greg@sj.ate.slb.com (Greg Wageman) (01/19/90)
Opinions expressed are the responsibility of the author. In article <1990Jan13.232613.25328@agate.berkeley.edu> mkkuhner@codon1.berkeley.edu.UUCP (Mary K. Kuhner) writes: >As one of the pimply-faced geeks myself, I can say that it's not quite >so simple. "Live role-playing" in a real environment, or heavily >graphics-oriented computer roleplaying, can come *much* closer to a >feeling of actually being there than any paper-and-dice representation. >But for some of us at least, it's inevitably less satisfying; and not, >I think, simply because of imperfections in the medium. First, an apology and explanation: I did not intend to imply that all D&D players are pimply-faced geeks, although it appears you could read it that way. I simply chose one (unfortunate) stereotype, that of the spindly-limbed youngster pretending he was someone almost diametrically different, to illustrate my point. I played D&D quite seriously for many years myself, and am quite aware that D&D players are as varied as any group of game players. Having done both, I find the paper-and-dice style more satisfying. While the live role-playing is more physical, and therefore more intense in some ways, I found it more difficult to allow my imagination to overcome the actual physical appearances of the PVC-and-foam swords, wooden shields and theatrical props. Whereas when the whole set exists only in my mind, there are no such hindrances. (Of course, like most things, if you have enough money to throw at the problem, you can make things much more realistic. There was a group in southwest England that actually had use of castle for their live fantasy gaming.) >Creating and maintaining a complex world in your own mind, which is >an activity that is not necessarily helped and may even be hindered >by a graphic, realistic external representation, has its own >pleasures. There's an interesting challenge involved in *representing* >Conan in the medium of the game. I'm not particularly interested in >*being* Conan. To draw upon a familar analogy, dice-and-paper FRPing is to reading as live FRPing is to television or film (which one depends on the quality of the setting; something like SCA calibre is more akin to film). I find reading generally more rewarding than film, and infinitely more rewarding than television. Illustrated novels (graphic FRP computer games) fall a notch below the unillustrated, if only because they confine one's imagination to the artist's vision and rendering skill. >Why will people sit around for hours moving about objects in a MultiZork >environment, when they could get a much better "illusion of reality" >by going outside and moving objects? :-) More is not necessarily >better. For one, because most people don't have horses and armor and castles handy. For another, because that rattan or plastic sword, is, ultimately, just that; whereas the one in my mind is as real as I can make it, I think. >I think the most interesting forms of cyberart will work with the >viewer's imagination, rather than supplanting it. Could one enhance >the human ability to juggle images and concepts so that, having built >up an imaginary world, for example, I could *perceive it as a whole* >where I can now only understand and appreciate a bit at a time? Wow. Now you're talking! This is what I was driving at, really, in reference to D&D: the ability to take that mental set and externalize it in such a way that it can be shared. Of course, we're not talking about something new here; Niven and Barnes have already written two novels based on the concept. The modification we're making is that, instead of a Star Trek Holodeck-like construction, we're talking about a completely cerebral, simstim environment. I, for one, can't wait. Copyright 1990 Greg Wageman DOMAIN: greg@sj.ate.slb.com Schlumberger Technologies UUCP: {uunet,decwrl,amdahl}!sjsca4!greg San Jose, CA 95110-1397 BIX: gwage CIS: 74016,352 GEnie: G.WAGEMAN Permission is granted for reproduction provided this notice is maintained.
greg@sj.ate.slb.com (Greg Wageman) (01/19/90)
Opinions expressed are the responsibility of the author. In article <9670@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes: >greg@sj.ate.slb.com (Greg Wageman) writes: >>I think you underestimate the power of such a medium [cybertape]. >>Remember the Dungeons and Dragons craze of the 1970's? A bunch of >>pimply-faced geeks pretending they were Conan the Barbarian? > >I just can't let this go by. Back when I played these games, in the >late 1970's and early 1980's, I played with a lot of different people. >Few (if any) of these were "pimply-faced geeks". In their number were >several certifiable hunks of the different-girl-a-night variety, as >well as new wave girls-to-die-for. These simply could not be placed in >the "pimply-faced geek" category by any stretch of the imagination. >Others included a successful carpentry contractor and his wife, both in >their late 40's, and other socially normative types. If forced to >classify the group, I would say they were disproportionately people >working (or trying to break into) creative fields like music, art, >theatre, and writing. Few were nerds, geeks, or other kinds of social >outcasts. Like most insulting stereotypes, this one radically >oversimplifies reality in the cause of the accuser's ego. Explanation and apology: I did not intend to imply that all D&Ders are or were pimply-faced geeks, although I see how you might read it that way. I chose an (unfortunate) stereotype, that of a gangly-limbed adolescent pretending to be someone almost diametrically different, to illustrate my point about the use of imagination. I played D&D quite seriously for many years myself, and am well aware that D&D players are at least as diverse as any other group; certainly more diverse than the readers of Usenet, whom I would never even consider trying to pigeonhole. I suppose it is due to the nature of Usenet that one assumes the worst possible intentions on the part of the writer, and reads in the most nefarious context, but I assure you, Tim (and all concerned), that ego-gratification was not and is not my purpose for writing here, at least no more so than it is the motive for engaging in any form of conversation. Given the frequent ambiguity resulting from excessive brevity imposed by lack of time and the medium itself, more charity in our inferences would benefit us all. What goes around, comes around. Let's continue the discussion, shall we? I promise to choose my words more carefully in future. Copyright 1990 Greg Wageman DOMAIN: greg@sj.ate.slb.com Schlumberger Technologies UUCP: {uunet,decwrl,amdahl}!sjsca4!greg San Jose, CA 95110-1397 BIX: gwage CIS: 74016,352 GEnie: G.WAGEMAN Permission is granted for reproduction provided this notice is maintained.