increasing focus on technical agendas

[David Berg]

Hi Ron (and whoever else is interested in the Wiki),

Just reading Incoherence and Reintroducing the Idea of Technical Agenda, I was struck by a potential barrier to the Big Model's utility to gamers.  Check this out:

Rob's mismatch with the rest of us was technical, meaning techniques, and Ron I think you nailed it: he didn't want to play a game by whose rules the other players got to call him out in that way . . . The effect was the same as a classic CA mismatch.

In reply:

Consider stuff that is at that [Techniques] level, but isn't particularly relevant to the Creative Agenda. I remember talking to Steven Stewart about "bucket seats" - the person wants them, period, because they associate them with something good, and never mind what they have to do with any other aspect of the car. So say Bob hates d10s and insists always on using some other die, for whatever reason. OK, this game uses d10's and Bob has issues with that - that's his bucket seats, and here, I think you'd say it was part of Bob's Technical Agenda, meaning that if he's going to buy into this Creative Agenda (this group, this game, this way), then it better not use d10's.

. . . these points apply when the Creative Agenda is in pretty good shape, but can be rattled by these other priorities coming in regarding a given level. If we were talking about Creative Agenda clashes, then that's different, that'd be about totally different big arrows and the social or technical (or whatever) variables would, I think, be implicated verbally as everyone wrangled, but really wouldn't help much if they were solved.

Rob didn't want to play a game whose techniques included being called out in a certain way.  This is what game groups need help with more often than anything else (in my experience).  Not G vs N or N vs S, but (e.g.) the player who wants to play slow and immersive with minimal system contact vs (e.g.) the player who wants short punchy scenes and fiddly system bits.  A vast majority of the gamers I've met since moving from New York to Chapel Hill are pretty flexible about types of games -- competitive, cooperative, deep, silly, exploring tough issues in Dogs, celebrating comics in Marvel Heroic -- and utterly inflexible about certain techniques.  Hell, I'm a prime example -- no matter what RPG I play, if I'm not allowed to form a vivid sense of place and let scenes breathe, I'd rather play a board game.  Immersing in the fiction is part of why I roleplay.  Pointing out that that's not a creative agenda is irrelevant; it's a reason to play or not play.  In my experience, most gamers feel this way about some technique, whether it's having some GM duties or being rated or talking in-character... this list goes on and on.

So, Ron, to compare this to "I like bucket seats" and "I hate d10s" is to be completely out of synch with a lot of gamers, the people the Big Model Wiki is for.  If the goal is to help people get more enjoyment out of their roleplaying, this issue right here, technical clash, might deserve to be front and center.

Perhaps you completely agree; I don't want to simply assume otherwise.  However, I certainly haven't gotten that impression from the focus of discussions to date.  To many people "the Big Model" is synonymous with "creative agenda" or "GNS", presumably because those were the constant points of reference, emphasis and attention on the Forge (they sure were for my 6 years there).  I hope that doesn't persist.  My biggest takeaways from the Forge came from experienced gamers who may have included CA as background but were primarily offering techniques.  Things You Can Do at the Table is where the value is, in my opinion; CA, GNS, and the Big Model diagram ought to be orientation and reference when needed to understand those techniques and ephemera.  I think that is how the Wiki could be of most use to gamers.

I don't know if the Wiki project is even still on; if not, sorry to simply toss opinions without accomplishing anything.  I just felt inclined to weigh in based on some recent technical clash in my own play (patched over much more easily once I stopped worrying about CA) and some recent helpful techniques discussions on Story Games.  You know that I care about this stuff (remember my attempt to re-write the Forge Glossary into something more user-friendly?), so I hope this feedback is useful.

Ps,
-David

[David Berg]

It's occurred to me that the issue of "GNS focus vs techniques focus" is not a philosophical debate, but a practical one.  Ron, I know you want to take the technique fu embedded in all those thousands of Forge threads and make it accessible.  I just think you might be going about it in the wrong way.  You have many, many useful thread links at your fingertips, each of which you point to when certain issues come up.  When that happens, if you would answer each of these questions in a sentence or two, this could be a useful Wiki entry:

For what issue do I point people to this thread?

Why do I point them there?  What does this thread offer them?

What are the most valuable takeaways from the thread?

So, with a made-up example:



When players don't invest in their characters (one-shot games)

Players need an opportunity to judge whether or not they see play opportunities in their character, and if not, to rectify that.  See full discussion here.

Some options include:
• Pitching the fun of the activity before handing out characters
• Workshopping
• Facilitator check-ins
• Q & A phase
• Adding provocative questions to the character sheet ("Why do you need to do X?")



Maybe you have a different formula you'd prefer, but whatever the formula, I'm a bit bummed that this hasn't been the approach from the moment the Wiki was conceived.  Since the only thing posted was the Big Model diagram, I've wondered if perhaps you stalled out on Big Picture stuff, which prevented progress on techniques stuff.  I've had many of my own projects suffer from a similar miscalculation about "must perfect the uber-logic first, and then get to the nuts & bolts that people will use", so perhaps I'm just projecting.

Are you already working on this?  From your comments to date, I can't tell.  You told Samuel, "answering your AP questions will lead me to track down this link, which can go in the Wiki!"  Which both heartens and scares me.

Every time I see you post a link and say, "Here, read this," I think, "great, the barrier to entry is essentially impenetrable -- the willingness to wade through thousands of words of fumbling forum posting to find the useful nuggets therein, which may or may not then be cast aside in favor of better nuggets a few posts later".  I'm a big nerd with too much time on my hands, and even I have better ways to spend it than that.  A wiki composed entirely of "read this thread" links would suck.

On the other hand, every time I see you post a link and say, "Here's why this is totally relevant and here are the great insights it offers about your issue," I think, "Why isn't this post a Wiki entry?"

Ps,
-David

P.S.  I normally hate simply showing up and telling other people how I think they should do their work, but that's what this forum is for, right?  Everyone can weigh in, but only Ron & Vincent have admin rights, and you two are the deciders of what goes in and what doesn't.

[Ron Edwards]

Thanks David! I appreciate the points and this part of the forum is definitely active.

I would like the wiki not to be a mere catalogue of links, and I want all of its content to be in it, right there for reading. However, as an archival thinker and also in wanting credit where it's due, I do want as much of its content grounded in links as possible. Don't let that stipulation lead to get it backwards and think that the wiki's primary purpose is to send people through the links. It's not.

The current wiki content is hampered by being definition-oriented, which is necessary as a draft and development feature, but ultimately is not really the way it's supposed to be encountered and read. It should be simply readable.

Your points about techniques as the driver are debatable. I submit it seems that way to you after you gained perspective about Creative Agenda. However, I'm not sure the distinction matters much because one could quite easily approach the wiki from a techniques-centric perspective and do just as well, at least as I envision it functioning.

Best, Ron

[David Berg]

Ah, cool, it sounds like we're thinking along similar lines regarding the entries.  I wasn't able to see any of them, so I figured progress had stalled, but now it sounds like you're still working offline.  Whenever a draft becomes visible, I'm certainly happy to offer any feedback I can.

As for the niche of CA, I'm sure your point about my perspective being particular to me is valid.  At the same time, I think there's something to be said for focusing one's usability efforts on the content that will likely act as a user's point of entry.

If I were designing this, and I had limited time and energy for it, and I wasn't going to do everything perfectly before launch, the one thing I'd make damn sure of is this: People who show up with a vexing issue can quickly tell whether (a) there's one entry that addresses it exactly, (b) there's two or three entries that address it at least obliquely, or (c) nope, this Wiki doesn't cover that.  If people can't tell, then I'd be worried they'd quickly depart for good.  So that's what I'd focus a lot of my effort on: good categories of "how to" entries with titles that are clear when viewed as search results.

Maybe I'm completely wrong, and users will initially discover the Big Model Wiki for other reasons.  I realize that "what a lot of Dave's gamer friends and acquaintances seem to want" may or may not map to this Wiki's ultimate position among other online resources.  Just throwin' my two cents in there anyway.  Thanks for reading, and I hope to join some actual play chats soon!

Ps,
-David

P.S. One day you need to introduce me to this Steven Stewart person you keep confusing me with (I was the "bucket seats" guy, from here).  I've looked him up on a few forums (including the Forge) and found no trace of anyone by that name.