anyway.



thread: 2013-08-02 : Conversations and Games

On 2013-08-16, Josh W wrote:

This seems perfectly reasonable!

As an accompanyment, just as games are an interlocking set of goals, hopefully put in harmony with just the right amount of tension by the tools, conversations are an interlocking series of matters put into partial harmony by the way we pace and focus/emphasise and bound conversation.

Putting goals in harmony with each other via shaping their means is an old heart-feel of mine, and perhaps the analogy with conversation makes that clearer.

Next, here’s a twist: Although thinking in terms of matter and objects and structure is in itself coherent, and leads to a basis on which analysis can be done, there is a whole nebulous airey way of looking at games which is incompatible with this view.

If the object of the game includes not to explicitly not have an object, then to think of it in those terms is helpful, but must be forgotten during play.

This is the same as skilfully addressing a certain conversation topic indirectly without having to go into it in too much detail, you want the conversation to be about it without being explicitly about it, especially if it’s your issue.

Or conversely, setting up a situation to put people at their ease who are otherwise very task focused; you want to set things up so that people can do whatever, but don’t feel pressured to do anything in particular.

Opening up a space for play.



 

This makes...
initials
...go...
short response
optional explanation (be brief!):

if you're human, not a spambot, type "human":