given the greater variety of game design today, and the varied approaches to play that have both fostered that design and also been shaped by it, I don't see how we can say that there is less imagination in gaming today.

I do think choice of media is a factor that really matters. And I think such a choice will have pros and cons. I think the OP and many in this thread are focusing on the cons as opposed to the pros. So, give a kid a pile of legos and tell him to make something. Give the same kid a pile of clay and tell him to make something. The medium is going to influence what is made, so you will see different things being made with legos than with clay. The kd may build a house with the legos and a volcano with the clay, for example. There may also be some overlap of things that can be built using either medium.

I think this is more just a matter of the limits of media than an overall lack of imagination. I don't think anyone here would look at a kid who showed you his lego house and say "That's pretty good.....but a volcano would have been more impressive!"
 

pemerton

Legend
I find the focus of a discussion on imagination in RPGs being the ability on the players' parts to mentally picture what the GM is narrating to be a bit odd.

<snip>

I think there are many areas we can examine imagination in gaming, and each would have a different focus. Imaginative game design is likely a different thing from imaginative GMing which is different from imaginative play. Yet, all three of these things clearly can influence one another. But at the same time, I think strong imagination in one area can overcome a shortcoming in another.

So a GM and or the players can overcome a shortcoming in design, or the design can strongly encourage imaginative play in folks who would otherwise just take the prescribed actions offered (i.e. "I hack it with my sword" or "I cast fireball").
To pick up on just a couple of your points:

I agree that the focus in this thread on mentally picturing the GM's narration is odd. GM narration is not the core of the RPG experience - if it were, then RPGing would just be a variant on being told a story.

Your reference to "prescribed actions" is also interesting. A narrow conception of action declaration, along those lines, fits with the assumption that the core of play is GM narration. Whereas once we think of action declaration in a less "mechanical" and more "fiction first" way, then I think it becomes pretty clear that that is where imagination in RPGing is found. That goes all the way back to Gygaxian dungeon exploration play, where engaging the fiction is key (think of ToH as a paradigm). I don't do that particular sort of RPGing, and I don't think you (hawkeyefan) do either, but engaging the fiction remains the core of my RPGing and hence the place where the imagining takes place.
 

EzekielRaiden

Follower of the Way
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)
Alright, well, just so cards are on the table: I don't like basically being told "make a less-complete argument," either. So if we're going to meet in the middle on this, I'd like assurance that you'll read brief statements as being more nuanced and cautious than they will sound when stated so succinctly. If that seems fair to you, then please, respond away.

1. OP's (and Socrates', etc.) argument isn't "new media change things," it is explicitly "new media are bad for humanity," e.g. "When we stop using our imagination, we are no longer “thinking” but only “seeing” – processing information instead of creating it."
2. Even if the argument was "new media change things" (which, again, that's not what it says), it would simply be a trivial statement ("new thing is new") and 95% of the article would be irrelevant.
3. You said our ability to remember is affected, but actual human activity looks more like being selective about memory: that is, not reduced ability but altered priorities. We choose to remember different things.
4. The OP never mentioned social media, not even once, only mentioning visual media (movies, minis, special effects, etc.), while you have repeatedly based your entire argument on social media. Why?
5. You claim creativity has been severely curtailed by modern media, but video games, TV, movies, literature, and even (non-D&D) tabletop RPGs are exploding with new applications for design, tech, and/or narrative, especially for previously-ignored narratives (e.g. female protagonists, socially marginalized people, etc.) How do you explain this?

That is about as concise as I can possibly get without actually dropping key points. I hope it is short enough.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top