[arg_discuss] Social Interaction in ARGs

[Christy Dena]

>Well, Bjork and Holopainen aren't here arguing that's a template for looking at social interactions in ARGs.


Doh! FYI: Bjork and Holopainen's book is about patterns for ALL GAMES.

And yes, of course it needs to be developed, and analysed in the
context of ARGs. That is why I started the chart, and subsequent
discussion here.

My first step was to just respond quickly to the categories they
propose, before developing a rewriting of the categories themselves. I
don't have time to write an essay with extensive examples for you
here. I will say that in my experience and analysis of ARGs,
PM-facilitated player-player social interaction through
somewhat-fleshed out player-characters happens rarely, not often. But
in the greater conversation about roleplay and ARGs, yes, there are
lots of other types of roleplay in ARGs:

* with varying degrees of ordinary self-pretend character relations;
* either PM- or player-facilitated;
* for player-player, player-PM or player-FW (fictionalworld) interaction...

On the first point (the continnum), I argue roleplay in ARGs is mostly
on the HIGH-ordinary-self-LOW-pretend-character end.


> Buckets have to be broad to be useful in a taxonomy like that.


Yes, of course. But I think their patterns are a great foundation to
develop insights into ARGs, and that is why I chose theirs above other
approaches. No insights are ever perfect, complete or comprehensive.
It is not a sign of weakness or failure to have something need
changing or complicating. Indeed, one of the things I've learnt about
academia, is that knowledge is seen as an ongoing journey that
generation after generation of scholars contribute to. It is
cumulative and collaborative. It is this drive towards wanting to
develop knowledge being seen as a strength that I'd like to focus on.


On 6/27/08, Brian Clark <bclark at gmdstudios.com> wrote:

>>"fleshed out personality" is not my requirement. The whole section on

>>roleplay is in response to the definition of roleplaying as a social

>>interaction pattern as defined by Bjork and Holopainen. This is

>>another reason I think why we've been disagreeing.

>

> Well, Bjork and Holopainen aren't here arguing that's a template for looking

> at social interactions in ARGs. I'd argue they provided a biased description

> of that social interaction that leaves it unduly narrow, leaving many other

> in the margins between definitions. Buckets have to be broad to be useful in

> a taxonomy like that.

>

> Otherwise, my perspective is like Mike's: some of the magic stuff in the

> genre comes out of that roleplay social interaction.

>

>

>

> _______________________________________________

> ARG_Discuss mailing list

> ARG_Discuss at igda.org

> http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/arg_discuss

>