Traits and the darkness that comes before
Ron Edwards:
Hey Callan,
Full disclosure: Callan sent me a preliminary draft of his first post a week ago. However, I very brilliantly partly drafted my reply and then did not provide myself access to it over a three-day weekend.
PART ONE: THE LANDSCAPE
My first response is to clarify what scope I'm talking about in the text you're talking about.
If the world of learning to play RPGs were limited to a reader, a text, and a group, that would be one thing. The reader would have a need and a preference and a given background, and the book could be tailored in every detail to those things.
But it's not. It's all happening in a culture of a huge variety of readers' backgrounds and a significant variety of preferences. Those backgrounds are chock-full of what can only be called prejudices what's supposed to be in the book, and those preferences are chock-full of complicated misconceptions (e.g. the notion that the best game should be able to satisfy any and all CAs at once, or pretty much any other nonsense that we exposed here by discussing CA).
Really instructing and learning in this context isn't a matter of simply dumping knowledge XYZ into the head of someone who's perfectly capable of grasping and very much wants XYZ in exactly that form. Ideally, even fantastically, it would be more like a real university course. In such a course, a great deal of the effort is dedicated to stripping down and banishing horrendous and uncritically-held viewpoints and expectations. The course of study (syllabus) is designed as a process, in which certain insights or skills can be assessed as we go along, and which then informs the exact way that the next step will be presented and reinforced. At its best, such a course would not be indoctrination but rather a liberating experience, producing graduates who can surpass their instructors, expand the discipline, or even revise it.
And even such a course is working with certain social-context advantages too. The people in the class, however uninformed or confused they might be, at least put some money and some kind of commitment to paying attention to what's presented. They have also effectively agreed to be subjected to a performance rating which is non-negotiable and not trivial for their future. Plus the social and interactive aspects of the course experience.
We don't have any such course. There's no social context for it, there's no shared vocabulary for it, there's no institutional memory for it, and there's no system of assessment for it. We don't even have the relatively chaotic but at least functional multiple-decentralized schools as in martial arts (probably closer to my actual ideal). We're limping along with practically random juxtapositions of (a) different people, (b) different backgrounds, and (c) different books in hand, only connected by (a) a completely hazy and at times genuinely stupid means of production and distribution, and (b) the chattering confusion of internet pseudo-socializing.
PART TWO: A BOOK
So what's a book to do, reasonably speaking? At this point, I choose a target audience, sometimes on the basis of pure hope, certainly on the basis of personal passion; and I write and promote to that audience. In my case, the hoped-for audience is not "indie gamers" or (hand on forehead) "story gamers," but rather anyone who can catch my wavelength on the color and reward of this particular game. I also try to support a community whose sole link is enjoyment of that game. The book is a central piece of this overall strategy, not a be-all manual like The Hitch-Hiker's Guide. At this point, 2008, the yield of every kind is real but slim - and no wonder! Ten years ago, I even had to invent the method of delivery of the book! Ed Healy and I had to call attention to the phenomenon of independent RPG publishing, despite its long-standing presence, in order even for people to know it exists! That's why I say, "not yet."
I do see the changes, and many of them are in the right direction(s), so my "not yet" does not mean being put off over a distant, hazy horizon. But it definitely means that we do not live in a world where "the perfect book" can be written for a given purpose, for the people who know they want it and know where to look, and to such precision that it needs those people's needs. Instead, each of us is either part of the problem or part of the solution(s) toward approximating that ideal in the future.
I think that pushing toward better books, better community, better play-experiences, and better discourse are all part of the solutions. But I think the kind of expectation you're describing here is not.
PART THREE: WHAT YOU APPARENTLY WANT
It's hard even to believe that you're really expecting something like the following. If we took pretty much a random scoop of people whose understanding of statistics is minimal and highly colored by misconceptions (i.e. real people), who did or did not want to learn statistics, and for those who did, for any number of a wide range of purposes ... then we give them absolutely nothing but a book which presented a given subtopic (say, inference based on p-values, an important but definitely not all-inclusive branch of statistics) ... and you want this book to be so clear, so amazing, so perfectly pedagogic, so obvious once you look at it, that no one in this crowd has one single glitch in understanding what it's for, what to do, how to do it, how to deal with stumbling blocks, and how to include others in doing it to. On first reading.
Being me, I can't help but interject: Oh boy! Can this thing suck my dick, too? After all, it's equally likely. As I see it, a book is no more capable of achieving the goal in the above paragraph than it is of performing said carnal act.
I also think that this expectation not only fails the human-reality test, but also fails to grasp that learning requires practice, failure, re-assessment, reflection on why you're doing this in the first place, and social reinforcement. I am trying not to be nasty, but as stated by you, those consumer expectations remind me of a baby bird. The baby bird doesn't articulate what it wants, it just screams - and if what it gets isn't exactly the right shape, size, flavor, texture, and frequency of delivery, then it's no good. The last thing it wants is to have to learn anything, do anything, reflect on anything, or practice anything in order to eat. (At least real baby birds are trying not to starve; I don't see any excuse for fellow members of this hobby.)
Are you really saying there's no corrective procedure in this culture, the one centered on the forum you're reading? That's nonsense. I've written for years about how the text-writing culture needs to step up to the realities of the reader. A lot of it has to do with what Marshall mentioned, like teaching the guitar. Some people agree and have tried really hard along with me - if you look at Burning Wheel Revised, Burning Empires, It Was a Mutual Decision, Spione, Dogs in the Vineyard, Polaris, Dirty Secrets, and many others, you'll see clarity directed toward the real people that simply has no parallel in the prior history of role-playing texts. Resistance and fearful rejection of that very point constituted the primary reason for the reaction against my brain damage posting.
PART FOUR: YOUR PLAY
Here's what I like the most about your account of play. You and your son both took responsibility not only to read the text, but also to acknowledge that the text was its "own thing" that you were trying to do, and most importantly, you both acknowledged that either of you could refer to it. You totally abandoned, for the better, the whole idea that the book and its owner are one thing, with the owner being like an interpreter, and then the owner going to the players and being for all intents and purposes the book for them. I think that's fantastic. It's why I've always tried to write my game texts for the group to read, not one person who is going to be not only the GM, but the sole filter for their contact with the book.
Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying that it's morally incumbent on anyone to play a game slavishly toward exactly how a book is written. I am saying that interaction with the instructions by any and all participants is something we all accept as an option when we're talking about a board or card game, including the reference and enforcement of those instructions. But in RPGs, that's not historically the case. And that is a powerful, difficult subcultural expectation to overcome as a game designer and author. If four or five people are reading your book in order to play together, that increases the chances that your instructions will be understood, either to be used or to be rejected for group-acceptable reasons. But if it's just the one guy, then he can read it and perceive God Knows What, and tell everyone that it's done that way. (I should make a parody Sorcerer text of what the game would be like based on accounts of what people insist the book says, until I give them page references, and then they swear that the book literally changed its text since the last time they opened it.)
Well, that's what I got. It was a little spiky and I don't know how it'll be received.
Best, Ron
Callan S.:
Hi Marcus,
I think your saying that although it involves player skill, many parts are just procedures and rule following that could be written down. I'm saying that although it involves art, many parts are just procedures and rule following that could be written down. I think I'm just getting at the same thing from a different angle, I think. Did I summerise you correctly? :)
Hi Ron,
I think your shooting the messenger. I've said that when one teaches, one assumes the student is lacking rather than the text. And this removes any corrective process in terms of the text (specifically here, if you teach how traits are supposed to work, you wont recognise the ways they don't actually meet their design goals). I am just describing a reality, like gravity. Assuming I'm correct on that - whatever the situation is now with people having a bunch of prejudices about text (I'd agree about that), that doesn't make this teaching situation go away.
I'd anticipated having to start my own thread would make this into an analysis of 'What Callan wants', even invention of what I want, and avoid engaging the message.
Whether it's true that when people teach they cease to test if the text is sufficient, is the matter for debate.
And if we entertain the idea it's a reality, what ways and means yet remain to bypass said prejudices?
Callan S.:
Ah, damn! Marcus, I meant to ask, can you please give an actual play account of trollbabe - here or in a new thread is fine. I've been meaning to ask since you first brought it up in the prior thread. I think it'll have some important contrasts in it.
Ron Edwards:
Hi Callan,
Quote
when one teaches, one assumes the student is lacking rather than the text.
I don't think that's teaching, I think it's a frequent failure of teaching - even wholly failing to teach, period. I hope this view of mine sets up a basis for agreement, so hold on while I try to explain.
Any and all of the following can be "lacking": instructor, student, text. In fact, I suggest that the learning process is better off if all three admit it as the likely default, and if each assumes responsibility for addressing that throughout. There is an entire school of thought about university teaching that's based on this very idea, best expressed in the sciences. And it does not become paralyzed in an opinion-fest, either. I can list the techniques for the instructor, if you like.
More relevant to this thread, is that I think that three-cornered admission and commitment to work toward improvement of all three is what's been happening in this exact website and its predecessors for ten years. Perfectly? No, partly because I don't even know what "perfectly" would mean in that context anyway. But better than any other dialogue and community in the history of the hobby? I think so.
My final point is to call you out on insinuating that I'm trying to derail the discussion through personal attack. I have not attacked or criticized you in one single word or sentence. Far to the contrary, I've identified your incredibly important point-at-issue, encouraged you to bring it into the light, and even celebrated your actual play that helps illustrate what you mean. I'm trying to understand and support what you're saying. If ideas or specific phrasings don't make sense, then I attack them without mercy, but not you. Quit posting like I'm the enemy.
Best, Ron
Callan S.:
All the enthusiastic investigation was applied to the messenger, rather than the message, would be a clearer, but less punchy way of putting it. Rather than insinuate, I would have moderated, sought a moderator, or ditched the thread if I thought there was any personal attack at all. Ok, we'll leave here and move into the other area.
In terms of the corrective process, it's not just about one being there at all of course, but what goal or goals the corrective process is aimed at. Before I was assuming you had the text is sufficient goal, and reading prejudices was an obstacle to overcome toward that. What I was thinking was; why overcome it when, from what I know, its far easier to avoid it entirely and still achieve the goal?
I'm thinking maybe you have the text is sufficient goal, and another goal you have is to banish reading prejudices and similar (well, that might not be ideal wording for it if it is a goal, but I'm not great at this). This goal might rival or even come before 'text is sufficient' in priority.
What you've been saying would click into place really well in light of those goals.
To contrast I guess I can only say I don't have that banishment of reading prejudices goal. I aim toward a text that is as clear as the rules for chess and the majority of boardgames/cardgames. I do aim for simple rules/procedures that are like baby steps (baby bird steps?), but chess does this too (it's very simplistic in its rules, given the sublime heights of its play). But ultimately, even when breaking it down to simple steps (the sort of steps I know even a nine year old can do), at a certain point I just leave it to a certain darwinism kick in. If their reading prejudices are getting in the way that much, I just give up on them. Though this isn't too dissimilar to being able to fail a university course. Also, they might follow the steps but find no heart in it all, so to speak. That might be their problem, or my design just doesn't reach far enough in the people I'm aiming for. But I'm already rambling so I'll save discussion of that for latter.
If it is a goal for you, I'm not challenging it by stating my own, just making my own goal out in the open.
It sounds a clunky question to ask, but would you say something like banishing reading prejudices is a goal for you, Ron? In regards to traits or any sort of roleplay components? Before I just thought it was just a means to a goal, rather than a goal itself. If so, what sort of priority does the goal have? In terms of corrective process, other people would have to atleast know (preferably share) your goals in order to correct your teaching.
Is this post too probing? I've got a slight itch at the back of my intuition saying it is. It can all just be ruminated on, rather than answered here.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page