Item #1: From a person whom I respect and love...
Item #2, below. A new "person" wanted to add me as a "friend" on Google+. I clicked on their profile and immediately got this from "its" current, and only, post (note snapshot I took).
And, as an aside, was forced to deal with and think about another ongoing commentary on a board I answer questions at, this concerning why folks believe that computers used in RPGs do not detract from the human experience thereof but can actually enhance it. All of that flowing from a mechanical, and invariant, POV that a human interface in RPG is more of an adjunct reality to the game mechanic and organized flow of linearity and bean-counting (adding it all up) than an immersive imaginative experience sans as little artificial constructs as is possible. Just ask kids at play in the yard whether their experiences (all rather spontaneous and optimal in a self-generating way) would be enhanced if they had to stop and reference books or computers to carry on imagining and being and doing. And why should they? They already have the most optimal human interface possible: The imaginative conduit of the brain.
What all of these things, seemingly unconnected, have in common is a purposeful disregard for the human, though on different levels.
Now onto lunch... Hopefully it has a better, non-bitter, taste than breakfast.
"All of that flowing from a mechanical, and invariant, POV that a human interface in RPG is more of an adjunct reality to the game mechanic and organized flow of linearity and bean-counting (adding it all up) than an immersive imaginative experience sans as little artificial constructs as is possible."
ReplyDeleteWow. I just can't parse that. But I think I'd like to know what it says.
It flows from the distinction of game theory (mechanical) and implicit play theory (immersion in the fantastic) as a cooperating meta function of what the RPG is (or used to be) before the mechanical function, and its many game-only theorists won out due to market pressures and standardization for commercial reasons. Gygax' and my own philosophies were consonant with Arneson's (the father of the concept) where there were no absolutes in reaching immersion, thus, by extenuation, there are no absolute formulas, as in mechanics, constructs, interfaces, etc for achieving that end. My commentary regarding that on the board I mentioned elicited surprise and pigeon holing on the level of "backwardness".
ReplyDeleteI am also a fan of 'un-plugging' at the game table. Computers & phones. We get enough digital media all day every day
ReplyDeleteWell to me it's not about degree (getting enough) but of kind matching kind. YMMV.
ReplyDeleteIn actuality ITEM #1 is higher on my list of concerns dealing with dehumanization through consumeristic apathy/grooming. This type of information is now so common place, like war, that we come to accept it as part of our "lives". People can shape, excise or abandon their minds as much as they wish in an entertainment only paradigm; what they forfeit in the long run may just catch up with them as Item #1s repeated ad infinitum, however, entertainment and comfort not-with-standing. [steps down off tree stump}
ReplyDeleteMany thanks, Roby, for linking my post! Indeed the answer to humanity and its longevity is to be found in the natural world. Mechanics are those fancy accessories that take up time and diversion from intrinsic purpose.
ReplyDeleteC'était un article superbe, Nathalie. Vous êtes bienvenu en tant que toujours. Voyez-vous dans la terre des gâteaux…
ReplyDelete