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

dragoner

KosmicRPG.com
The OP reminds me of the passage from McCarthy's The Road about the fish in the mountain stream and that things will never be the same again. It is true that our world dies around us as dying gets ready to take its turn with us. I read stuff I wrote 20-30 years ago and think "who was this creative guy, and where did he go?" Our cognitive states change as we age, it is just the way it is.

Barring that art is defined by something special, something most would not have, or that some might be better at than others. We can't lose imagination, it evolved long before us, it is better described in Sagan's Demon Haunted World, but those animals that did not hallucinate (the proper term) that some random sound in the dark forest could have been a tiger and ran and hid, then whatever 1% the tiger did get them, and that provides the evolutionary pressure for imagination to develop. To lose that it would need probably some severe brain trauma.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

hawkeyefan

Legend
I’m curious what people think of a game like Alice is Missing.

It’s a RPG played entirely through text message among participants.

It’s something that could only exist once text messaging became a thing. Technology evolves, and game design adapts and evolves along with it.

Would folks say that Alice is Missing took less imagination to design? Or that it takes less imagination to play?

I’m curious to hear what people think.
 

I’m curious what people think of a game like Alice is Missing.

It’s a RPG played entirely through text message among participants.

It’s something that could only exist once text messaging became a thing. Technology evolves, and game design adapts and evolves along with it.

Would folks say that Alice is Missing took less imagination to design? Or that it takes less imagination to play?

I’m curious to hear what people think.
What is Alice?

We had play by mail back in the day. I recall playing Tunnels and Trolls that way (if my memory is right, may have been another system or company). Very slow though. Paaaaainfully slow.
 

hawkeyefan

Legend
What is Alice?

We had play by mail back in the day. I recall playing Tunnels and Trolls that way (if my memory is right, may have been another system or company). Very slow though. Paaaaainfully slow.

Well I think that’s a but different. In play by mail (or play by post these days) are games designed for play in person, but are being played in a different format by choice, or based on need.

Alice is Missing is a game designed to be played by text.

 

pemerton

Legend
I’m curious what people think of a game like Alice is Missing.

It’s a RPG played entirely through text message among participants.

It’s something that could only exist once text messaging became a thing. Technology evolves, and game design adapts and evolves along with it.

Would folks say that Alice is Missing took less imagination to design? Or that it takes less imagination to play?

I’m curious to hear what people think.
I've just looked at the website and Drive-Thru page. I haven't bought it.

But I think your rhetorical questions (maybe I should say - your questions that I am treating as rhetorical) make their point.
 

pemerton

Legend
To add something to @hawkeyefan's recent posts:

The idea that RPGing once used lots of imagination, and now uses less, seems to rest on a pretty narrow conception of RPGing: roughly, GM narration of architecture, terrain, weather and some other canonical "external" elements of a situation; and players' mental picturing of the same.

The decline of imagination in this domain, for those who think it has taken place, presumably began when modules like Tomb of Horrors included illustrations to show the players.

But anyway, even a casual look - like I just took - of the website for Alice is Missing will show that it envisages a degree of imagination about the "inner" life of characters, the depth and extent of their social relationships, etc, that was unthought of when RPGing began. This has almost nothing in common with wargaming, which treats even morale as mostly an external (do the opposed forces flee) rather than internal matter.

The idea that contemporary RPGs of this sort don't involve imagination to a very high degree just isn't credible.
 

Ilbranteloth

Explorer
Actually, lego is a prime example of the decline of imagination. The overwhelming proportion of lego kits today are basically modelling kits. The picture of what you're supposed to build - almost always an object from lego's licensing partners like Star Wars or Harry Potter - is right on the box. The instructions are inside. Kids build the cool thing from that cool movie they saw, and then break it up and buy another kit. That's lego's business model today.

I'm not sure creativity itself is in decline. Modern tools can help people with music, artwork, adventure design. Give them access to advice and resources.

However, it seems pretty clear that imagination, that is literally creating images in your mind, has been in decline for decades. With the transition from a literate culture to an image-centric culture, we no longer needed to use internal tools to make pictures. Since TVs became commonplace, we've had all the images we need piped directly into our minds. So the neural networks responsible for creating those images internally have atrophied, or never been developed in the first place.

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.

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. 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.
This ties into what I posted earlier as well, but there’s one thing that I want to add/clarify because I like your example of the Lego sets.

The theory here is that the Lego sets (or in my example the development of the AP and mechanical focus of RPGs) decreases creativity.

I don’t think they do, really. Because I think the people who are more disposed to creativity continue to be so. To me it’s not that they discourage creativity as much as they allow less creative types to enjoy building Legos/play RPGs in a way they couldn’t before.

In other words, there aren’t fewer creative people. But because there are more “less creative” people enjoying these hobbies, the creative types make up a smaller percentage than they once did.

On the other hand, there is probably a middle group of “less creative” people who have moved beyond the basic approach of building to the instructions, but perhaps not as far as the “full creative” people simply by being able to participate in a creative endeavor that was once out of reach until entry level options were regularly available.
 

pemerton

Legend
Good RPG resolution mechanics do not impede imagination. They facilitate it. Think about PbtA, for instance - consider Read A Charged Situation in Apocalypse World:

When you read a charged situation, roll+sharp. On a hit, you can ask the MC questions. Whenever you act on one of the MC’s​
answers, take +1. On a 10+, ask 3. On a 7–9, ask 1:​
• where’s my best escape route / way in / way past?​
• which enemy is most vulnerable to me?​
• which enemy is the biggest threat?​
• what should I be on the lookout for?​
• what’s my enemy’s true position?​
• who’s in control here?​

And on a miss (ie 6 down), the GM is permitted to make as hard and direct a move as s/he likes.

Here's an example of this move in play (from the rulebook, pp 152-53):

Marie the brainer goes looking for Isle, to visit grief upon her, and finds her eating canned peaches on the roof of the car shed with her brother Mill and her lover Plover (all NPCs).​
“I read the situation,” her player says.​
“You do? It’s charged?” I say.​
“It is now.”​
“Ahh,” I say. I understand perfectly: the three NPCs don’t realize it, but Marie’s arrival charges the situation. If it were a movie, the sound track would be picking up, getting sinister.​
She rolls+sharp and hits with a 7–9, so she gets to ask me one question from that move’s list. “Which of my enemies is the biggest threat?” she says.​
“Plover,” I say. “No doubt. He’s out of his armor, but he has a little gun in his boot and he’s a hard f*****. Mill’s just 12 and he’s not a violent kid. Isle’s tougher, but not like Plover.” (See me misdirect! I just chose one capriciously, then pointed to fictional details as though they’d made the decision. We’ve never even seen Mill onscreen before, I just now made up that he’s 12 and not violent.)​

To my mind, there's no shortage of imagining here. And it's being driven by the mechanics.

And this is not a modern thing. Consider the rules for using a vacc suit in Classic Traveller (Book 1, 1977, p 16):

A basic throw of 10+ to avoid dangerous situation applies whenever any non-ordinary maneuver is attempted by an individual while wearing a vacc suit (such as running, jumping, hiding, jumping untethered from one ship to another, etc).​
DM: +4 per level of expertise.​
When such an incident occurs, it may be remedied by any character with vacc suit expertise (including the character in danger himself) on a throw of 7+.​
DM: +2 per level of expertise. No expertise DM: −4.​

There is no play example provided in the Traveller rulebook, but I know from my own play experience that this mechanics drives imagining: if the first check fails the referee has to imagine and then narrate the dangerous incident that has resulted, and then the attempt to remedy it has to be narrated by the player(s), because - if that attempt fails - the GM then has to narrated the further, serious consequence that results from the dangerous incident not being remedied.
 

Hussar

Legend
everyone weighs in and people give that equal weight, and social media is used to exert social pressure, and that mixture is resulting in a homogenization of creativity (you see this clearly in gaming and I personally an feel it as a designer). Not saying there are not outliers, but you see a narrowing around key ideas and styles. You see it all the time.

No. I really, really don't. And, I'm not being facetious here @Bedrockgames, I'm being 100% serious. I don's see any narrowing of "key" ideas and styles. Can you be more specific, because, from where I'm standing, we're far, far less constrained today than we were thirty years ago as to what we can include in an RPG.
 

No. I really, really don't. And, I'm not being facetious here @Bedrockgames, I'm being 100% serious. I don's see any narrowing of "key" ideas and styles. Can you be more specific, because, from where I'm standing, we're far, far less constrained today than we were thirty years ago as to what we can include in an RPG.

Honestly if this felt like a good faith response, I'd be happy to give you more specific thoughts. But based on our past interactions and on the tone I don't think it will be productive for me to get into this topic with you. Also this gets into territory that always seems to result in negative interactions between you and me

Edit: will just say, if you don't see things the way I do, that is fair. Evaluating the level of creativity and the breadth of it, it is pretty subjective
 
Last edited:

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top