Watching my eldest child and friends engaging in imaginative play, I'm often struck by the fact that what seems to excite them is deciding who gets to be what, and describing the many different situations that could unfold, rather than actually taking on those roles and acting out those scenarios. 'You can be the big sister and I can be the little sister, ok? And your name can be Annie and mine can be Becky.' 'Ok, and we can both be mummies.' 'Yeah, and I'm a doctor but in my spare time I teach aerobics.' 'And I'm a doctor too but I teach swimming. And I have three babies, one boy and two girls.' And so it goes on. And on. And on. And on. After a while they get bored entertaining these options and either move onto something else or shift to a different imaginary landscape: 'Let's be fairies!' But they never actually seem to spend very long doing what they spend an inordinate amount of time imagining themselves being.
This is because the activity of imaginative play really engages two rather different pleasures, and operates in two different modalities (to use a horrible word).
On the one hand, the undertaking can be thought of as an exercise in foreclosing options. Picture yourself sitting quietly, minding your own business, doing something dull and anodyne - calculating your monthly incomings and outgoings, for example. At this point, you are not really imagining anything at all: your creativity is not at all engaged. Now picture yourself being distracted by some thought or other, and - you'll be familiar with the sensation - shifting your gaze to the middle distance while mental images rise up in your mind.
At this point, you are shifting from a position of complete imaginative openness - you could be imagining literally anything conceivable - to one of gradual imaginative closure. You are imagining nothing, and now you are imagining....a swan floating down a river. Why? It bubbled up from your subconscious. OK: so now you are imagining that, and you by definition can't be imagining any of the other near-infinite things you could be. You've gone from a position of unfettered imaginative freedom to one in which whatever it is you are going to imagining next is going to relate is some way, however indirectly and unpredictably, to swans floating down rivers. Obviously this gives rise to many other options, but it is much, much fewer options than literally anything.
Imagination in that sense is a funny business, and it has a way of leaping about in unfathomable ways: you're thinking about a swan floating down a river one moment and the next, for some reason, you're remembering an ex-girlfriend. Why? There is some reason dwelling in your subconscious why the two things are connected, but heaven knows what. The matter becomes clearer when reflecting on the task of a novelist. A novelist begins with a real or digital blank sheet of paper. He could write anything. But he sets pen to paper and starts to write: 'The frog-man woke in a cold sweat with the bedsheets wrapped tightly around him.' Given that he has written this, in the next sentence the novelist could write many things, but, for the story to make sense, whatever he writes has to relate now to the character of the frog-man and to the fact that he is in bed, has been apparently feverish and dreaming, and so on. And what he writes next will have to relate to those things. And so on; the world of options becomes narrower.
This is a pleasurable sensation in that we experience something of the same feelings that are experienced by the sculpture, who begins with a blank slab of stone - near infinite options - and, with his tools, starts to carve. He chisels out a human face - and now the options of the sculpture being non-figurative, or not being human at all, dissipate. He chisels out a beard. Now the sculpture will be a man. He chisels some more. Now it will look like this and not that or that or that or the other thing. Eventually, it is honed into finality.
On the other hand, imaginative play has a kind of prismatic quality to it in that it can take what has been tightly bunched and linear - tightly bunched and linear like a ray of light - and scatter it open. The game has been 'mummies' and an entire complex scenario has accreted; now suddenly it's 'let's be...fairies!' New options appear. These moments can almost be thought of as paradigm shifts, in which what was settled is suddenly and radically destabilised.
This too is pleasurable. It keeps everything from going stale. It gives us a sense of unpredictability and excited anticipation about what is going to happen next.
These two pleasures, or two modalities - sculpture and prism - of course interact, and I think it is safe to say that, acting in harmony, they produce an iterative process that is highly conducive to creativity. Ideas are had and the foreclosure of options necessarily begins; gradually things grow narrow before being exploded outwards again by new suggestions, new notions, new potentiality. And so things go, back and forth, oscillating between these twin modalities of closure and expansion.
The beauty of a role playing game is that it, of course, incorporates both of these different pleasures - 'What shall we play? D&D. What is your PC going to be? A fighter. And so on. In these moments the session, and the campaign, are sculpted. But of course there are other moments, often moments of decision - or moments when dice are rolled - at which things are exploded open again. A PC dies - who will replace him? A random encounter sends everything off on a tangent. The PCs decide to venture overland, across the wilderness. A hitherto-uncharted or unmapped (by the DM) region is suddenly brought into awareness. A process of foreclosure is reversed - before itself being reversed again. The new PC is going to be a magic-user. The newly-mapped region is inhabited by X, Y and Z and contains A, B and C. And so on.
RPGs can, then, be thought to capture - and formalise - two important substrates on which imaginative play, perhaps the most truly human activity, since no other animal can do it, rest.
That's a really interesting and useful distinction, and one I've never thought about before.
ReplyDeleteAlso reminds me of a snippet one of my sisters friends overheard while doing playground duty at an infant school in Liverpool about 15 years ago: "let's play mummies and daddies! I'll put the kettle on and you skin up."
Reminds me vaguely of a conversation I once heard at a playground between kids in Liverpool discussing 'going to the mags'.
Delete"But they never actually seem to spend very long doing what they spend an inordinate amount of time imagining themselves being."
ReplyDeleteHaven't got any farther than that, but so far my response is because they don't know how. Will read the rest after family time.
I think that's right: kids' play spends more time setting up the campaign than actually playing it because they lack the structures that let adults stay engaged with the imagined activity. Of those, the most important is an objective conflict resolution system. Kids stay in the director mode because it allows differences in vision. If I say we should both be doctors you can say "but I teach swimming too". Once we assume our roles that flexibility goes away as we are committed to responding in character: "Take off that swimsuit, I need help with this operation!" Adults can handle the more intense conflict that goes with greater immersion. In part that's because RPGs let us look to dice or rules to create a reality we can agree on without either of us feeling like it is purely a matter of one person getting what they want and not the other.
DeleteYes, that all makes sense to me.
DeleteAnd it makes me wonder whether there is some inference to be drawn from why it is that character creation seems so exciting to young people, whereas the older one gets the more one just wants to get on with things and play the game.
DeleteThis is not quite the same as making characters, but I think it’s fundamentally easier to imagine setups rather than to play them out and make them interesting. It’s easier to write a cool pitch for a book/movie rather than to do the work of writing it out and potentially take it in an unknown, risky direction. So basically making characters without playing them (or writing RPG stuff without DMing it, haha) is just easier. - Jason Bradley Thompson
DeleteYep.
DeleteJason, you're right - that makes a lot of sense.
DeleteA relatively "lite" rule system, or one with a lot of optional rules allows, even encourages, the player and GM to engage in imagining how to proceed with the game on many occasions.
ReplyDeleteA more open and sandbox style setting, even when it contains some relatively detailed locations that can be explored also offers lots of "white space" that can be imagined to contain anything.
Low density rules and open settings with no preset storyline to be followed seem to offer more opportunities to imagine, therefore more fun. Something to consider, perhaps?
Definitely true in my case, but one does have to accept that an awful lot of people seem to prefer the precise opposite!
DeleteI think this is the main reason that 5e appeals more to my son than OSR games. 5e hits the sweet spot for him in that he can do the same kind of activity that your daughter does in terms to talking about what characters to play for an upcoming campaign or what have you for literal HOURS (while on a hike) while also being simple enough that he can enough of the relevant facts in his head to be able to talk about them (again for literal HOURS).
ReplyDeleteOSR games in which talking about character you're going to play boils down to "well we'll roll 3d6 when the time comes" just doesn't scratch the same itch.
I was certainly like that when I was younger - in some ways dreaming up characters was more fun than the actual game itself.
Delete