Wednesday 13 April 2016

RPG Theory: Ants, Spiders and Bees

Zak S recently wrote a post about theory. It is worth reading. I have nothing in particular to add to it, except insofar as I am somebody who, as an academic, does theory for a living. I think about it and write about it and teach it. I am the kind of person who has actually read stuff by Luhmann, Foucault, HLA Hart, Adam Smith and Ronald Dworkin, and thinks about what it all means. Some would call me a despicable overeducated bookish geek. Others would call me a despicable overeducated bookish and pernicious nerd. In any event, I can speak with a little qualification about theory.

There are theories and there are theories, and some are more persuasive than others. Ultimately I think the ones that stand the test of time are the ones which are grounded in actual empirical knowledge and practice. (This may seem obvious to somebody who doesn't work in academia. Let me tell you - amongst some people that observation would be very controversial.) Adam Smith clearly spent a heck of a lot of time simply watching people and how they behaved - and was also employed as a customs officer. HLA Hart was a practising barrister. David Ricardo was a successful businessman. Foucault's work is based on an extremely detailed, intimate and careful familiarity with the history of his subjects. And so forth.

Now, let me qualify this. I am not making an anti-intellectual statement here: being a "good" theorist, if there is such a thing, does not mean being a philistine who is only interested in practice and practical things. HLA Hart's work was steeped in a classical education. Ronald Dworkin may have had the practical experience of being law clerk working at the US Supreme Court, but he was also one of the most gifted scholars of his generation. And nor am I making a blanket statement. Some theory has no grounding in practice at all, and you could even say it flies in the face of what seems to be empirical knowledge, yet remains (to my mind) successful and persuasive: I am thinking of people like Arendt and Sartre. But in the main, theory tends to be most successful when it is founded on practical experience with the subject matter at hand.

Ultimately this goes back to Francis Bacon, obviously. In The Novum Organon Bacon comes up with an extended metaphor about scientists, and divides them into three categories - the ants, spiders, and bees. Ants are those who only work at the ground level - "they only collect and use" - meaning they do not think about general principles or how to apply the knowledge they glean in a general way. They are all about the practicalities and nothing else. Spiders are the opposite - they only "make cobwebs out of their own substance" - meaning they spend all their time coming up with rules and principles but are divorced from actual real world practice. But then you have the real scientists, the bees, who gather pollen from flowers but then convert it into something useful: honey. People interested in producing useful knowledge have to be like bees, gathering information from the real world and converting it into principles which can be applied generally.

Bacon's metaphor is quite powerful and can be used in a variety of contexts. It works also with RPG theory. Who are the ants, spiders and bees here?

Ants

The ants are those who simply go around picking useful things out from the internet or books and putting them into use, but don't really think about how the useful things they are getting can be the basis for general principles. I am thinking here about DMs and players who trawl through forums for stuff they can use in their game, buy lots of modules and adventure paths, and so on, but never actually use what they are getting as the basis for their own creativity. It never really occurs to them that, as well as using things that other people create, they can do their own imagining too. They don't look at the latest Pathfinder adventure path and go, "Hang on, I can do that just as well if not better." They don't look at Monster Manual IV and go, "Hang on, I'll create my own monsters." They "only collect and use".

Spiders

The spiders are those who think and discuss but never play. They spend all their time on the internet arguing with other people about principles, ideas, and rules, but they never actually do anything. They merely "make cobwebs out of their own substance", which ultimately is neither use nor ornament. (Never mind that cobwebs are actually useful for spiders - Bacon's metaphor isn't perfect, but everybody gets what he means.) We all know where these sorts of people can be found, and who they are. Their principles and theories are worthless because they are untested and simply emerging from the aether within the spider's mind.

Bees

The bees are those who read RPG books, trawl forums and books for stuff to use in their games, read about RPGs, and also, crucially, create lots of materials for RPGs and play RPGs. This gives them a sense of what works and what doesn't - a genuine understanding of how things work in practice - and as a result, they are able to come up with general theoretical principles that can be applied universally. How to construct a sandbox that thrives. How to come up with interesting monsters, traps or tricks. How to make a megadungeon. How to adjudicate fairly. How to draw up a good random encounter table. And so on.

This is of course just a roundabout way of saying that good theory is contingent on good practice. But I am after all a despicable overeducated bookish and pernicious nerd.

30 comments:

  1. This is a pretty interesting read. It's made me rethink how I approach game design now, as I seem to be an ant trying to be a bee in some respects.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well I think as soon as you start creating and using your own material you are on the way to being a bee, because you are beginning to think in a more general way about what works and what doesn't. What Bacon was getting at was that science is about doing experiments in a random way and then generating abstract principles from them. So being a bee is about messing around with the game and seeing what works, and then applying what you learn more widely.

      Delete
  2. Classic spider post....

    Get a real job!

    [scrambles off to gather modules to bring them back to the hill]

    ReplyDelete
  3. Very interesting piece, David. I never thought I'd see Hart and Dworkin cited in an article on RPGs, but you did it. Bravo!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think Hart and Dworkin have made at least a few appearances in this blog over the years. I recall a spirited debate I had with noisms about positivism some years ago! [spoiler: he was wrong ;)]

      Delete
    2. I think it was about legal realism.

      Delete
  4. Excellent post! I have to remember that ant/bee/spider analogy...

    ReplyDelete
  5. Aaactually, I think even with the spider having a use for the net, it is still a good metaphor, as the nets and what they get in them is only for their own "internal" use.
    And cobwebs and gossamer is nice to look at, but difficult for anyone to use.

    Ants are good for ants but everyone likes honey.

    These day I more of a spider, but tries to become a bee...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting way of looking at Bacon's spider. I hadn't thought about it that way.

      Delete
  6. I have read this post and Zak's. I find the idea of sifting "gamers" into three categories worrisome. Two of the types carry a negative connotation. Can't a person who plays games be a mixture of all types? The Bee's "crucially, create lots of materials for RPGs". Sounds like if you want to be a Bee, you have to be a GM. And not any GM, but an Uber one. This narrows down the contributions of the others who are playing, in my mind. There are fantastic players out there that have never written a module, created a Megadungeon, or read any theory, yet their contribution to a play session is as critical as the Game Masters. I agree with your second to last sentence, "good theory is contingent on good practice". In my experience theory only goes so far, it is a useful tool, but is only part of what you need to make a good game happen.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nice response. I agree.

      Delete
    2. I think people who are always just players are sort of excluded from this because by definition they're not really interested in RPG theory and principles, are they? Or they are interested in a whole other set of questions which aren't really relevant to this.

      Of course there is a negative connotation to being an ant or a spider. I don't see why we always have to pussyfoot around this sort of thing. The people who contribute the most to "RPG theory", such as it is, are going to be the bees. That doesn't mean people who are ants or spiders are bad people, and nor does it mean they won't have fun doing what they do. But ants by definition don't contribute to broader discussion of what works (because they just "collect and use"), and spiders' contributions are not worthwhile because they aren't based on experience. What's so terrible about saying this?

      I think maybe you are misunderstanding the point of the post? I'm not talking about how people contribute to a gaming session or their group. I am talking about how people contribute to discussion of RPGs. And in that context everybody should aspire to be a bee.

      Delete
    3. I have reread everything carefully and yes, it is a misunderstanding on my part. Your last sentence in the reply makes it clear that you are talking about "how people contribute to discussing of RPG's. In the main post the scope seemed broader than this. It does still bother me a bit in the post you say "Spiders are people who..", as if this action defined them completely. I know it is semantics, I think it just rubbed me the wrong way. In reality, Bee's have the Ant and Spider qualities, the difference is they actually put an idea to the test and share so that others may benefit. "Theory" has always been a pet peeve of mine, in art school I remember well how an inept but smooth talking student could dupe the establishment by dropping the right buzz words.

      Delete
    4. @noisms: Are ants interested in RPG theory and principles? To me it seems that the only interest they have is to run their game at minimal cost (in terms of creativity).

      I would say that, in a sense, players are also ants; they collect gaming experiences and provide the data on what works and what not in a game.

      Delete
    5. Yes, you can think about players as being ants - although I also think there is probably space for discussion about "how to be a good player". You almost never come across any of that, though. (Probably because it's only really regular GMs who are on the internet discussing RPGs.)

      Delete
    6. Interestingly, http://crypts-n-creepies.blogspot.com/2016/01/how-to-play-rpgs-real-good-part-i.html addresses this very topic.

      Delete
    7. Cool. There should be more of this about.

      Delete
    8. Ants are harmless and the foundation of any hobby. I think Spiders can be harmful when their web-spinning catches Bees in their webs - I've seen eg a GM caught up in Forge-theory destroy their D&D campaign group. And it's pretty annoying to be discussing RPGs with people, what works & doesn't, dealing with problems, and suddenly realise these people spouting assertively *don't actually play*. Interestingly this is as much a problem on Dragonsfoot as on RPGnet.

      Delete
  7. Makes sense - I'm certainly a bee, even though I don't create material aimed at others; I have 3-4 campaigns on the go at a time and think a lot about what works and why. With 1 Classic, 2 5e and 1 4e D&D campaign it's very notable how different things work in the different systems, in particular 4e being a very very different sort of thing (The Encounter! Skip to the Fun!), though the lack of inter-PC balance in Classic and its focus on world-engagement rather than PC-building. I worry in my Classic game that PC X is just better/more powerful than PC Y, but this doesn't seem to bother the players.

    ReplyDelete
  8. How many of us sorry spiders think we are bees? An interesting question...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you play and put things into practice and learn from the results you are a bee. Definitely. Otherwise, a spider-bee.

      Delete
  9. Nice read, but I'm not sure how applicable this theory really is. Everybody games at different levels; how one plays while they are young and how they play when they are older are usually two different things. Younger players tend to play slower and more involved games, while older players who have less time must really keep a fast pace. One simply can't become a Bee until they've been an ant, and a spider. Playing the game, and the level of play (published vs. created)are all dictated by spare time, experience, and player schedules, variables that typically are not up to the user and are beyond their control. The more time dedicated to gathering information (ant), processing information (spider), as well as several other variables involving organization skills, creativity, and time management are all learned separately. Me personally, I would rather be seen as a muse than be known for publishing actual products. I am happy creating my own material, which is useless to others and is thrown away at the conclusion of the night, else recycled for personal use later. This system is very satisfying to myself and to my players. Do I really give back to the community? Probably not as much as others would like me too, or are all that comfortable with as I say do this as cheap as you possibly can.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To Ripper X: You don't have to "give something to the community" to be a bee. It's just that if you *are* a bee your theories about RPGs will be of use to yourself and others, and will be worth reading as a result. A spider, somebody who never plays, will likely not. (And an ant doesn't say anything at all.)

      Delete
  10. Is the joke here that you collected and used Francis Bacon's theory rather than creating your own? And that this is navel gazing of the highest order, with no practical application to actual play? Where's that honey man!?!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This questioning thing is fun. Are you stupid? Can you read? Would you kindly fuck off?

      Delete
  11. Zak's post was good, and well thought out. I liked your spin on the topic using Bacon as well.

    I find it interesting that even though so many find the theoretical framework that was used at The Forge to be dense and hard to actually apply, Ron Edwards always insisted on actual play as the only way to find out what made games work.

    It makes me think that maybe we need more similar conversations, where people hash out a vocabulary and sift through the experience of play. Clearly the experience and approach at The Forge was not applicable for all.

    There used to be a meta conversation like that in the early OSR, and after a while it became part of the background, and people went back to their tables with a new idea or two.

    I'd love to see more conversations like that spring up, as I suggest they need to be many and faceted to cover all the experiences of play. Maybe someone is already doing just that.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I don't wanna be a dick like the other Anonymous, but you opened a can of worms. I mean, I disagree with a number of things you wrote. I'll just highlight the essentials.

    a) looks like poor old Bacon had no clue about how real scientists work. Nowadays in the 21th century we should know better than him - not because we are smarter, but because we have had better teachers.

    Some scientists -like those in the NASA or in the CERN- collect data and make experiments. Some others -like Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawkings- make theories. Some others make both kinds of things. I won't call them "ants", "spiders" nor "bees" because it would be derogative... and there's nothing wrong in being an specialist! Science is a teamwork after all.

    b) following Bacon's method will eventually lead to produce something like tvtropes.org, Peter's Evil Overlord list or Marc Segar's survival guide.

    http://tvtropes.org/
    http://www.eviloverlord.com/lists/overlord.html
    http://www.autism-help.org/aspergers-guide-intro.htm

    (Not that it would be a bad thing, I *adore* this stuff.)

    c) but if you prefer stuff like this:

    http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/archives/001304.php

    then I'd suggest you to consider this other method:

    "Playtests share a lot in common with science experiments. In both cases there is a hypothesis ("I think this game is fun"), an experiment is designed (building a prototype), the experiment is run (the playtest), results are analyzed. The purpose of both is to find out more information about the inner workings of the system that you are studying."

    It sounds somewhat cheesy but at least ressembles a bit what real scientists actually do. Quoted from:

    https://gamedesignconcepts.wordpress.com/2009/08/17/level-15-blindtesting/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not sure I understand where Bacon got things wrong - there are lots of different ways to be a bee. The people working at CERN aren't just "collecting and using" things. They're doing the classical Baconian "experiments of light" - in essence, fucking around and just seeing what happens - and using that to generate general principles (honey). They are bees, in other words. At the other end of the bee spectrum you have people like Einstein or Hawking using general principles others have generated in the past ("standing on the shoulders of giants", as it were) to produce other useful general principles (more honey).

      Delete
    2. "I'm not sure I understand where Bacon got things wrong"

      That's a tricky question. Bacon got things wrong at so many levels that I don't even know from where to start. I hope the following analogy will help:

      - Mr. Ano: What do you think about D&D [science], Mr Bac?
      - Mr. Bac: D&D [science] purpose is getting fun [general principles]. To this effect, you roll dice [collect data] and carefully record the results. Fun [geneneral principles] will eventually ensue.
      - Mr. Ano: Wow, Mr. Bac, you have not a clue about how D&D [science] works, have you?!
      - Mr. Straight: What do you mean, fool? Can you play D&D [make science] without rolling dice [collecting data]?
      - Mr. Ano: Of course not! But Mr. Bac here (i) fails to define what fun [general principles] is [are] (ii) fails to explain how fun [general principles] can be derived from recordings (iii) ignores that there's a whole lot in D&D [science] beyond rolling dice [collecting data].
      - Mrs. Straw: D&D [science] is the devil's work!!!
      - Mr. Ano, Mr. Bac, Mr. Straight (chorus): Oh, you, shut up!

      Delete
    3. The analogy doesn't work. If you are drawing a parallel between science and RPGs you would say that the aim is to come up with general principles about what makes a game work, by experimenting with lots of different rules to see what works. An entirely sensible proposition, really.

      You wouldn't just roll dice at random, would you? That's not an experiment. That's just rolling a load of dice. There needs to be some sort of framework in which you're working. In the case of science it is the basic laws of physics. In the case of RPGs it's the fact that what you are doing has to be an actual game.

      I mean, if you want to create a giant Francis Bacon out of straw and say he literally advocated brainless unthinking brute force randomness ("Let's play a game" "Okay, roll a d20" "Why?" "It's an experiment, we'll try 2d12 next and see if we get a game out of that") then it's up to you, I suppose....

      Delete