[Call of Cthulhu] Creative Agenda: group/individual, and identifying it (split)

[Ron Edwards]

Oh yes - this is why "instance of play" has been replaced by Reward cycle, specifically, the observance of input generating enjoyment, and identifying both the content of the enjoyment and the specific System features which make it possible. The exact amount of play involved in doing this varies by game and by group.

Best, Ron

[Moreno R.]

Oh yes - this is why "instance of play" has been replaced by Reward cycle, specifically, the observance of input generating enjoyment, and identifying both the content of the enjoyment and the specific System features which make it possible. The exact amount of play involved in doing this varies by game and by group.

In practice, I have found the use of "reward cycle" for these kind of explanations is rather cumbersome.

First, the reward cycle(s) are nested and of different sizes: when I play a conflict in DitV and at the end I choose the effects on my character (fallout) it's little reward cycles inside the game (even killing a monster in D&D is one, to use another example).  So saying "reward cycle" is not enough, what we are looking for is the biggest reward cycle of the entire game, the "begin play, play, go to the end of the game, what you got out of the game?" one.

But saying "you observe/realize creative agenda during the biggest reward cycle present in the game" is a mouthful, It make it seems more complicated, and it's almost circular (if the person ask what these reward cycles are, the explanation use the concept of creative agenda...)

[RosenMcStern]

Great example. I hope Rob enjoyed the explanation, I certainly did. And honestly, Call of Cthulhu is definitely not your best choice if you want to play Step on Up or Story Now :)

Just a little side note: my experience with Call of Cthulhu with strangers is the exact opposite of what Ron stated. I enjoy playing at conventions, with people I do not know, possibly of different nationalities. I usually have better results than with my regular gaming groups.

I remember that it was pointed out on an Italian forum that there is a general consensus about how a Call of Cthulhu game should be played, even if the rules do not suggest a fixed structure for your adventure or a guided procedure to build it. Experienced CoC players are rather likely to know it from reading essays and forums, so it is extremely easy to "be on the same page" even with players you have just met.

[Ron Edwards]

Paolo, I think you have mis-read me. I intended to convey that Call of Cthulhu is extremely well-suited to short-term play among people who don't know one another well, and that such play has consistent, identifiable qualities, probably because the texts do such a good job at conveying the "beloved stuff" (in addition to what you mentioned, which I agree with too). Your statement seems to me to confirm my point, not to contradict it. I'm not sure how you read my post to mean something different, but it's probably not worth dissecting the misunderstanding unless you think it's important.

Best, Ron

edited to fix your name! (how embarrassing) - RE

[RosenMcStern]

Definitely not important, I did not get your point. We agree to agree! And do not worry for the mis-spelling, ALL non-native speakers do it. You are the FIRST person in 16 years who took the time to correct the mistake.

[rgrassi]

Thanks for reply, Ron. I agree with the contents of your post except for this:

The distinction between {in-character, suspension of disbelief, immersion} and {metagame, out-of-game talk, out-of-character} is bullshit. It's one of the worst and most obfuscating myths of gamer culture.

It's probably better to open a reserved thread for it.
Since I'm interested in observing, studying, theorizing different kind of games (video, board, tabletop rpg) I see no reason to remove such interestings and much used terms.
My opinion is that, in the tabletop rpg domain, it's been "corrupted" by the WoD serie (which I never played nor observed. In all honesty I've completely skipped all the vampire/licanthrope stuff.) It seems to me that only using that term reminds about the 'meta-plot' or bullshit like that.
I see no bullshit and no problem in using in-character, suspension of disbelief, immersion, metagame, out-of-game, out-of-character, out-of-fiction. I see no problem if they're used as general terms to discuss about rpg modeling. Also, I see advantages since they may be used as cross-terms through different 'games' domain and forms of art. But, I'm realizing that my effort to "normalize" a standard glossary is not a shared target.
I see many problems if you use them with a specific meaning for a specific rpg saying that that is the real meaning of the word.
Am I wrong?

And...

Your own account shows exactly why: when the Techniques of play are forming a System which supports a Creative Agenda, then the System factors directly into experiencing the Reward, which is running back up that arrow into Social Contract. Therefore Reward-based interactions (emerging from the System in action) are going to be social, among the real people ... and fully consistent with engaged, imaginative, non-disruptive play.

I do agree. Reward has to be social, among the real people...
Rob

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Rob,

We've already started exactly that thread, in [Primitive and others] In-character / out of character Ephemera. I hope you'll see that I was not critiquing the existence of those terms (i.e. phenomena) but rather shoving them into two crude and opposed categories. I suspect we'll agree considering our shared view of the textually recommended World of Darkness way to play. Let's talk about it in that thread.

In this thread, here is my concern. You wrote,

My only doubt is that I've seen creative agenda exposed like an "unicorn", like a mith. Something like "hey you, group, you've a creative agenda." "Really?" "Sure. It's one of these three..." "And how do we know what is our agenda." "You'll be enlighten at the right moment." "Really?" "Yes." "When? When is the right moment?" "After an instance of play." "And what is an instance of play?" "Sufficient time spent on role-playing necessary to identify all features of System in operation (and so derive also... the creative agenda, if existing)" "How do we know that the time is sufficient? You'll be enlighten at the right moment." "Really?" (And so on...")
Anyway, it's evident to me that I'm missing something (in this specific case, the "instance of play concept").

I split these posts into their own thread specifically to address your statement. I'm asking you now whether we have made any progress - whether you think I'm pointing to unicorns or not. We probably need to consider more details concerning Reward, which is fortunately becoming a common topic across several current threads, especially Jesse's [Leverage/Ravenloft] Theme and The Right To Dream. If you have any questions or observations about this or anything else, regarding the Call of Cthulhu game or any topics related to what I've quoted from you, please feel free.

Best, Ron

[rgrassi]

Hi Ron.

We've already started exactly that thread, in [Primitive and others] In-character / out of character Ephemera.

Great. I'll have a check. Thanks.

My only doubt is that I've seen creative agenda exposed like an "unicorn", like a mith. Something like "hey you, group, you've a creative agenda." "Really?" "Sure. It's one of these three..." "And how do we know what is our agenda." "You'll be enlighten at the right moment." "Really?" "Yes." "When? When is the right moment?" "After an instance of play." "And what is an instance of play?" "Sufficient time spent on role-playing necessary to identify all features of System in operation (and so derive also... the creative agenda, if existing)" "How do we know that the time is sufficient? You'll be enlighten at the right moment." "Really?" (And so on...")
Anyway, it's evident to me that I'm missing something (in this specific case, the "instance of play concept").

I split these posts into their own thread specifically to address your statement. I'm asking you now whether we have made any progress - whether you think I'm pointing to unicorns or not.

We made progress, in my opinion. Most of the enlightenment came from the "infinite spikes..." post by Moreno.

We probably need to consider more details concerning Reward, which is fortunately becoming a common topic across several current threads, especially Jesse's [Leverage/Ravenloft] Theme and The Right To Dream.

If I get the 'whole design' now (and I hope), I'm pretty confident that Reward and Creative Agenda will become the glue that will provide the insight and expectations toward each element of the model as per the figure below.
"Fail" in the central circle is at social level and leads to dysfunctional type of play (i.e. no Agenda or no identifiable Reward or clashing agendas, Zilchplay and so on...).



Rob

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Rob,

Yes! The reason I draw it differently is because I never want to lose sight of the fact that the levels of the Big Model are nested, meaning:

All Exploration is a function of and subset within a Social Contract
All Techniques are a subset of System, which is a component of Exploration
All Ephemera are brief but important features of Techniques in use

That's why I always draw them as a layered set of circles, which means your unifying central circle necessarily becomes a "joiner" running in/out among them, which looks linear from from the outside.

Best, Ron

[rgrassi]

Hi Ron, thanks for reply.

Yes! The reason I draw it differently is because I never want to lose sight of the fact that the levels of the Big Model are nested, meaning:
All Exploration is a function of and subset within a Social Contract
All Techniques are a subset of System, which is a component of Exploration
All Ephemera are brief but important features of Techniques in use

For this, I think it's necessary to open a new thread, because 'nesting' implies some sort of dependency relationship and it does not necessarily mean "includes / is included by).
Rob