Roleplaying Arrogance

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Mon Jun 24, 2002 2:58 pm

@CE: That view on genres is perhaps more usable, but I need some freedom to be able to find good sci-fi that I also have read.

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Jun 24, 2002 3:00 pm

Originally posted by C Elegans
How should we define Sci-Fi and Fantasy as genres?

I suspect the only way to define it is to look at how stores market it: the publishers and retail outlets have a very good idea of specific buyer demographics, as well as exactly the content that reader expects. All the books they may want to buy are in one area, and nearly all of them use similar plots, characters and backgrounds--the latter being one of several potential worlds that are immediately recognizable by their readers, and therefore have a high comfort factor.

You won't find Utopia, Arcadia, Erewhon, 1984, The Island or Siddhartha, there. Although all of these possess elements that could be called "fantastical" or "science fiction," they're really speculative material about ideas, and don't reach the fantasy/sci-fi market. They'll usually be found under general fiction, classics, or speculative fiction categories, at least in the bookstores I've visited.

Mind, as I stated before, there's some well-written, highly enjoyable fantasy and science fiction out there. I just disagree that reading is indicative of a higher level of intelligence, because the books are idea-rich; to the contrary. IMO, sci-fi/fantasy is idea-poor.

One of those divisions is imagination. As such tests are truly limited to measuring intelligence in terms of problem solving (fit the shape in the shape, recognize the analogy, etc), imagination plays a role in reasoning and analysis.

I see imagination as a non-logical, inferential system that gets from point A to point B by taking the Andrassy Ut Yellow Line Subway in Budapest, gets off in Bolivia, and then jumps in a conveniently placed waste paper basket to fly through the center of the earth. Emotion plays a role in analysis, and stored experience can provide tools for problem-solving, but imagination is something else, again. Just my POV; and bear in mind, even if I'm right, the opposite is probably just as true.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Mon Jun 24, 2002 3:02 pm

@Ill will: OK, I think I see what you mean. But how would you differentiate between logical thinking and abstract thinking? Many researchers in cognition would claim that the first is a part of the latter. Thus, you see a positive correlation between the two, ie people who score high in tests of abstract thinking, score high on all sorts of abstract thinking, logical thinking included.

Your notion that creativity as measured in those tests, and problem solving ability is connected, is supported by studies. As you say, we do not know whether RPG:ers would score high on such creativity tests. My guess is they would score average, as it is my guess they would score average on "intelligence" tests. A class mate of mine actually tested 2 RPG:ers with WAIS-R, a commonly used test for general cognitive ability

2 people however is not possible to generalise to a population

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Jun 24, 2002 3:05 pm

we do not know whether RPG:ers would score high on such creativity tests

We would also need to refine our definition of creativity. As used above, for the purpose of testing, it would seem to measure "finding creative solutions to problems through stored knowledge," perhaps, while creativity can also mean (and is usually taken to refer to) the artistic creative process--something else entirely.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Mon Jun 24, 2002 3:13 pm

Originally posted by fable
We would also need to refine our definition of creativity. As used above, for the purpose of testing, it would seem to measure "finding creative solutions to problems through stored knowledge," perhaps, while creativity can also mean (and is usually taken to refer to) the artistic creative process, which is something else entirely.

This discussion seems to require a definition of creativity, imagination, intelligence, Sci-fi, fantasy and science

I do however again, agree with Fable. The tests used for assessing creativity have little in common with artistic creativity or personal creativity. I know tests of artistic creativity are around, for instance I read an old study where LSD:s ability to increase creativity in artists were assessed, and then some measurements of artistic quality and artistic creativity were used. I have however never seen such tests used together with "intelligence tests", so speculations of possible correlations are at present impossible to falsify or confirm.

ILL WILL · Post by **ILL WILL** » Mon Jun 24, 2002 3:23 pm

Please. I have got to know how the LSD test turned out. Do you remember what they used to measure creativity?

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Mon Jun 24, 2002 3:28 pm

Originally posted by ILL WILL
Please. I have got to know how the LSD test turned out. Do you remember what they used to measure creativity?

I don't remember what tests were used, but I do remember the result - LSD made the artists score lower on the creativity tests, although the artists believed they were more creative when affected by the drug. I will try to find the study for you

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Jun 24, 2002 3:32 pm

Originally posted by C Elegans
I don't remember what tests were used, but I do remember the result - LSD made the artists score lower on the creativity tests, although the artists believed they were more creative when affected by the drug. I will try to find the study for you

I remember hearing about that test, years ago. A friend of mine was trying to urge me that being on a drug or alcohol-induced (same thing, really, in a certain sense) high would be good for anybody's creativity, and that I should try it. I told him repeatedly that I had enough trouble trying to keep my imagination from outrunning any ability to place it within a semblance of order. After all, it isn't enough to see blue elephants playing dominos, and write that. You have to explain to people why they're doing it, and what the dominos look like, and you have to choose your words and balance them very carefully. Creativity is part madness, part stenography.

Silur · Post by **Silur** » Mon Jun 24, 2002 3:35 pm

@Roleplaying
Having played PnP RPG's for almost two decades, I would have to say that in terms of intelligence, I can't really see that roleplayers as a group differ from any other group. Some of the most intelligent people I have met have been roleplayers, but on the other hand, the single most stupid person I know of is also a roleplayer, and the rest fall fairly bell curved in between. I used to attend, and later arrange gaming conventions with up to some 2-3 thousand attendants, and those get all kinds of people. Judging by the fact that this group seems to have the same trouble with filling out forms, following written instructions, etc as the general populace, I'd say they're just people. The number of strange or faking strange people are considerably higher than the norm, but then, these occasions tend to bring out, well, the roleplaying stereotype in people. Back in the really old days, there was a tendency for RPGs to attract the silent, sociophobic type (like me). Today, I doubt they're more common than the norm.

@Science Fiction/Fantasy
Having read both these genres for about the same timespan as above, I would agree with Fable that they are less innovative and with fewer new ideas. I stopped reading regular Fantasy late in my teens, since I found it stagnant and one book looking pretty much like the next. Science Fiction has managed to keep me interested, although much of it is stereotype crap. I must admit that I haven't read an SF novel the last year or so, although I've planned to read "Perdido street station".
When it comes to demographics, I would say that the only group I find overrepresented among readers of SF/F is roleplayers. People genuinely interested in science (as in reading something more than just popular science every now and then...) are too few to constitute a valid sample, although the number of computer geeks probably is slightly above average.

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Jun 24, 2002 3:38 pm

Originally posted by ILL WILL
I'd still like to hear your thoughts on arrogance (or the portrayal thereof) as a societal defense mechanism. Do we have a tendancy to flaunt our subject matter expertise when the area in which we are experts is (1) very specialized (like in the case of an rpg) and (2) "outsiders" ask us for help?

3) Either, 4) both, and 5) something else again. I think perhaps--and this is just my personal POV, for what little it's worth--that RPGers are all too inclined to see themselves as Great Creative Artists, above the average consumer. And in a sense, they're right: for the average consumer lets their innate creativity atrophy at the end of an umbilical cord that feeds them a daily dose of heavily commercialized television, radio, movies, etc.

But is the RPGer that far off? Does playing a module featuring elves and a lich on a bad hair day, with die rolls for combat checks, constitute great artistic effort? I'm inclined to doubt it. Roleplaying is a fun way to pass the time with friends, but I wouldn't think it's anything to bragg about (though yes, I've heard it, too). And in any case, creativity isn't about trumping the egos of others.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Mon Jun 24, 2002 4:01 pm

Originally posted by Silur
When it comes to demographics, I would say that the only group I find overrepresented among readers of SF/F is roleplayers. People genuinely interested in science (as in reading something more than just popular science every now and then...) are too few to constitute a valid sample, although the number of computer geeks probably is slightly above average.

Personally, I have found readers of Sci-Fi/Fantasy are often interested in technology, and so called computer geeks are also more interested in technology than the average population. However, technology and science have no more in common than cooking and science, and I have not found a correlation between being interested in technology and being interested in real science, any science.

@those who think there is a connection between reading sci-fi/fanstasy and being interested in science: Is there any reasons IYO, to believe that readers of novels, history books or modern poetry would be less interested in science than Sci-Fi/Fantasy readers?

by Fable
a lich on a bad hair day

ROFLMAO

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Mon Jun 24, 2002 4:10 pm

Personally i like the more abstract aspects of sci fi than the science, for me all the labourious description just ends up reading like flannel to me, perhaps to a deeply scientific person it is important, but the story and characters means so much more than the flowery descriptions

ILL WILL · Post by **ILL WILL** » Mon Jun 24, 2002 4:41 pm

"

--that RPGers are all too inclined to see themselves as Great Creative Artists, above the average consumer.

Aha. Why? What is it about a roleplaying game that leads us to believe that we are above the average consumer? Is it that we truly think we are delving the depths of the artistic mind and hewing pathways of creative cognition for those less imaginative to follow? That in some way roleplayers are blessed with this gift that enables them to take intellectual journies that others cannot endure?

Or is it just some little self inspiring creatine for the ego that roleplayers tell themselves to justify the social cost of engaging in what amounts to dress-up-and-make-believe?

"Well, umm, I'm a very creative person and that's why I play D&D."

To give a personal opinion, I would hate to be a movie star. Everyone wishes they were movie stars. We worship movie stars.

All image. No depth.

I would feel very silly PRETENDING to be one of the rangers shot down in Mogadishu (see Blackhawk Down). Or PRETENDING to be the Marine played by Nicholas Cage, storming the Pacific Isles, slaying the enemy by the dozens (See Wind Talkers. Rather, don't see Wind Talkers). The idea of imitating the actions of those who have lived through trauma the likes of which I cannot fathom would make me feel rather, well, silly...all dressed up in soldier clothes, toy gun in hand, doging fake bullets, going to my trailer and sipping frappachino while some college intern dabs blush and fake blood on my cheekbone.

The last thing I would feel is pride...or arrogance.

I don't suppose I need to paint the analogy between actors and roleplayers for you erudite folk. Nor do I intend to offend any actors (would-be or actual) or roleplayers (would-be or actual

). I recognize the art and skill involved in acting.

Roleplaying games are amusing. People play roleplaying games because they are amused by them. I suppose like any movie, the depth of thought involved in a roleplaying game is defined by the script writer and the actors. There are a lot of bad movies out there.

But I see no cause to believe that just because a roleplaying game appeals to a person, he/she should have any cause to believe that he/she is any more intelligent, creative, or imaginative than any other.

After all, it's just make-believe.

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Jun 24, 2002 7:34 pm

I wouldn't say that all or even many roleplayers evince the kind of arrogance you write about, @Ill Will. I'd like to think that I'm a roleplayer, and some people have told me I've created memorable characters in MMORPGs and MUDs. Whether true or not, I do it because it's fun, and I enjoy taking part in a kind of spotaneous "staged play" where you know the talents and inclinations of the other players around you. Most of 'em are decent, kindly folk in reallife, who wouldn't dream of even mentioning their roleplaying efforts out of context. Just occasionally, you run across the roleplayer prima donna (of either sex) who insists on recounting their latest exploit in the field, or their width of ability--all of it kind of silly, since that "ability" consists essentially of speaking a few words in dialog and offering a few written, pre-programmed verb actions.

But I don't think is the standard. Perhaps some of the worst draw the most attention, but that's the world is.

JackOfClubs · Post by **JackOfClubs** » Mon Jun 24, 2002 8:33 pm

@ILL WILL
I think the kind of arrogance you refer to is mostly a phenomenon of the internet forum whatever the topic. I spend a fair amount of time visiting political and religious discussion groups and I find exactly the same sort of arrogance. It seems to be a result of the annonymity afforded by the internet combined with the same sort of in-group dynamics you find in any club or clique.

All of the discussion above about intelligence and creativity may well be the case for RPGs, but I find that it is typically the least intelligent that are the most rude. People that really are smart are usually willing to demonstrate it by being helpful. Of course, sometimes they lose patience after the 100th repetition of the same question but this usually passes.

@fable
I think I agree with your characterization of the SciFi/Fantasy genre but wouldn't you agree that this is a fairly *recent* phenomenon? I find that the quality in these two fields plummetted shortly after the first Star Wars movie, when a) the genres became commingled to the detriment of both as scores of immitators of Lucas' genius tried to jump on the band wagon and b) the publishing corporations found a new mass-market audience.

I also find the self-conscious soul-searching and self-deprecating humor of the Margaret Weiss/Tracy Hickman variety rather off-putting but I am not sure why it has taken over so much of the fantasy market.

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Jun 24, 2002 9:03 pm

Originally posted by JackOfClubs
I think I agree with your characterization of the SciFi/Fantasy genre but wouldn't you agree that this is a fairly *recent* phenomenon? I find that the quality in these two fields plummetted shortly after the first Star Wars movie, when a) the genres became commingled to the detriment of both as scores of immitators of Lucas' genius tried to jump on the band wagon and b) the publishing corporations found a new mass-market audience.l

For what it's worth, I think that the genre has been pretty mass market for at least 50 years, with plenty of pulp fiction with some jewels among the rest; but you're right: it has gone dramatically downhill in the last couple of decades. I put that not just at the doorstep of Stars Wars, or Star Trek, but because TSR pointed the direction the publishers would subsequently take: buying the services of cheap hack writers to churn out readymade stuff with pre-packaged plosts and characters. So no one's trying to do Lucas, I think; instead, Lucas' company is hiring authors to write in a certain way, and under certain constraints. These things are marketed everywhere, and outsell the decent stuff by far. It's sad: I remember the shelves of stores 20 years ago stocking a far greater number of fantasy and sci-fi books in the same basic space. The shelf space is now bought for a just a relatively few books in enormous quantities. Our tastes are being defined for us by large corporations.

I may have come across as harsh on the genre, but that was only because it was held up as an example of stimulating, intellectual content. That was never its purpose; it's like judging BG2 as great literature, or Apocalypse Now for its sense of humor. For all that the genre has always focused on a few hackneyed ideas, some of the writing and characterization in the past has been great. Authors like Dunsany, Tolkien, Cabell, Leiber, Eddison and CA Smith each had a distinctive style and an aura of memorabililty about their doings, as well as a certain maturity in the people they created. Pratt & de Camp demonstrated a great sense of humor. Vance was doing the "elf-thing" long before it became popular (back in the late 1940s, in fact), and with great detail and imagination that ignored the neat little boundaries people like to assign through their fantasy rulebooks.

I won't mention any names, but there are some highly touted best-selling fantasy writers today whose characters display all the maturity of the writers, themselves, and I've (regrettably) met 'em. These are people who give you the impression that they're posed under their under Klieg spotlight strapped to their heads, smile at their fan clubs, and spout nonsense with a serious, intense attitude that conjures up a resemblance to Jerry Lewis on nighttime talk shows.

They remind me of a story by Stanislaw Lem, in which two sub-deific world creators get into an argument about whether a machine could be designed to become the greatest poet in the universe. One does this; and when all the first and second-rate poets approach to compete with it, they kill themselves in despair after hearing its replies. But, alas, the eighth-rate poets go away happy, unable to perceive how bad they were and how good it was. All too many people like this command the sci-fi/fantasy genre today and boast about the number of novels they've sold, all the while disregarding the fact that they were chosen at bargain basement prices to write the piece work according to demand.

Gods, I sound like some toothless, cracklebarrel pessimist yearning for the good ol' days as he sticks out his cane and trips people walking by.

But the truth (for me) is, I still read a lot; it's just not in the sci-fi/fantasy genre, anymore. Like rock records, it's all controlled by rich producers. I get my feed of fiction from other sources, both old and new.