Linear vs. Granular (Thought)--Samples from 'New Ethos'

[robkuntz]

Samples from my chapter Linear vs. Granular in my unfinished book "A New Ethos in Game Design," Copyright 2014-2017 Robert J. Kuntz. All Rights Reserved

Linear vs. Granular


Act always so as to increase the number of choices – Heinz von Foerster

Linear relationships are easy to think about: the more the merrier. Linear equations are solvable, which makes them suitable for textbooks. Linear systems have an important modular virtue: you can take them apart and put them together again—the pieces add up.

Nonlinear systems generally cannot be solved and cannot be added together. . . . Nonlinearity means that the act of playing the game has a way of changing the rules. . . . That twisted changeability makes nonlinearity hard to calculate, but it also creates rich kinds of behavior that never occur in linear systems. — James Gleick, Chaos: Making a New Science
(emphasis mine)

...This brings us full circle to holistic design. We are building worlds and their parts, whereas the expedient company-made model has been used as a linear sample of worlds built for us. One is accomplished to fulfill personal world-views (the world is the author/artist); the latter is fashioned for reasons related to group and business views. The latter is detached from the individual view and has been achieved by median processes that lead to median use. In other words, interpreted use tends towards generality rather than specificity. Due to this contraction commercial designs tend toward strictly linear (non-granular) patterns of plug-and-play design and usage. By extenuation, as this model continues and there is no change from it, design and its product, play, become automatic functions through imitation of the design model and by its patterned processes in play. This in turn leads to stagnation in design thought and play thought, i.e., to cyclical expressions in both cases.

... 

However, the original conceptual model expressed in Classic D&D proves that this now ancient contention is false.
The granular approach inherent to open systems proves that by constant inquiry of its parts that new ideas and varied systems will continue to generate from these with no directional bias except as formed by such inquiry paths. In essence this has moved linear overlaid thought in design to complex (rich) granular thought that denotes expansion in uncountable ways.

Closed systems cannot accomplish this rich expansion, so at best they can be lined up side-by-side and linked in some manner, but never fully integrated as overlapping models that share permeable boundaries. In other words, integral design in open form, hands-on approach informs by each step of how everything is related whereas plug-and-play tells one why they must be related in one fashion alone. Granularity seeks continuing reevaluation of ideas whereas linear forms state that ideas are a constant and as given. In open form the designer expands bases for multiple reasons while creating these whereas a closed model samples one base to be used in the same way. And the final kick: The open form creator learns the whys and wherefores for all of his or her endeavors and advances along paths both creative- and play-related whereas the premade user has nothing but premade ideas that were not their own and that can only be described in use through reasonable expectations rather than by an ongoing, forming philosophy. In other words we have the polar opposites: form and formula.

Axiomatic: Open forms lead by way of future as present for what is being modeled and expressed and formula leads by past as present, by current models.

[Admin Pete]

This is easy to read and IMO flows quite well. I am really looking forward to reading this book.