Slashdot Mirror
Dungeons & Dragons and IT
boyko.at.netqos writes "An editorial in Network Performance Daily tries to take a (1d6) stab at explaining why geeky engineering types are also typically the types that enjoy a rousing game of D&D. From the article "The greatest barrier to creativity is a lack of boundaries. Counter-intuitive — almost zen-like — but we've found it to be true. This is why people play Dungeons & Dragons (and similar games), and why network engineers often spend time putting out fires when they could be improving the network."
Pushing the envelope is really what creativity is all about, or at least it's a driving force for many people. No boundaries == no envelope && no envelope == lack of purpose.
Guess what causes the fires? That's right, "improving the network". What does the study show about network engineer's inability to keep their grubby paws out of things that are working perfectly fine thank you very much.
How we know is more important than what we know.
FTFA: Knowing this axiom of human nature, network managers can manage their team more efficiently by challenging their network engineers with more specific forward-looking issues and, more importantly, making sure they're spending an adequate amount of time focused on these initiatives. If a network manager only calls out the engineering team when there's a problem, all that manager is doing is preserving the status quo, not improving.
I find it strange that a opinion on management problems is based on D&D, but that's just me. This didn't say anything about the problem where a network engineer sees a problem but is held back because the management can't envision the problem as a problem, never mind fixing it.
What I see more often is groups that are having trouble keeping up with required changes (SarbOx et al) to run around making things perfect. When a problem does happen, it is put out like a fire and work shifts back to making required changes rather than trying to make sure that particular fire doesn't happen again.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
A lot of people need to be told specifically what to do.
Other people can work on their own provided they are provided with scope, goals, etc.
A minority of people don't need any guidance or roadmap at all in order to do their work and inevitably they are the ones who do the most innovation because their thought process is not confined to space/boundaries defined by someone else.
- Toby
Why do you think the most highly regarded poems generally are in one of the stricter poetry families (haiku, sonnets). Lots of structure, but within the structures, complete freedom to exercise creativity.
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
"The greatest barrier to creativity is a lack of boundaries" is not really true. What they try, and fail, to get at is that being "creative" is easier the more information you have about the problem domain. In TFA they compare difficulty in "writing a story" compare to "writing a story about ...". Because the second problem gives more information about the problem. This has been well understood for a long time.
In the example they give providing some information about the "problem" that needs to be solved (e.g. more redundancy? less packet loss? Reduce operating costs?) will probably give good results, not because it provides "boundaries" but because it provides "information" and changes the problem from a sythesis problem to an analysis problem. Of course creating this information in the first place is a non-trivial task.
An editorial in Network Performance Daily tries to take a (1d6) stab at explaining why geeky engineering types are also typically the types that enjoy a rousing game of D&D
Honestly. You were wondering why? Maybe because they're both geeks. Geek takes geek profession, news at 11! And D&D is to a large extent generational, anyway. Later it's the collectible card game or video game geek, and before D&D it was the, I don't know, transistor radio geek. You get my point. Not all engineers are geeks, as time goes on especially, but it takes a mentality that was often found in the, say, socially unacustomed?
That doesn't seem to be what the article is about. It seems to be more about how you can get geeks to work better within well specified rules, with D&D as an explanation or example. Not that I really agree; the cool thing about D&D with a real DM was that you could do whatever you wanted even if the rules didn't say how. It's only computer RPGs that have rigid limitations. But it's probably good advice in general anyway, to have some well specified goals and restrictions. Goals that aren't well specified is a fun way to mess with player's heads if you're an evil dungeon master, maybe not a good way to manage.
The enemies of Democracy are
I"ve always wondered why so many of the people that play d&d end up as IT professionals. I don't know how popular D&D is now. When I was in uni, there were more current or former D&D players in the programming classes than not.
D&D helped me be a better engineer by:
1. learning and working with a complex rule set.
2. Reading and comprehending specifications. The rulebook is several hundred pages long.
3. Problem solving within a strict set of boundaries, both individually and as a group
4. Failing a quest gracefully, without a hissy fit or seppeku, and without blaming the Damned Managers! (DM)
Of course, I also found that many people like playing D&D specifically to fight about and try to break the rules. I ended up working with many of the same kinds of people.
Maybe the manager should run his project more like a DM running a campaign. Then see how hard they work, in full costume.
Because in spite of being among the more intelligent and logical bunch, you'll find few who wish harder that magic was real. And we know better than most that it isn't. The game is a chance to step out of reality for a while and flesh out what we imagine it could be like.
Question everything
I read the article, and I've also been peripherally involved with NetQoS' products. Although the premise is fairly straightforward and mostly correct, he makes some insane extrapolations.
Good network engineers, sysadmins, infrastructure support folks, and so forth, don't avoid improving their environments. They usually don't have time to do so, because any down-time from disasters is considered wasteful. In the rare event of time to work on stuff, they're generally so burnt out they don't have time. After nonstop hours (or days!) of fixing emergencies, they often barely have enough energy to slump into their chairs, let alone improve the landscape. Basically, they don't have the time or energy to reduce their workload, except when opportunity presents itself.
Now bad network engineers (etc.) have another problem, and that problem is called tunnel vision. They're incapable of seeing anything other than the immediate task in front of them, so even when the opportunity comes up to truly solve a problem, they duct-tape the broken symptom for the umpteenth time, and end up creating even MORE work for themselves. (And for the rest of their team, not to mention giving users an unrealistic expectation of service.)
In come the productivity enhancing solutions. "Our product will reduce these six disparate reactive monitoring tasks you do now into a single proactive tool." There's a good chance that it will actually do what it says, but only after a test phase, approval, design, rollout (including installing clients on all 400 of your servers), and then tuning. For a medium-to-large scale environment, I'd throw out a rough guess of 9 months, consuming an average of 1/3 of an engineer's time. Given that you're looking at a group of probably 4 people for that environment, that's not insignificant. Still, the company takes a look at it--they bring in a box to build a limited-scope test, and look at it for a few weeks. Those weeks turn into a month and change, and the group realises that the tuning will take a LOT of time afterwards (because extensive tuning isn't part of the proposed rollout scope or timeframe), and ultimately decides to say no.
The vendor's conclusion: These guys would rather put out fires than solve problems.
Not to say that the connection between D&D and IT is invalid, but the firefighting/systemic improvement argument is total crap.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
Now look at some of the RPGs and LRPs which have failed over time. Tunnels and Trolls, for example. Treasure Trap. These are games that have far too simple a system. They lack the structure or the coherence I've outlined as existing in those games that do well.
Some of the themed RPGs - the Dr Who RPG, for example - have not done well because there is too much structure or too great an imbalance. There's no room for optimization or one thread gets all of the useful time.
No, a successful RPG or LRP is one that mimics the tools that every engineer - software or hardware - uses every working day, along with the same tradeoffs, the same architecture and the same flexibility. RISC-architecture games (like D&D) generally produce faster, more exciting games than those that are CISC-architectured (like Rolemaster), but each has devotees. And I'll bet almost anything that the devotee mappings are almost identical for the processor design as they are for the game design.
To say that they are both geeks is missing something much more fundamental. I've shown that RPGs and engineering are essentially identical. What about other devotees - the DIY radio geek mentioned in the parent post, for example? Exactly the same elements are present, in exactly the same form. Instead of balancing which stat to bump up, you're balancing circuit layout vs. noise, sensitivity vs. squelch, or any number of other factors. Imaginative solutions? There are hundreds of ways to make a tuned circuit, depending on how much drift you want to allow or how exact you want the results. Tables? Well, you look up any component spec sheet and tell me what there's plenty of. There's no such thing as a 100 ohm resistor, or rather there are a few thousand, depending on the exact characteristics you are looking for.
Oh, you'll find geeks amongst the wargamers, as well. A good game of "Squad Leader", "Britannia" or "Decline and Fall" has every bit as much mathematical elegance and logic as a finely-honed encryption library or precision-made racing engine. Again, if you look at the wargames that have done badly, you find they are mostly games with too little in them or are so heavy that they are unplayable.
They all have exactly the same common elements and - this is the key part - they all read like a diagnostic manual for so-called Geek Syndrome. In other words, the "geeks", the games, the professions and the hobbies are not logically distinguishable. Different sides, same coin. To say that a geek is attracted to the game has no more meaning than to say that the game is attracted to the geek. It just doesn't make any sense to make that kind of distinction. It simply doesn't exist.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)