Vector Theory #12: Comparison of Dualities
Good versus Evil.
Light versus Darkness.
Form vs Function.
Truth versus Lies.
When we see a dualism in the world, we naturally try to compare it to other dualisms with which we are familiar. It's easy to say Good equates to Light and Darkness equates to Evil. This is a common theme through a lot of western thought and it has become deeply ingrained in our psyche. But a comparison of the "Good versus Evil" dualism and the "Truth versus Lies" dualism starts to touch on some grey areas. Is it always good to tell the truth, what if you hurt someone's feelings in doing so? What if you expose things that make the world a darker place? Is it better to tell a "white lie" and let things progress more smoothly?
This could be argued semantically for years...and I'm sure it has been.
The reason I'm thinking about this topic is the notion of "Clocks versus Clouds". It has just been brought up in a thread on Storygames. My first response was heartfelt at the time, but it now seems pretty glib, and I've been thinking about the ideas behind it.
Clocks and Clouds may equate to Good and Evil in some people's minds. Those who like regularity will find clocks linked more closely to the "Good", those who value freeform organic chaos will see clouds as "Good". Neither perspective is more right, it's a matter of personal preference. (Just the same as Chaotic Good, Lawful Good, Chatic Evil and Lawful Evil will always be four distinct points of the compass from my mind...none of this 4th Edition D&D crap..but that's a can of worms I'll leave alone for the moment).
What I'm more interested in immediately is how the clocks and clouds dualism links into Vector Theory. I agree with the point that a roleplaying game is made up of moments of cloud play and clock play, no game solely consists of one or the other. I guess that's all a part of my beliefs in quantum mechanics and deeper level science (We're told in junior high school chemistry that all chemicals are bonded by ionic or covalent bonds, and there is a line on the periodic table that can generally be used to determine which sorts of bonds take place. Then in university we're told that there are no truly covalent or ionic bonds, all chemical bonds are actually a blend of the two on a spectrum of extremes). There is no pure black or white in the physical universe, only shades of colour and grey.
Pulling it back to Vector theory, it's an easy dualism split to compare clocks to game nodes, with the intricate mechanisms working off one another to divert to story according to predetermined means, randomised input, vector shade and speed, and a dozen other factors. On the flip side it's easy to equate clouds with story vectors, simply hurtling through the ether pushing the story onward.
But I'm not sure that this easy split is quite right.
It's like the truth/good, lies/evil split. It makes sense in most cases, but there is a significant percentage of cases where the analogy starts to waver.
Are story vectors form? Are game nodes function? This also seems to make sense at an immediate level, but analysis reveals that game nodes incorporate aspects of function when they divert the play experience, and form when their mechanisms specifically impact on the game world.
I'm reminded of the Tao, in which all Yin possesses an aspect of Yang, and all Yang possesses an aspect of Yin. It's an elegant solution to the idea that different dualities can never be fully resolved in the context of one another. But they got out of the dilemma the easy way.
Maybe my original response to the idea of clocks and clouds was simply tainted by overanalysis.
I'm afraid to say that I keep aiming for clocks but keep producing clouds.
Everything I produce aims for the streamlined elegance and mechanical smoothness of clocks, but my inner desire to keep the story moving and interesting means that my clocks are designed with chaotic subroutines to keep the players and the GM on their toes. Individually I'm producing a dozen clocks that impact on one another, and the resulting pattern has effects I can't quantify at the time of writing. Thus I produce clouds from clocks.
...suddenly I'm thinking of neural networks and cloud computing.
Light versus Darkness.
Form vs Function.
Truth versus Lies.
When we see a dualism in the world, we naturally try to compare it to other dualisms with which we are familiar. It's easy to say Good equates to Light and Darkness equates to Evil. This is a common theme through a lot of western thought and it has become deeply ingrained in our psyche. But a comparison of the "Good versus Evil" dualism and the "Truth versus Lies" dualism starts to touch on some grey areas. Is it always good to tell the truth, what if you hurt someone's feelings in doing so? What if you expose things that make the world a darker place? Is it better to tell a "white lie" and let things progress more smoothly?
This could be argued semantically for years...and I'm sure it has been.
The reason I'm thinking about this topic is the notion of "Clocks versus Clouds". It has just been brought up in a thread on Storygames. My first response was heartfelt at the time, but it now seems pretty glib, and I've been thinking about the ideas behind it.
Clocks and Clouds may equate to Good and Evil in some people's minds. Those who like regularity will find clocks linked more closely to the "Good", those who value freeform organic chaos will see clouds as "Good". Neither perspective is more right, it's a matter of personal preference. (Just the same as Chaotic Good, Lawful Good, Chatic Evil and Lawful Evil will always be four distinct points of the compass from my mind...none of this 4th Edition D&D crap..but that's a can of worms I'll leave alone for the moment).
What I'm more interested in immediately is how the clocks and clouds dualism links into Vector Theory. I agree with the point that a roleplaying game is made up of moments of cloud play and clock play, no game solely consists of one or the other. I guess that's all a part of my beliefs in quantum mechanics and deeper level science (We're told in junior high school chemistry that all chemicals are bonded by ionic or covalent bonds, and there is a line on the periodic table that can generally be used to determine which sorts of bonds take place. Then in university we're told that there are no truly covalent or ionic bonds, all chemical bonds are actually a blend of the two on a spectrum of extremes). There is no pure black or white in the physical universe, only shades of colour and grey.
Pulling it back to Vector theory, it's an easy dualism split to compare clocks to game nodes, with the intricate mechanisms working off one another to divert to story according to predetermined means, randomised input, vector shade and speed, and a dozen other factors. On the flip side it's easy to equate clouds with story vectors, simply hurtling through the ether pushing the story onward.
But I'm not sure that this easy split is quite right.
It's like the truth/good, lies/evil split. It makes sense in most cases, but there is a significant percentage of cases where the analogy starts to waver.
Are story vectors form? Are game nodes function? This also seems to make sense at an immediate level, but analysis reveals that game nodes incorporate aspects of function when they divert the play experience, and form when their mechanisms specifically impact on the game world.
I'm reminded of the Tao, in which all Yin possesses an aspect of Yang, and all Yang possesses an aspect of Yin. It's an elegant solution to the idea that different dualities can never be fully resolved in the context of one another. But they got out of the dilemma the easy way.
Maybe my original response to the idea of clocks and clouds was simply tainted by overanalysis.
I'm afraid to say that I keep aiming for clocks but keep producing clouds.
Everything I produce aims for the streamlined elegance and mechanical smoothness of clocks, but my inner desire to keep the story moving and interesting means that my clocks are designed with chaotic subroutines to keep the players and the GM on their toes. Individually I'm producing a dozen clocks that impact on one another, and the resulting pattern has effects I can't quantify at the time of writing. Thus I produce clouds from clocks.
...suddenly I'm thinking of neural networks and cloud computing.
.png)
Comments
I've read through your Vector theory posts, and figured I'd consolidate my comments on the most recent post instead of posting to old entries.
This entry actually ties nicely into the two main thoughts that came to mind while reading your posts.
First, with your use of vectors, I thought of the idea of vector addition. With mathematical vectors, you can add the direction and velocity of a number of vectors to obtain a single vector combining their aspects. I think that it might be useful to think of 'the vector' as you've presented it as 'the group's story', which is made up of the story contributions of the individuals, which can be described as component vectors. The significance of this ties into my second observation, which is more directly tied to this entry.
And that observation is that I was struck early on that the break down of the theory into 'vectors' and 'nodes', while useful from a design standpoint, might not be the most accurate description possible. By which I mean that if you isolate any given moment of play, it can probably be modeled as a 'node' of some description, since decisions are constantly made within the story. Certainly, some situations produce more concrete decisions (such as those mediated by the actual game 'mechanics) but even free play involves the interaction of conversation, and even monologue description incorporates the player's moment to moment decisions about his character.
Is this distinction useful for analysis or design? I'm not sure :) I only raise it because I feel like the current model of the theory tends a bit towards focusing on the game separate from the players making decisions, which I feel is a pretty important and fundamental aspect of what is actually happening at the table. I grant, however, that perhaps game design theory might be better served by looking at the game independent from such decision making, since you want the game to function as designed regardless of the idiosyncracies of the decisions being made.
At any rate, I'm enjoying the posts and it's always good to broaden your methods of thinking about something, so I look forward to more.