I have always referred to the following scene from Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid as a pretty fine summary of open form and standard formula.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AoCK5r2TWg
* ROB KUNTZ, Special Guest at ARNECON 2 GAMING CONVENTION 2024, Minneapolis MN, See You There! *
I reckon so, pard.
ReplyDeleteRob---
ReplyDeleteHow does the scene apply to RPG design and gameplay? Something like this?:
Moving = open form = dynamic and improvising, fully in the moment, not thinking but doing (or, perhaps thinking and doing are fully in unison?)
vs.
Standing still = closed form (now standard form?) = static and rote, too conscious about doing (doing and then thinking or thinking and then doing, but not in unison)
I'm not sure that I'm making the connection that you're pointing to here.
Allan.
That's a great clip!
ReplyDeleteObviously the standard formula did not work well for the Kid... dare I say that it stifled him?
It's like instead of coloring inside the lines he redrew the drawing into a masterpiece... but that involved drawing outside the lines!
We must unlearn our programming and find our own truth.
@ Allan. You are asking for a formula for form? That's rich! The best I can say is that one can identify formula but must practice into being, and thus identify and promote therethrough, their own forms.
ReplyDeleteLauren's comments pretty much comes as close as one will get to understanding form in a general way, but I will add this: Arenson created the RPG form that defied the formulaic processes of the day. In order to do so he had to, as Lauren points out, paint outside the line. He created his own philosophy, which then was successfully put to the test through experimentation and practice. No doubt the same way our Sundance Kid in the movie clip would have done to arrive at that point.This of course points to the fact that standards are models imposed by someone (in the clip's case, by Martin's character), formulaic understoods which may or may not withstand the test of time depending upon who is testing, improving upon them or, in Arneson's case, discarding them completely.
LOL, not at all. I was simply asking you to make more explicit the connection you see between the film and your Open Form writings.
ReplyDeleteI'm was pretty sure I grokked your intent, but wasn't sure if you had some nuances that you were evoking through the film medium specifically---hence my focus on the Kid's "I need to move" comments, the aspect of doing, and being in the moment.
Allan.
Heh. Well, you did ask how they would relate to game design and play, and those are two very broad subjects. Being in your element is the point. That's going to vary for each person. The rest as it relates to the two subjects is what I cover, in part, in MY BOOK; and an in depth discourse was not intended on my part. I am more interested in the interpretations of others. :)
ReplyDeleteIt will be great to read your book and get into your mind on this.
ReplyDelete@Lauren. Sure enough! I write parts of it, think about it and take notes and/or draw diagrams every day. It is becoming a *little* difficult to stay focused due to the move situation and a need in between to make a living, but it will be birthed, have no doubt.
ReplyDeleteBTW: I knew that of all people viewing the clip that you would understand form vs. formula. It just has so many nuances depending on where and when these manifest and if they are redacted to begin with, especially in standardized environments (real or imagined) which would not allow for individual forms to manifest from the onset due to up-front, built-in constraints. This relates, in small part, to my post in 2010 at LotGD blog about the early The Value of D&D's Creativity, Improvisation and Play. But I do not stop there in the book and the ranges of Open Form are examined from many divergent and synergistic view points.
Yes, I thought we discussed this years ago and that is why I was pretty confident I knew what you were referring to.
DeleteWriters must have such a tough job. I would think it takes incredible will power to sit and focus everyday to bring your work to life.... then add your move and life change to it all and it must get complicated with those big distractions.
Well, just know that you have lots of fans eager to read work!
Heh. Writing isn't a big deal if you enjoy your subject. It's not a chore, then. Always stay fresh. That's why I have so many different subjects and related projects. :) Probably no different in "toughness-level" than your design and teaching.
ReplyDeleteI love that clip. Don't tell me how to do it, just let me do it.
ReplyDelete... as far as game play goes... To me, that clip shows how players often stifle their characters' actions based on what they think the DM wants. I suppose the same thing applies to being bound by rules.
ReplyDeleteThat's why I like players that have never played. We we need rules to resolve things, we dust off the rules. I've found this creates players that use their imagination before thinking of how it will play out in the game system.
oops... "When" When we need rules to resolve things...
DeleteRelevant insights. Of course the rules as originally forwarded were guides for players participating in the immersion of the overall game experience--they were there to assist when needed, and to act as guides for departure points otherwise when they fell short in the former case, but were not envisioned as predominating the integrated process. As I noted in my banner, above: "When imagination was the only rule." Seriously. We formed the rules during the play-tests 1972-1974--as we were playing them. But, due to the realization that the imagination unleashed in an infinitely variable conceptual environ would ultimately go beyond these, they were made a "framework" as Gary Gygax notes in the Introduction to D&D, 1974. The imagination--play--must ferret out the rest when and if needed.
DeleteThanks for commenting.