Goal-Based Backwards Design

[Marauder Moe]

I think a lot of GDB readers (myself included) are turned off by these formal essay posts because of some bad experiences from a few former posters who will remain nameless.  You don't seem to harbor any disruptive intent like they did, though.

I didn't find this post to be especially useful to me personally, though, as I'm one of those people who like to roleplay by feel more than by thought.  Obviously you do play by thought, and you've put a lot of it into your roleplaying.  I look forward to seeing your skills in action.

[Falconer]

Ritley wrote:

My main point was, that Zalanthan's wouldn't have many want's... goals...e.t.c due to the fact the most important goal is hard enough... staying alive. That was what I ment. Not that the player need's to focus on staying alive, but he should RP it being a struggle to stay alive, and keep that as the character's main goal.

I'm going to take firm disagreement with this, and to be honest, I think it's a narrow view that the haves view the have-nots with: the ambition of Zalanthans, the youth of the South Bronx, the population of the Sudan is restricted solely to staying alive and fed.  Maslow and his hierarchy have been used extensively in MUD design (there were probably two thousand posts on the topic in the mid-90s on the MUD-DEV newsgroup) but there's been a significant backlash in other spheres.

Case in point: I recently saw a tremendous documentary, Invisible Children that featured interviews with child soldiers, abductees, and villagers of Uganda and the Sudan.  Hearing these twelve year old children, their parents murdered by rebels, speak about their experience was striking: they spent their mornings in school and their evenings scavaging for food, water and shelter.  When the filmmakers asked them about their goals, not one mentioned having a neverending supply of food and water.  One wanted to meet Tupac.  Another wanted to go in an airplane.  Another wanted to see the Pyramids.  

I'm guessing that you probably pursue a multitude of goals for your character without even realizing it, even though you're thinking that your character is merely looking for food and water.  Otherwise, it seems to me that the character would be extremely simplistic.

Were base needs such as food and water the only goals of Zalanthans, there certainly would not be alcohol, jewelers, musical instruments, storytelling, or an arena.

[Anonymous]

While we're on this boring subject:

All interaction is driven by goals for the future, and these very goals have a geneology that is firmly rooted in character psychology and history. By using the term geneology, I am, of course, referencing the French poststructuralist thinker Michel Foucault, who chooses the term in an attempt to evade the classical conceptions of history as a linear movement through time. This is an important distinction, as the interplay between goals and character background are far more interesting when they are cyclical, rather than linear.

Let us not omit the vast wealth of knowledge collected in Aristotle's texts. Specifically, his ideas on Habit do reinforce and benefit your statement. The effect of past experiences on the constantly developing and evolving psyche is an important facet of role-playing, and as such the advance of goals. Similarly, considering the formation of goals in a cyclical manner is, in my opinion, far more accurate than a linear model (as Falconer states) for the following reason: the advance of experiences produces habits, and the result of those habits yield fresh experiences that, in turn, develop and influence habits, etc. Summating the process of habituation by which the habits arise, one may imply that habits conceive habits by deliberate desire (choice). (I can define habit in some detail, if you desire) To elaborate on the antecedent claim: by participating in the continuous flow of life, one interacts and engages in activities and events that influence the very nature of the character and, in this manner, affect the goal in progress.  In fact, it cannot occur in any other manner, it is cyclical by nature that the character's goals result in experiences, which result in goals.

Jungian Philosophy, his ideas on archetypes (is that what Bluefae had in mind?), and their application to role-play:

Archetype, being a subconscious state or rather frame of thought, may be presented and explained in a rather simplistic manner (with which it can also be applied to role-play):

EXAMPLE:
The genotype of a person reflects respective genetic traits - how these traits are manifested and observed is the phenotype.

As such, one may consider the archetype of a 'Hero' (to be cliché) as a subconscious genotype, while the expression of this archetype is some goal, behavior, character, and/or any of a number of character-related feature. Essentially, the background of any given character may serve as the archetype, while the manner in which the character exhibits its archetype reflects the character personality, behavior, desire, wants, etc.

Semper Pax,

Dirr (thought I'd add something worthwhile)

[Ritley.]

Ritley wrote:

My main point was, that Zalanthan's wouldn't have many want's... goals...e.t.c due to the fact the most important goal is hard enough... staying alive. That was what I ment. Not that the player need's to focus on staying alive, but he should RP it being a struggle to stay alive, and keep that as the character's main goal.

I'm going to take firm disagreement with this, and to be honest, I think it's a narrow view that the haves view the have-nots with: the ambition of Zalanthans, the youth of the South Bronx, the population of the Sudan is restricted solely to staying alive and fed.  Maslow and his hierarchy have been used extensively in MUD design (there were probably two thousand posts on the topic in the mid-90s on the MUD-DEV newsgroup) but there's been a significant backlash in other spheres.

Case in point: I recently saw a tremendous documentary, Invisible Children that featured interviews with child soldiers, abductees, and villagers of Uganda and the Sudan.  Hearing these twelve year old children, their parents murdered by rebels, speak about their experience was striking: they spent their mornings in school and their evenings scavaging for food, water and shelter.  When the filmmakers asked them about their goals, not one mentioned having a neverending supply of food and water.  One wanted to meet Tupac.  Another wanted to go in an airplane.  Another wanted to see the Pyramids.  

I'm guessing that you probably pursue a multitude of goals for your character without even realizing it, even though you're thinking that your character is merely looking for food and water.  Otherwise, it seems to me that the character would be extremely simplistic.

Were base needs such as food and water the only goals of Zalanthans, there certainly would not be alcohol, jewelers, musical instruments, storytelling, or an arena.

You do have a point actually. However, I did not say they shouldn't have other goals, but all others should be secondary. Those children probably wanted those things, because they knew different. They knew that there was a better world out there. Zalanthan's don't; as such, they cannot define a better worl than they are in at the moment. Of course they would have other goals, and want's, but if they dismissed staying alive to seconday they are as good as dead, because it is a struggle to survive on Zalanthas. It's a good point though, but I guess this just might come down to the character.

[Ritley]

Also, it appears I'm way out of my league in intelligence here. So, even trying to argue is doing my head in. Your obviously more intelligent than me, and I apoligise if what I was trying to say came out wrong, because I don't think many people got my initial point. However looking back to your work, it seems to be extremely well written, and I guess I was being a bit bitchy, without even knowing, I guess it probably was because I was jealous. I apoligise if I may have caused you any injustices. Let's just say you win, and leave it at that because I've got a headache.

I expect I'll enjoy playing with your future character, and for now... I've gotta go to bed. Got work in the morning. Shade.

[Xygax]

The amount of noise cluttering this thread since my post is disappointing, and I can only assume is largely the result of an extended unannounced downtime.  Sorry about that.    Folks, if you're uncomfortable or uninterested with the content of a thread for whatever reason, but you can't express your discomfort or disinterest in a way that genuinely contributes, could you just move on to another thread?  I do it all the time.

Xygax wrote:

You seem to assert that "cyclical goals" are universally better than linear ones... WHY are cyclical goals better?

and

Also, I think that the question you struggle to answer, "How can I create a plot?" suffers from an ironic tendency to be an OOC one, just as the OOC goals you mention elsewhere in your article are.

Exactly.  To be honest, it's that sick irony that drove me to take on the topic in the first place, and as you've noted it creates an extremely difficult doldrum to escape.  I do think, however, that the question descends from one of the key delineations that has to be drawn in any RP MU* - where is the line drawn between the IC realm and the OOC realm?  MUSHes such as OtherSpace, for example, tend to embrace the OOC environment with dozens of global channels, OOC tells/pages, extensive IC public documentation, and logs of major RP events posted immediately after they occur by players and staff alike.  The experience on RPIs takes an altogether different approach, taking a minimalist OOC communication.  This does not, however, make the IC/OOC delineation any less important - I imagine the staff has had to ask themselves, "Just how much information on <insert organization here> do we make public on the website?  How much information is made available to the players of that organization?  How much information should characters discover ICly?"  I tend to agree with the RPI approach - keeping OOC knowledge of IC events and structures to a minimum helps to establish a sense of wonder and discovery for both players and their characters, yet a base level of knowledge has to be made available for players to use as a resource.  I suppose, tentatively, that the answer to the OOC/IC plot paradox is also one of idealist pragmatism: we must use our OOC understandings of effective plots and roleplaying to guide the groundwork of our characters, while utilizing the magic if to keep things as IC as possible.  Again, it's a tough one - I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts as to how this balance can be struck, since we're both aware that it can't be avoided.

On Arm, we opt (almost to a fault) for restricting OOC activity as much as possible.  I would much rather see players work through whatever processes they work through with respect to their characters' goals and motivations by evaluating ONLY those things (cyclically, I suppose -- let me come back to that), and without ANY regard to "will this result in a plot?"  One of the tremendous things about Arm is that, in general, the only thing that really really kills plots is when they escape the IC realm into OOC.  As a member of the staff, I have witnessed many excellent plots continue well past the moment of their creators death, and even the worst players, the most twinkish twinks, are often the genesis of outstanding plotlines simply by virtue of creating conflict and confusion.  And yes, we struggle constantly with drawing the line between creating useful, playable documentation, and leaving players with a sense of wonder and surprise at the game world.

OOC communication, though, is what kills most good plots: people chattering with one another outside the game about their recent character's deaths, or what they stole from who, or any of an infinite supply of other pieces of information being shared by smart people who, then, are to perceive strands of plot-webs that they should otherwise NOT be able to.  If only we could wipe people's memories when their characters died, too.

As for the question of the cyclical approach, I'd agree that it isn't neccessary to use it every time, particularly with minor wants and base needs.  Joe wants a glass of water.  Does that goal need to be looked at with in the geneological vision?  Probably not, though it might be interesting to see what would happen if it was.  Take a look at the fictions that we trumpet as exceptional - from films like The Usual Suspects, Magnolia, or this year's Oscar duo Brokeback Mountain and Crash, we see that the plots, alongside the characters, are motivated cyclically, and I'd argue that it is this that makes the works so dynamic and charged.

I wasn't really trying to attack the cyclical approach, so much as to get you to expand on it in your article.  What properties does this approach have that make it generally superior to linear approaches?

I think it is common that we, as players, take for granted our own psychologies and etchings upon the tabula rasa - what appear as simple, linear goals and objectives are often a deep and twisting cyclic mass that we may only partially be able to glimpse; it gives us character, it gives us personality.  As players, however, we are also the objective guiding mind behind the subjective existence of our characters.  While the character might believe that his objective is linear, we as players know - and design it - as something far more convoluted.

Plus, from an OOC standpoint, it's a helluva lot more interesting.

It is certainly the case that many players essentially play THEMSELVES in different roles.  I am certainly guilty of it, and it isn't in my opinion really the pinnacle of roleplaying.  What your article challenges people to do is create an individual that really is a separate one from who they are, by crafting textured, intricate, and believable motivations for their characters.  I hope that people see more in this article than LauraMars' exceptionally dismissive and trite (and even entirely non-sequitur and unrelated in many cases) bullet-points.  I would love to see more players pursuing the higher goal of really creating new and unique characters, and letting the character itself be the interesting part of the role.  Too many players find their intrigue by seeking out the supernatural or the extraordinary and inserting their RL beliefs, goals, and motivations, rather than texturing their characters and watching what THEY do with whatever life they manage to achieve, be it mundane or otherwise.

-- Xygax

[Anonymous]

Xygax:

2. Strong goals have a logical, geneological basis.

While it will reserve itself a hallowed spot in the Highlord's Tower of cliches, carpe diem has no place for the goal-based architect. All interaction is driven by goals for the future, and these very goals have a geneology that is firmly rooted in character psychology and history. By using the term geneology, I am, of course, referencing the French poststructuralist thinker Michel Foucault, who chooses the term in an attempt to evade the classical conceptions of history as a linear movement through time. This is an important distinction, as the interplay between goals and character background are far more interesting when they are cyclical, rather than linear. Take the following as an example:

Bibog the mantis killed Joe's mother, so Joe wants to be the best warrior and has a goal of killing all manti.

While logical, this goal appears to be an elementary creation, due to the linear nature of its development. The direct, logical result of the mantis killing Joe's mother is not a hatred of manti. Rather, it is the absence of the mother. Thus, let us think of Joe's past geneologically, and restate the goal in a cyclic fashion.

Bibog the mantis killed Joe's mother. Joe's loss of his mother at an early age forced him to work alongside his father mining 'sid in the wastes, rather than stay at home and practice the trade of jewelry-making. Unable to enter into an apprenticeship, the image of his father became one associated with iron-fisted rule, and the absence of free will. Angry and embittered, with the passing of Joe's father's death, Joe has a goal of becoming a jeweler and restarting his past love of trade, but he is blinded by the sense that he has wasted time, channeled to a hatred of both men in positions of authority and manti. As such, he has a goal to kill all manti until the head of Bilbog is sitting atop a mantle adorned with jewels that he has fashioned.

What is added from working with the cyclical perspective? A dozen character traits, a vicious internal conflict (if given the choice between an apprenticeship under a Kadian jeweler, or a mercenary position with the Byn guaranteed to thrust him into combat with manti, what would he choose?), and engrained biases toward other characters that already inhabit the world. To work from a geneological perspective is to, in the words of Pompadourslim from the RPI Shadows of Isildur, add the third dimension to the character. The historical model appears to be logical, as it follows a syllogism of cause and effect. Yet, oftentimes, the progression is highly illogical, for it fails to consider the psychological and developmental intricacies that we, as players, take for granted. By working through a geneological, cyclical perspective in our goal-setting, we can escape this.

In my opinion, this seems to be the only method to develop an actual character, rather than a transparent silhouette of an individual.
I tried to explain the idea of cyclical generation (even though Falconer did a wonderful job) in a preceding post (to which you may refer, if you omitted it).
I'll try again -

What properties does this approach have that make it generally superior to linear approaches?

The cyclical approach allows for a dynamic personality, a real personality, a personality with changing goals - it allows for 'depth' to a character by producing a complex individual. How does it accomplish this? You need only refer to Falconer's quote at the beginning of this post.

What does a linear approach accomplish then? It does not allow for a change in the fundamental traits of the character, but simply builds on them - adding trite qualities that are purely superficial. Since, in order to alter the character's persona, a change in one (or more) of the crucial character traits must occur - which, by implication, necessitates a cyclical approach: by altering something so fundamental, you must now reconsider the plots, goals, and motivations that evolved as a result of the trait in question.

Linear results in a static character and plot (highly unrealistic).
Cyclical approach allows for a dynamic, constantly developing and changing individual (much closer to reality).  

Semper Pax,

Dirr

[James de Monet]

It is certainly the case that many players essentially play THEMSELVES in different roles.  I am certainly guilty of it, and it isn't in my opinion really the pinnacle of roleplaying.  What your article challenges people to do is create an individual that really is a separate one from who they are, by crafting textured, intricate, and believable motivations for their characters.

Perhaps this would result in more interesting characters, more dynamic roleplaying, and a better all around game, but it also has its inherent flaws.  If people develop characters that are altogether different from themselves, they risk creating a character whose interests are so different from the player's that the character themself ceases to be interesting to the player.  Maintaining interest simply by the sway of dispossed observation doesn't really work in in-depth real-time roleplay.  To "be" your character, you (I believe) need to be able to think like your character would, which requires a degree of empathy, which in turn requires at least a passing similarity.  If everyone began creating characters that did not bear at least a structural resemblance to themselves, I think you would begin to see a lot more people getting bored with their characters, and retiring them, or simply leaving the game for long stretches while they build up enough empathetic energy (if you'll excuse the new-age sounding term) to come back and live vicariously someone's life that they really have little interest in.

[Xygax]

James:  I wholeheartedly agree.  I hope people are able to walk the line here, because I think that is where the most fun is to be had in playing Arm.

-- X

[LoD]

Welcome, Falconer.

Your post is obviously the result of a well pondered subject, but you may consider downgrading the language to better include your audience.  Many of Armageddon's players are likely in their teens, either in high school or college and still struggling with one 25 cent word, much less a string of them.  I am not suggesting that you change your essay, but that you create another version that would more succsesfully involve the playerbase in your discussion of ideas.

As someone who has created, followed through and accomplished "plots" within the game, there are a few comments I have for your topic:

1. How does one create a plot?

Asking this question is part of the problem.  As mentioned by Xygax and yourself, plots should be the product of a successful and motivated character rather than a prepared and pre-planned event.  A motivated character will naturally find conflict given the time and opportunity.  And that conflict will set into motion decisions and actions that many viewers or participants would call a plot.

2. Players should not only consider their character's motives, but how those motives came to be through a cyclical perspective.

In case some didn't manage their way through your text, the example you have was of Joe's linear and cyclical perspectives:

:arrow: Joe wants to become the best warrior he can and kill all manti.[/i]

:arrow: Bibog the mantis killed Joe's mother. Joe's loss of his mother at an early age forced him to work alongside his father mining 'sid in the wastes, rather than stay at home and practice the trade of jewelry-making. Unable to enter into an apprenticeship, the image of his father became one associated with iron-fisted rule, and the absence of free will. Angry and embittered, with the passing of Joe's father's death, Joe has a goal of becoming a jeweler and restarting his past love of trade, but he is blinded by the sense that he has wasted time, channeled to a hatred of both men in positions of authority and manti. As such, he has a goal to kill all manti until the head of Bilbog is sitting atop a mantle adorned with jewels that he has fashioned.[/i]

The second perspectice gives Joe (the character) a more complete persona than the first.  You understand that Joe may be bitter, not only toward the mantis, but toward the turns his life has taken.  The loss of his mother, of his desires to become a jeweler, being forced to mine 'sid alongside his father.  

Is this a richer perspective?  Yes.  

Is this something to be expected to all Armageddon role-players?

Perhaps, but this is a request made of a mature audience.  That's not necessarily going to be the case.  As mentioned above, many of our players are in high school and college.  They are still struggling with figuring out who THEY are.  What they believe, what they think is right or wrong.  What they want from life.  What is fair vs. what is life.  To request that these players not only put aside their "selves" and manage the empathy and situational knowledge of the adults they RP is askin a lot.

Nothing is wrong with asking players to consider a more realistic perspective to how their characters interpret game events, but I think it's an idealistic approach to a "game", as Marko mentioned.  You would probably be lucky for a third of the players to actually want to take the time to grasp and employ this perspective in the hour or two they have to escape reality and enjoy the aspects of the game they find entertaining.

3. ...we must still keep in mind the goal of the player: to spur intrigue and benefit the gameworld

So one would hope, but not always the case.

ArmageddonMUD is still a game to many, not a job or a serious hobby.  There may be some people who come to Armageddon to truly escape into and personify a character completely different ffom themselves.  There may be others who use the MUD mostly as a social tool because it allows them to don a "mask" and carry out interaction without judgement.  There may be others still that consider Armageddon a game to be won, with self proposed rules for victory.

Not everyone is interested in spurring intrigue or benefitting the gameworld because that is the goal of a more selfless, hopeful and idealistic person than usually haunts the chair behind the dim glow of their 19 inch monitor pretending to be an elf.

4. Players are often silhoettes of themselves rather than unique and different characters.

As mentioned above, many of our players are still discovering and deciding who THEY are, much less how their characters might be on an adult and mature level.  As someone noted, playing a role further away from yourself requires empathy and some common ground or they will soon lose interest and suicide/retire the character.  It is also much easier for a player to have a believeable and well rounded character when they share elements of themselves because their reaction in game appears more genuine due to the fact that the player can relate.

It's a nice goal to aspire to, but I don't think that it's necessarily applicable to our game as a whole.  There are good elements to consider, and for that many will be grateful for your post.  If you wish to include everyone in your discussion, then perhaps later renditions will be an easier read.

-LoD

[Morrolan]

I am working from the idea that OOC/IC is a "constructed dichotomy", one which varies from game to game in its idea...both in how it is created and handled.  For any new player, the exact nature of IC/OOC within Armageddon needs to be learned/relearned.

Reading a the documentation is a start, but it is through the constant application of these rules, with positive and negative feedback, that we actually make them part of us.  So, yeah, I'm pulling from Bourdieu on this one. (A Theory of Practice 1977 for anyone who cares.)

That is why I believe Ritley's approach is a valid one just as much as Falconer's: because in the end, it doesn't matter if we can articulate (talk about) the distinction, as long as we can perform it adequately.  And what it means to perform it adequately also varies from player to player within the range set forth by the documentation.

Morrolan

Falconer wrote:

To be honest, I've never considered Jung in regards to online roleplaying - Nietszche, Foucault, and Lyotard seemed the obvious choices because their sociology/literary theory seemed to directly address the essential focusing questions of both online world creation (society, crime, perception, cultural capital) and characterization, while avoiding many of the Freudian/Lacanian pitfalls.  (As a side note, I've been attempting to work out a stance on character creation that could utilize the mirror stage thesis, but haven't made much headway.)  That said, I'd really like to hear your thoughts on how you think Jung might be applied.  It's well worth considering.

As another Arm newb with over twelve years of online and RL rp experience, I have to applaud Falconer's use of theory in his approach to understanding such an intuitive thing as roleplaying. The use of theory is not meant to alienate people by using Big Words; it's an attempt to understand something that we experience in an individual, visceral context using a wider spectrum of understanding. Some people simply "don't want to think that hard," but for those of us that do, posts like this open up the discussion immensely.

That being said, I -- ironically -- am writing my doctoral dissertation on Fantasy/Sci-fi and roleplaying relying heavily on Jung and Erich Neumann. Playing Armageddon is not only fun, but it's also research for me.  My work will also be ethnographic in nature -- which means that I'll be conducting interviews with actual players and getting their perspectives. In this way, one can integrate theory with the player's subjective experience, which I think helps solve the problem of the "academic gap." The GDB is an excellent in-between space for us to explore what it is we are "doing" as roleplayers and as contributors to the spontaneous creation of an alternate reality.

I'm extremely interested in reading your other articles and would love to include them in my bibliography! It'd be great if you could let me know where to find them, though I know other people have posted general instructions.

As far as Jungian theory is concerned:

-- We use archetypes in everyday life as ways to understand the deeper, unconscious parts of our nature. Roleplaying in general, but specifically playing a "low-tech" environment like Armageddon, allows people to project archetypes that resonate with their psyche and fulfill a sense of inner purpose. Your discussion of Joe's issues with the Tyrannical Father and Absent Mother are specific examples of how archetypes work to shape our individual self-concept, but in a more general sense, the game itself is built on more classical archetypes:

The Warrior, The Merchant, The Dwarf, The Elf, The Templar (Paladin), The Noble, etc.

Now, the game developers and players have obviously gone to great lengths to differentiate Armageddon from cookie cutter online RP environments, allowing for these archetypes to breathe and morph. Each of us roleplay for different reasons, but I think that on a fundamental level, we're all trying to play out unconscious fantasies or anxieties through games. For my part, my typical characters are something like the following:

By playing a beautiful noblewoman, I can fulfill my childhood Princess fantasies.

By playing a seductive or precocious tramp, I can fullfill my childhood Magdalene fantasies.

Because both of these archetypes are latent in my personality, they may express themselves IRL, but are more likely to pop up in controlled, liminal environments like RPing. By playing them out,  I can examine their strengths and weaknesses, I can release the anxiety of having to hold them in everyday in order to satisfy social norms, and I can see their storylines change through interactions and situations. I have the ability to play through the various emotions and experiences of an alternate timeline, one in which I'm free to make certain choices I might not make IRL and explore these deeper desiers/anxieties.

This last part is vital, and is one of the great things about the content Falconer's original post. Someone might set out to play a Hero or a Thief archetypally, but when you get a bunch of serious roleplayers together, the original concept invariably diverges and evolves. That's the beauty of archetypes -- and what separates them from stereotypes -- they are complex and flexible based on situational context. Often, we are playing a juxtaposition of several archetypes at once, adding dimension and scope to our characters. When joined with background information this juxtaposition creates that fascinating melange of the universal and the specific that makes roleplay so exciting.

Sorry in advance to those of you who don't like to read long, involved, theoretical posts. That's what the scroll button is for.

[marko]

but I think that on a fundamental level, we're all trying to play out unconscious fantasies or anxieties through games.

I would not agree to this statement.  Not everyone is trying to do anything of the sort.  Some of us are roleplaying for the sake of roleplaying without attempting to play out unconsious fantasies or anxieties.

A game can, in fact, be a game without any greater mysterious meaning.

Personally, I play any role that appears remotely interesting.  I suppose one could argue such an interest stems from an unconscious fantasy since that is the beauty of that line of reasoning.  I would be hard pressed to counter such a claim since there is no way to do so.  

Good luck with the post doc.

Welcome, Falconer.

Your post is obviously the result of a well pondered subject, but you may consider downgrading the language to better include your audience.  Many of Armageddon's players are likely in their teens, either in high school or college and still struggling with one 25 cent word, much less a string of them.  I am not suggesting that you change your essay, but that you create another version that would more succsesfully involve the playerbase in your discussion of ideas.

Perhaps, but this is a request made of a mature audience.  That's not necessarily going to be the case.  As mentioned above, many of our players are in high school and college.  They are still struggling with figuring out who THEY are.  What they believe, what they think is right or wrong.  What they want from life.  What is fair vs. what is life.  To request that these players not only put aside their "selves" and manage the empathy and situational knowledge of the adults they RP is askin a lot.

Your point about audience is an important one, and again, I apologize for my recent post if people feel alienated by the language. HOWEVER, I teach freshman college English and strongly feel that universities and high schools dumb down content for the supposedly immature American student.

I know that Armageddon is a game, and is played mainly for entertainment value rather than educational, but I think it's more insulting to young adults to assume they can't understand something rather than attempting to encourage them and trying to explaining it well. Often, a lack of understanding on the part of the student is the fault of the teacher, not visa versa.  So, I teach what in most public universities would be considered "grad school-level" theory to 17- and 18-year olds. Is it difficult? Yes. Does that mean it can't also be fun? Absolutely not! At the end of the semester I get some of the most thoughtful and passionate papers I've ever read, and students consistently say they feel proud of themselves for stretching their intellectual capabilities by struggling with complex theories and concepts.

The discussion board has the capability to explore such  ideas and I don't think mature writing should be discouraged. I also understand, however, that some people may feel alienated by it. The best resolution of this problem is simply to ASK QUESTIONS if someone presents a concept that is diffcult to understand rather than just rejecting it outright, which some of the posters seemed to do with Falconer's article.

I think it's important to keep in mind people's intention when they post... if Falconer's tone was: "I think you're all bad roleplayers and this is why..." then the negative reaction would be absolutely warranted. But when someone is attempting to articulate a well thought-out set of ideas, a certain amount of respect should be shown to the poster, whether we agree with the post or not.

Also, often if we have a violent negative reaction to sometihng someone says, it not only reveals more about ourselves than the initial poster, but it allows us to explore WHY we're uncomfortable or opposed to certain ideas, which is how we grow intellectually, emotionally, etc.

Almost without exception, every gamer I've ever met regardless of age has been exceptionally bright and creative, even when they're still discovering a sense of maturity. Every person on this board is capable of understanding the basic content of these posts regardless of age or education level.

[Aldiel]

Wow, nice post.  I enjoyed it Falconer, and I think you hit a lot of topics right on.  Welcome to Armageddon.  These are just the kinds of conversations and posts that make Armageddon the premear RP mud.

[Medena]

To sihirli:

Though I've followed this thread and read all but the original post, I have resisted posting in it.  However, sihirli raises a few things which have moved me to respond now.  I'm fairly well educated and well read.  And after nine years of post-secondary education, a couple of undergraduate degrees and assorted other letters after my name, I've probably got as good a vocabulary as most people.  It was not just the Big Words which made Falconer's original post an extremely difficult read.  It was the combination of big words, reference to theoretical writings which have little application outside the hallowed halls of academia, and the pedantic, almost bombastic, writing style.

I started reading the article and went "Nyeah... too much work."  My loss? Perhaps. But I play Armageddon for fun and since I consider the GDB as an enhancement for my Armageddon fun, I'm not about to start having to work at something here.  Falconer's subsequent posts and your own posts sihirli have been a pleasure to read, other than for the sometimes patronizing tone when you talked about learning how to understand Big Words.  With that out of the way, I do have to add that I was shocked at the rudeness and, in one case, outright hostility of some of the responses to the original post.  There was no need to be rude just because they didn't understand or didn't choose to take that sort of an analytical approach to their gaming.

I do not choose to apply such rigorous analysis either to my gaming or to my character building / role playing. I much prefer for it to be intuitive.  And this, written by LoD, really made me laugh:

ArmageddonMUD is still a game to many, not a job or a serious hobby.

May Armageddon -always- be a game to me.

[jhunter]

It was not just the Big Words which made Falconer's original post an extremely difficult read. It was the combination of big words, reference to theoretical writings which have little application outside the hallowed halls of academia, and the pedantic, almost bombastic, writing style.

I started reading the article and went "Nyeah... too much work." My loss? Perhaps. But I play Armageddon for fun and since I consider the GDB as an enhancement for my Armageddon fun, I'm not about to start having to work at something here. Falconer's subsequent posts and your own posts sihirli have been a pleasure to read, other than for the sometimes patronizing tone when you talked about learning how to understand Big Words.

[Falconer]

Xygax:

As a member of the staff, I have witnessed many excellent plots continue well past the moment of their creators death, and even the worst players, the most twinkish twinks, are often the genesis of outstanding plotlines simply by virtue of creating conflict and confusion. And yes, we struggle constantly with drawing the line between creating useful, playable documentation, and leaving players with a sense of wonder and surprise at the game world.

I think Armageddon has done a pretty outstanding job at balancing the amount of information available to players from the outset with that which must be learned through IC means.  As far as the OOC question, "How do I create a plot?" I'm in firm agreement - asking and acting upon this question is at best contrived and at worst subversive to the very goal itself.  The creation of a plot doesn't lie in the creation of OOC designs and storyarcs, but rather in the firm establishment of IC goals.

What properties does this approach have that make it generally superior to linear approaches?

Dynamism, complexity, conflict and paradox.  As noted by the examples that I gave in the original post, cyclical designs of character goals share a deep internal complexity that manifests itself through the character's decisions.  When multiple psychological influences, external motivations, and personality traits weave themselves together, dimension is not only added to the player's character, but to all characters the individual comes into contact with.  I wouldn't go so far as to say that characters with linear objectives are ultimately 'transparent silhouttes', as Dirr suggests, but the cyclical approach should branch a much greater degree of complexity.

Too many players find their intrigue by seeking out the supernatural or the extraordinary and inserting their RL beliefs, goals, and motivations, rather than texturing their characters and watching what THEY do with whatever life they manage to achieve, be it mundane or otherwise.

Being surprised by the actions of your character, or learning from their vices and virtues, is one of the most surreal and interesting things about online roleplaying.  To be honest, it hasn't happened to me nearly as often as I would have liked it to, but when it does it's fascinating.

James wrote:

If people develop characters that are altogether different from themselves, they risk creating a character whose interests are so different from the player's that the character themself ceases to be interesting to the player.

Very interesting, and a very real problem - potentially.  Just like the actor's mythic statement, however, of: "I must become the character," I believe that roleplaying functions in a very similar manner.  No matter how much prep work is done, our characters are ultimately going to be reflections of some facet of our own personalities - even if they're the complete antithesis.  

That said, while I understand your point, I don't see this problem as being any more substantial than boredom of a character that does not utilize the backwards design method proposed.  In fact, I would guess far more characters are stored/disposed of for 'twinky' reasons ("They're coding new Drovian spells?  Time to say goodbye to the mul!" or "The crafting system is getting old, I want a combat-character") than for selecting a character concept that is to dissimilar from the player.  In fact, I think the beauty of backwards design is that it forces players to plot out firm objectives and histories for their characters, creating a sense of value (whether that be time or creative energy) in them that might not be their otherwise.

As for all of the Jungian theory - I think that the archetypes presented are outstanding, and it's certainly a highly compelling perspective/thesis on roleplaying as an art.  Can you elaborate on how you would suggest that players utilize archetypes to their advantage in character creation, backwards design, or goal setting?

[spawnloser]

but I think that on a fundamental level, we're all trying to play out unconscious fantasies or anxieties through games.

I would not agree to this statement.  Not everyone is trying to do anything of the sort.  Some of us are roleplaying for the sake of roleplaying without attempting to play out unconsious fantasies or anxieties.

A game can, in fact, be a game without any greater mysterious meaning.

Personally, I play any role that appears remotely interesting.  I suppose one could argue such an interest stems from an unconscious fantasy since that is the beauty of that line of reasoning.  I would be hard pressed to counter such a claim since there is no way to do so.  

Good luck with the post doc.

Really, the part about not being able to deny such a claim is the truth.  Lots of people play the game because it is fun.  What is fun?  Reducing tension.  Letting off steam.  Doing things that we can't do in real life but would like to do in some manner or another.  I would have to agree with sihirli's assessment for this reason.

Falconer said:

As for all of the Jungian theory - I think that the archetypes presented are outstanding, and it's certainly a highly compelling perspective/thesis on roleplaying as an art.  Can you elaborate on how you would suggest that players utilize archetypes to their advantage in character creation, backwards design, or goal setting?

Well, again, much of what we do is instinctive... often we don't realize until roleplaying a couple sessions what sort of "energies" are being projected through our character, energies which -- despite how different our character may be from our own self-concept -- are still emerging from our fundamental psychological makeup. Jung believes that we all hold each of these archetypes within us, embedded in our genetic code as remnants from a time before the full onset of consciousness, when we still viewed the world solely in terms of symbols. So even if someone is playing a character fundamentally different from themselves, they can still draw upon these symbols and utilize them to make meaning.

The fantasy genre itself is, in my opinion, the most current incarnation of a looong human history of mythology, and many of our fantasy archetypes like hero, villain, sage, princess, etc. etc. are age-old. But since the advent of science, and the supposed dispelling of "pseudo-science" and superstition, mythology is no longer used (in general) for religious purposes; it has been relegated to what we call "entertainment." This relegation has had a major consequence:  it strips mythology of its ideological power, even if we still finding watching/reenacting these archetypes deeply moving. Still, some of the more radical Christian groups are uncomfortable with Harry Potter and D&D, terrified that their children will be praying to false idols and learning "real" magic spells. But, overall, Westen culture is secularized enough that myths/symbols that used to be threatening enough for tribes and civilizations to war over are now considered "fun" and harmless.

And, yet, they still prevail, which means we find some sort of recurring satisfaction in them.

So, back to your question. I think when people are aware that while roleplaying is fun and escapist, they have a unique opportunity to explore aspects of themselves that have been otherwise repressed. For instance, some children from a young age have identified with the villains instead of the heroes, who they're "supposed to" want to be like. This is just one example of how different archetypes are more attractive to specific people, and roleplaying allows a safe space to be "evil" and explore the pros and cons of such behavior. We have an escape route from the intensity of of our experience in RPGs by telling ourselves, "Well, it's just a game, it's not really me." But we still experience the emotions/experiences of our characters, as if there are two people engaged in the activity at once. I've watched in disgust as my Vampire: the Maquerade character committed horrific acts that I would never do IRL. But in that freedom is precisely the appeal -- we're able to be whatever we want to be despite the social restrictions of the mundane world.

In a good RPG like Armageddon, however, you enter ANOTHER social world with it's own set of conventions and restrictions. Because of that, no matter what your initial concept is, you have to deal with the unknown element of other players and this is how archetypes get fleshed out. I played my Vampire character for seven years, and though her basic energy patterns never changed, her experiences surely did, and she was forced to deal with repercussions of her behavior of which I never would have conceived at the moment of character creation. Archetypes are multifaceted: they have blind spots, they have weak spots, they evolve, they break down. Our characters are -- in effect -- human (or at least humanoid); we are not all-powerful gods and goddess, but in that lies the fascinating part of roleplaying.

For instance, let's say I play a nurturing, demure, mother character that somewhat represents the later versions of Demeter (the hearth-goddess from Greek mythology). Though my character should want to consistently help others and take care of the wounded or unloved, IC events can possibly harden her heart or cause her to have trust issues, or even to kill, perhaps to protect someone she loves. An action like that would cause what Erik Erikson calls "Identity Confusion," as someone behaves in a way which is contradictory to their self-concept, which eventually causes a crisis in ego.

Vampire is a great game because you pick your archetypes at character creation. Outside of your general clan, you have several "types" of personalities: The Autocrat, The Bon Vivant, The Deviant, The Fanatic, etc.  You choose one for an external "demeanor" and one for your internal "nature" and you gain willpower back if events in the game satisfy the goals of your archetypes (at the GMs discretion, of course). Though your actions may vary, these archetypes give the player not only a basic sense of who they are and what their goals are but also who they CLAIM to be or how they want others to SEE them. So the game itself includes these layers.

I could go on and on, but I hope that's a start to answering your question...

[amoeba]

Okay, I vote this as one of the more obfuscated topics to date.  I think LoD was dead on in his well written post.

Btw, presenting a topic in an approachable manner is not necessarily "dumbing down".  In truth, being able to clearly and cleanly present a topic in a straight forward and understandable manner, with a minimum of fluff and noise is often a very difficult thing to do effectively.  I applaud people that can do it well.

More on topic, theory and all is fine, but producing a plot also has other factors not discussed.

- Constancy in play times.  Casual players, who pop in when they have time are at a disadvantage in producing and following through on plots.  A nice juicy plot may brew, but due to RL constraints they are not able to take that plot further.  Either time and inactivity kills it off, or key persons in the plot never seem to connect at the right times.  Those who play predictable hours, especially those who play long hours are more likely to be drawn into plots.

- Basic skill level. Some people are plotting machines, others need to be led around and have a plot pointed out to them.  Not everyone has the same ability to see possiblities in situations.

- Opportunity.  Some places, character types, etc. are plot creation wastelands.  I have spent enough hours wandering the lands, seeing zero people for hours, even though the player count was 70+.  You can not plot in a vacuum and NPCs are horribly bad at following though on that juicy plot idea you cooked up.

[Bluefae]

Neither Falconer's nor Sihirli's initial posts struck me as patronizing; they actually came across as rather encouraging, if a bit "dense" to slog through and fully digest at points.  Still, information takes many forms, some more accessable than others.

At the same time, I hasten to add I place a high value on including everyone in a discussion, and can certainly see how some of the language and/or sentance structure might be off-putting.  The happy medium of saying -precisely- what one wants vs. being clear can be tricky to hit when coming from an academic space.  Many of the terms, arguments, logic chains, etc. presuppose the reader has a familiarity with a body of work (Foucault, Erickson, and so on) which may or may not be accurate.  

As always, it ultimately falls to the individual to pick out what works for her/him, and gently (or not) discard the rest.

[Aldiel]

Why exactly are we focusing so much on how the poster wrote instead of what the poster wrote? It wasn't really that dense.

[LoD]

Why exactly are we focusing so much on how the poster wrote instead of what the poster wrote?  It wasn't really that dense.

If you want people to comment on the content and not how the post was worded, perhaps you should...comment on the content and now how the post was worded?  :wink:

On topic, my answer to your question is this:

The topic and method of communication are not mutually exclusive topics.  Ignore the disruptive posts from people who associate big words with being condescening.  Any constructive criticism about either the topic or the chosen language is a sign of interest and should be well received.  The point to discussing how a post is formed is to convey our desire to see people's ideas in a format easy on the eyes and brains.

To summarize what a few others have said, less is more.  Amoeba is absolutely correct in asserting that simple does not equal stupid.  The original post contains a lot of good ideas, and while not everyone will have a problem chewing through the academic presentation, there are many who have stated they wouldn't have even read the post because of its length and relatively advanced (for the GDB) structure.

If you personally don't have an issue with the presentation, then why even bother commenting on it?  The point is that quite a few people found the post weighty and cumbersome and are encouraging the OP to consider alternative language to future installments or comments if they want to reach the highest percentage of their audience.  There are good ideas concerning character development and the role of plots in the game that many more would benefit from were they not put off by the language and obscure references.

The few people that did react somewhat harshly did so because they read the phrase "I'm a new player to Armageddon" followed directly by a tone that smacks of authority; not on the game, but on the subject presented.  
Many new players showing enthusiasm receive harsh replies on the GDB because they happen to be suggesting things that have been brought up 10 times before, or perhaps presenting an idea that doesn't quite fit into the gameworld.  Once they've understood the documentation and gameworld a little better, the cycle repeats with them offering equally harsh or condescending replies to new players because they associate "new" with "ignorant".

Treat the GDB like a printed version of a speech, not a book.  Talk to us.  And if you use language that is simple in execution but profound in meaning, you will accomplish that task.

-LoD

[Twilight]

Goals are not necessary for a character to actually have.  Yet, what people tend to call plots here still happen through that characters actions.  What we must remember is that what we call plots are not what a traditional writer calls plots.  A plot in tradition writing is before the fact.  A plot in a setting like Armageddon is after the fact.  It is a string of occurances strung together after they have happened to make the story.  I think this is where your entire argument fell down for me.  There is no need to have the formal kind of plots you are talking about.

People don't have plots.  People have goals, sometimes.  People have plans, sometimes.  People sometimes just get involved in something and do whatever comes into their head when the time comes.  People who come into a setting like Armaggedon with some notion of a scene, a plot, an overarching story, basically the elements they bring with them from novels and some other roleplaying experiences, are really missing one of the fundamental realities of Armageddon I think.  There are no such things.  Not in the traditional contexts.

I've gone from playing sociable types ten years ago, towards progressively more and more solo RP, more and more ISO roles.  I quite simply enjoy them more.  Sometimes my character has a plan.  Sometimes it doesn't.  I don't really sweat it.  The predefined goal/plan/nature character is only one way to approach having a successful one, as so much develops within the game itself.  None of this really impacts the RP that much.  Rather, for me at least, it has been the OOC considerations:  how dedicated the time I can devote is, my mood, whether I am clear headed or mudding after a full day of work, etc.

In the end, I think Bill Murray (to name drop!) gave all the advice you really need:  Be the ball.