Up on A Tree Stump™ #5: Creative Exceptionalism & Asking "Why"?

Up on a Tree Stump™
(or) All I Know about D&D™ I Learned From Life


©2010 Robert J. Kuntz

"The root cause of any problem is the key to a lasting solution." -- Taiichi Ohno, pioneer of the Toyota Production System in the 1950s. Link to full article.

I have the greatest respect for SF/Fantasy writers and their past and future involvement in the craft. It is indeed they along with the historians and other great artists and authors who have given us by adaptation Role Playing Games, for without their ideas, their time devoted to such imaginative and enlightening subject matter, none of it would exist, there would not have been an RPG, or at least not as we now know it. These authors made leaps in exposing new ideas and in challenging stereotypes in all fields of knowledge and social context, and often with a critical eye brought us profound concepts and new ways of seeing the world through the focused lens of their stories.

The majority of good literature has stood upon a spacious ground of perceptive social critique and in this case SF/Fantasy, in the main, has been no different. By transference, then, we can rightly assume that RPG designs that in whole or part emulate speculative fiction have at least that same range of possible articulation. Even though we can choose to separate an RPG from speculative fiction to the point where it becomes a mere vehicle of entertainment amid flourishes of creative addition by its author (in this case, the game designer and/or GM), there is no denying that pushing the bar of its application can expose ranges that contribute to honoring its fullest potential just as any piece of fiction can.

Thus the creation of more challenging forms of design that reach beyond tired and over-tested varieties indeed marks solidly the reason "why" they are conceived of and then produced to begin with, as these literally go hand in hand with the progressive ideal of design. But it also makes for a unique challenge to take fiction and games and weave them together into a unique tapestry that makes not only sense to the designer but to the players of such scenarios or games. And every great designer, and for that matter, great player, loves a challenge.

We have noted a plethora of titles and themes from past and present authors of speculative fiction, so we know that "whys" in our cousin-market can vary tremendously and often do. Such diversity not only promotes a wider range of interesting product but introduces a wider range of readers while expanding these boundaries. In essence it feeds the industry with new blood through fresh approaches which in turn furthers continued sustainability of creative exchange. That is then good for the industry that such writers or designers are deeply involved in.

However, what is important to some may not be so for others. This re-poses the "Why" in a different light, for a truly intransigent creator looks to outdo past designs to make his or her mark. They are the ones who will ultimately, in many cases, deserve the accolades of informed fans and valued critics. Unfortunately, most beginning writers and designers often fail to realize that ongoing homework is needed to succeed in such markets. Homework can here be roughly defined as necessary planning but takes into effect an ongoing challenge he or she envelopes themselves in. This includes innovative story, plot and character development; and in the case of RPG scenarios this will include what might be unique among its parts and how these do or do not compare to previous designs. In either case, creating unique inroads may require more planning and/or reading past examples or primary texts depending upon the proposed story's/scenario's specifics and depth.

To successfully pursue a career in speculative fiction or with any of its related by-products attaching to the RPG industry, writers should not cast their works in a mould that will more often be viewed as mere imitation. Indeed the challenge for those intransigent few who see such investments as a continued test of their creative metal is to continue outdoing themselves and others, and by correspondence greatly influencing all of what they value.

The Lake Geneva Tactical Studies Association as a group had a no holds barred approach to design. We were all very opinionated--I argued with EGG over points that I fet strongly about. I was in fact looking for "Whys". His previous tutoring of me when I was age 13 finally found purchase around age 16 in exactly the entire realm as he had projected it, which was to be unique, not just to follow his example only. EGG was a strong supporter of investigating possibilities and absracting "what ifs" from anything before him. Given that mindset we were as a whole disposed to sliding this way or that on issues of creative departure but more often found ourselves in agreement through such exchanges. Don Kaye, his childhood friend and co-founder of TSR Rules, summarized his perspective on this differently but with the same open respect for EGG: "Rob, I argue with him not so much because I think he's wrong, but just to keep him honest."

This working idea of open discourse which always fed creative rumination and critical departures from the norm or "fashionable" worked itself into D&D's play-test and design, as I've noted elsewhere, and became a very important notation for me when considering how this now relates to the whole idea of design and thereby learned artistc processes of that time. In consideration of this ongoing impact, I feel that designers should look as hard at their sources for inspiration as many like myself have done: EGG was a prolific writer, inspired game designer, trenchant humorist, avid and informed critic, amateur artist, animated story teller, superlative editor, and the list goes on. But above all EGG was an outspoken individual, and that added continuous depth of expression to his designs. There was no middle ground as he always attempted to go beyond what was being presented. When faced with design hurdles he was not shy (that word does not figure into his make-up at all) to call upon the LGTSA members to discuss options, or to play-test an idea. When faced with creative challenges (as in his Alexander he Great board game) he advanced innovative system design. Throughout all of his creative phases his voice was heard and his opinions were felt loud and clear and were for the most part respected (except by certain fragile and sensitive egos); and he was highly regarded as a designer who pushed the limits of design.

Part of the reason why this played out so was in fact due to a non-competetive arrangement between us. We were not competing with one another but in fact contesting to see who could contribute to making whatever design was before us better. In essence no one then had any time to be offended or put off by all of the flurry of debate and criticisms and play-tests and the holistic parts that were constantly being interchanged. This wasn't outwardly about ego, though of course ego is vested in design at some level, but most certainly about creation and the creative ideal. As Dave Hickey points out in my recent video post, creators, especially truly unique ones, should be allowed to express their opinions in open discourse without somebody being offended. Creativity is about reaching outwards and beyond and that is done at a sustainable level which is as unique as the artist doing so.

When we were refining D&D through play-test--in fact when we play-tested and developed all games then--we were in DEEP and open discourse. Creativity and transformation cannot occur between others in closed discourse and every artist knows this. On the personal level I have always noted that strongly creative people have equally strong opinions. It is intrinsically part of their natures, or else they could not separate from a community standard and choose their own unique paths for expression. And if anyone believes that true creativity can aspire and grow and implant itself on one's doorstep and in their hearts, otherwise, they are mistaken. D&D separated from the wargames community and formed a totally new game concept and game type; and while doing so, it was at first ridiculed, misunderstood and often vilified. But its adherents stuck with it and proved that creative exceptionalism is the rule, not sameness.   What made RPG possible were select designers and play-testers who became responsible for the unlimited possibilities of human expression in a game where people, not standards, had recourse. In comparison, one cannot look at an artistic product because of this, and as Hickey noted in that video, again, and not see the artist or his kin. And in doing so, I might add, you cannot look at the best of these either without seeing, if only in some degree removed, what inspired that art, design, or writing.

Co-equal with that, certain art can be imitated, but artists cannot be. There will always be distinctions in this by their very acts, natures and beings; and more importantly, the fire of individual creation is not found in "grouping principles" but in standing away from said group and building one's own fire. Gary Gygax was, and still is, the prime example of outspoken individualism in our industry, and so too those whom he encouraged along such paths. It is a fundamental truth that an artist must have absolute freedom to be uniquely creative. This sometimes requires the interjections of others, but in the end, it most certainly requires that a true creator take his or her hammer and smash home the nail of self expression. Otherwise designers and writers adopt another's truth and with that lose their individual creativity and trim their capacity. And the latter in no way embraces what we--prior to and during the years of TSR--promoted while upon the unending search for creative exceptionalism.

UP ON A TREE STUMP #3: D&D’s Ongoing Paradigm Shift

Up on A Tree Stump™

(or) All I Know about D&D™ I Learned From Life

©2009 Robert J. Kuntz

#3: D&D’s Ongoing Paradigm Shift

A game is a game is a game. We all agree on that. But D&D in its many facets breeds different abstracts of the game idea for each person who experiences it. This is the paradigm shift that is in fact ongoing through that games unique presentation. It will never end and there is no argument for or against what is better. The concept is open-ended and mutable, indefinable beyond the points of its mechanics, as the influences—each player and every DM—in essence sets their own game scope and projects it along a singular, and in many cases, ever diverse path. We incorporate endless and diverse data from many sources and project it into each unique structure, unifying the base philosophy as each evolves into an interdependent whole.

That said, there are some basic tenants that cannot be ignored as inconsequential to good play or good DMing, as this is still a game. A game, of course, predisposes the use of strategy and tactics used by its players therein. Even in Monopoly, for instance, that simple but far ranging and ever-present concept is always, or should be, at the forefront of every player’s thought process.

Imagine playing a board game such as Monopoly without a plan, without gauging the “lay of the land,” so to speak, and note how far such players progress within its territory as compared to players who otherwise adhere to such tenants.

Of course if Monopoly had not been created with a mind to the use of player tactics, then we would have but another example of a game of limited range with consequences garnered from just rolling dice and ascribing personal success or failure while doing so to luck alone.

As noted--and as an unrelenting telling point, in terms of infinite structural choices possible in such a mutable game as D&D--there are no Apples and Oranges within any games perceived and/or adopted conceptual range; and only understanding what a game with a set of rules “is” for its participants and that each participant understands their individual levels of investiture of resources is paramount. A game is a game is a game.

Yet what distinguishes a game from being a challenging or less challenging one in any of its presented levels is the degree of thought and expansion given to its base range of expression. As DMs will set that tone from the beginning—structure—such base understanding is more or less passed along to their players thereafter. Inherent structure will only move from its initial perceived base in D&D through the interjection of shifts that directly reflect back upon the game’s most important tenant: that there is always an expanding possibility range within an open structure. As originally expressed by EGG and D&D’s first co-designers, this is an ever-present and intuitive gaming philosophy. Further, the more these types of shifts are present, the more each participant grows through their use. Expansion expands.

Thinking Horizontally and Vertically: As D&D has an ever-expanding range of possibilities, creative lateral inputs (horizontal shifts) will indeed elongate the structural base in those directions. This is the most important part of a published adventure, as many vertical shifts (which I will explain hereafter) are not as structurally prevalent within such abstracts intentionally scaled for specific ranges as they are within home-brew scenarios. On the whole this is where the phrase “Apples and Oranges” does apply to a greater or lesser extent.

As the inclusion of horizontal shifts is limited only by the creative inputs of the designer (or DM)--and in the home-brew scenarios, by the players, as well, and more-so in this case than within a published scenario—we may continue upon this extending, linear path forever. Perceptions aside, this still remains linear unless the base itself as presented is not only elongated but also challenged for its range, no matter how extensible it is perceived to be. That is where verticality comes in.

In game design one cuts across the axis of the horizontal with vertical lines of design, extending the whole in the process. As the base expands laterally, it also expands outward and thus holistically onward exponentially. It only stops when it reaches self-imposed or insurmountable, and often artificially introduced, design limits. This expansiveness can be realized at any level within the DM’s or player’s expression whenever each can interject to the model during moment by moment game exchanges—and this is one of the most profound aspects of our game, and of course of unlimited expression, overall, which the game maintained from its onset as its strongest, most immutable tenant.

The “Dial” of Design: From a flat-line base of the horizontal we interject extensibility to it, creatively widening its base; and perceptually this looks and feels like a set of “rolling hills.” When one inserts the vertical model into this, that is when these expressions can potentially reach for the height of mountains or the depth of seas, even with their “tiniest” portions. Verticality comes in so many examples, as it did in the Original Campaign, but one could say that it is a dial DMs and players place over each horizontal aspect and rotates to note its effects upon their ranges or limits. A good set of journalistic questions—Who? What? Where? When? Why? And How?—can be a useful dial--a creative barometer—when so applied, and we as designers and DMs are always expressing same, whether we are consciously aware of what is for the most part an intuitive process. It is important to realize, however, that its application has no limits at any time as long as the DM and his or her players accepts its ongoing inclusion as part of the gaming process.

“Vive la Difference”: Players accepted what EGG and I offered in the Original Campaign as a range of possibilities and indeed communicated within that same accepted range with us, knowing that the parameters were established and open. In so doing they learned to expect anything and we in turn learned to expect a range of responses befitting that same model, and certainly expected that these could and would challenge our abilities. In turn, all participants gained by this open model. Participants--DMs and players alike—were enhanced along many levels, and mainly creative and logical ones. Tactics and strategy came to the fore. There was no random die roll, anymore, as verticality added or subtracted from that. We were now merging with the realm of possibilities to the extreme, and within our mindsets stayed aware and open to that endless panorama. Everyone learned their own gaming limits and ranges and at the same time expanded their personal ranges of thinking and expression.

Two quotes from Lao Tzu apply here to cover every perceptual base about D&D’s ongoing shifting terrain:

“Be content with what you have; rejoice in the way things are. When you realize there is nothing lacking, the whole world belongs to you.”

“He who knows others is wise. He who knows himself is enlightened.”

May you never get caught in a dead-end by an iron golem…

UP ON A TREE STUMP #1: Imagination Squared

Up on a Tree Stump™
(or) All I Know about D&D™ I Learned From Life

©2009 Robert J. Kuntz

#1: Imagination Squared

I have had many people over the years ask me where I get my inspiration from for all of the various projects and ideas I have furthered through print. It's not from the copious amounts of coffee that I drink, I assure you. But let me offer a refrain here which is best studied in light of my own perceptions of things creative.

Reading has always been a good start for me; but rather thinking, I'd say, has been the other. But when all is said and done, thinking has a back seat to both seeing and doing. Somewhere in that combination of reading, thinking, seeing and doing do the creative spurts rise and fall. But let me explain one facet that may have come as a surprise to some, a mere curiosity, perhaps. Seeing. What is meant by this? In my life I can look at things, but whether I see them for all of their intrinsic value is another thing altogether.

I remember while EGG and I were working on Greyhawk: Supplement #1 to Dungeons & Dragons, that I was employed at a wood working factory. Drudgery for sure, hour after monotonous hour. I sought relief as I always do through the wiles of my imagination, casting my eyes about my surroundings when I had a chance to do so. During one of these excursions of thought and sight my eyes came to rest upon end pieces of wood I had been trimming off, all in a pile to my left. I concentrated on a single piece, noting its symmetrical shape. As my mind was then inured with thoughts of getting home and crafting some more for our booklet, I became rapt. People may say that this is when it hits you, these ideas. But what I saw were possibilities yet unimagined. It was but a cube of wood, was it not, this all flashing before my mind, yet excitedly so, for I had latched onto a form in thought and sight, and now my thinking process was flowing with all the possibilities.

It didn't take too much time thereafter to sort out those possibilities. Stooping, I picked up the all so now interesting cube of wood and held it in my palm. It fit very well there. Clenching it I imagined just as in my youth with so many imaginary objects, some real, some as invisible as my thoughts had been then, that I summoned a power from it. But what power? I looked upon its many faces again, rotating it. Hmm. Like our many dice we rolled, it was. Six sides. Six powers? Each side represented a square face. Hmm. A shield? Ah, force shields! [Edit:  I always loved force shields and was fascinated by them; and it's funny how the imagination works to bring seemingly disparate parts, like these ever-changing parts that children experience while in play, together.  So by way of the cube, as I was to recall later, my fascination with force shields, specifically this one as noted on television's Outer Limits episode, "The Bellero Shield," meshed with the object.  So the object became the final focus for the idea (memory-fascination) and thereby became one.]

Setting the piece down amongst its brothers, I finished my day, walked home, and promptly wrote the Cube of Force, which to this day survives in many renditions of D&D. I am proud to say that this inspired piece was well received by my counterpart, as was the story of its creation.

So, Seeing, not just Looking, in this life, is to peel back possibilities untold, amongst stories heard by rocks and whispered by trees who tell of the inexplicable passing of creation. We need only immerse ourself in it to find the romance of life and therein our imagination squared.