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

[davide.losito]

I believe one of the main issue about understanding Creative Agenda is the difficulty some people has to think as a "group", to build a vision of an action in their mind in which they are but one part of the "agent" performing the action.
It's the vision of collectivity that is missing.

If you start thinking as a "we", rather than "I", you see that Creative Agenda is a lot more clear and easy to understand, because it is - in that very moment of temporary existence of a "plural" subject performing a... chorale action - the reason of existence.
I mean, like in a chorale, or group singing, every one is singing his/her different tone, and you cannot get the whole song or the harmony just by listening a single performer.
But when they all sing together, they sing chords, and you get the whole of the music and understand it.

So, as far as I can make this post clear without falling into theoretics, CA is the harmony of playing.
But there's people who insist in looking only at the melody of playing, so they fail to get the higher meaning.

This post is mainly for Rob

edited to change thread title - RE

[rgrassi]

I believe one of the main issue about understanding Creative Agenda is the difficulty some people has to think as a "group", to build a vision of an action in their mind in which they are but one part of the "agent" performing the action.
It's the vision of collectivity that is missing.
[CUT...]
So, as far as I can make this post clear without falling into theoretics, CA is the harmony of playing.
But there's people who insist in looking only at the melody of playing, so they fail to get the higher meaning.
This post is mainly for Rob

It's probably better to open a different thread since this one is reserved for Technical Agenda (rather than Creative Agenda).
In any case I have no problem to understand the choir metaphor (having been choir director).
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"). Creative Agenda is one of the most consolidated and agreed concepts so I'm pretty sure I'm the one with "the shortest straw". :)
Rob

[Ron Edwards]

The group/individual issue for Creative Agenda is actually very simple, because the answer is "necessarily both." It's only a problem if you start getting all wrapped up with irrelevant side-issues and abstractions. I found that sports provided a useful reference topic for explaining it. Here's a thread from 2005: Group vs. individual CA. For those who don't feel like perusing the old thread (and who could blame you, Nate was revealing years of misunderstandings across several threads at that time), here's the most relevant bit from my main post (note the typing error that left out the word "except," which I've inserted as intended below):

... it's fair to say "the teams compete," I think. Not a problematic phrase.

However, teams don't really exist except through individual agreements. And the rules don't apply or exist unless everyone, on both teams, buys into them and abides by them (with an unspoken proviso that certain breaches are "real" and others are "whatever").

So can't we say, "Hey, shouldn't we really be talking about individuals competing?" And yes, you can ... but in so doing, you're losing the particular social features of the level we're speaking at when we say "the teams compete." Just as when we say "the teams compete," we lose the distinctions among individuals and their particular approaches to the whole endeavor.

In normal, jargon-free, everyday, and (important) clear conversation, no one really has any difficulty with the distinction. If you want to talk about the individual's drive for competing, winning, and so forth, you let the social/group context exist as a given (perhaps specifying whether the guy was on board with it or defied it to show off, for instance). But if you want to talk about the teams and the game as a whole, then you let the individuals' details "ride," or again, bringing them in only as they affect the bigger picture.

That's how it should be with Creative Agenda. And that's how it is, in my mind. We can talk about an individual's CA if we're really talking about what they're doing, and not forget that the big context exists. We can also (and should also) talk about the group level, and not forget that the individuals exist.

I'm stating all of this merely to agree with Davide, but I thought I'd provide the older discussion as a reference point, and perhaps it will help if necessary.

Roberto, I definitely understand your frustration with your interactions about Creative Agenda. However, I can say very strongly that I do not use such arguments or pseudo-arguments upon people. People are always making it much, much more complicated than it is. If you want, I will be happy to direct you to some threads in which I explained CA to some very skeptical people in ways which worked well for them, specifically about games which they were playing, not in the abstract at all.

Given what you wrote, it also may not have been stated clearly to you at any point that not all role-playing, in practice, develops a Creative Agenda. The classic example would be a group of people in which most or all would like to have one, but their fundamental expectations are so different that they clash. Another, and perhaps just as common, is what we've called Zilchplay, in which play barely putters along on its Exploration alone, and not very well or with much reward if any, because people aren't putting in any shared effort toward Creative Agenda for a number of possible reasons.

So if someone is telling you, "You have a CA, you just don't know it," then (i) they may be right, (ii) they may be wrong because you do know it but use different language for it, (iii) they may be wrong because your group is full of CA-clashing and a variety of coping mechanisms to deal with it, or (iv) they may be wrong because your group carries out Zilchplay. I certainly would not presume to guess which is the case without knowing a lot more about your play in practice.

You also might be wary due to feeling labeled, as if once painted with a given CA, you are somehow branded or thought of as incapable of enjoying any other. I'm basing this possibility on historical reactions to the ideas which actually carry no such implication - this is not a Meyers-Briggs personality classification scheme, but a way to describe playing.

Finally, "instance of play" is fully and completely obsolete terminology. I can tell you more about that if you're interested, but the best way to do that is in the Your Stuff forum, if you were to describe more about your role-playing experiences.

Best, Ron

[rgrassi]

Thanks for the reply Ron.

The group/individual issue for Creative Agenda is actually very simple, because the answer is "necessarily both."

And I do agree. :)

I will be happy to direct you to some threads in which I explained CA to some very skeptical people in ways which worked well for them, specifically about games which they were playing, not in the abstract at all.

I'm not skeptical about the CA. I'm skeptical on myself about how I've read/understood of it and skeptical on others  about how it has been described/explained. So, I'd be pleased to read more about that, provided that he doesn't take too much of your time.

Given what you wrote, it also may not have been stated clearly to you at any point that not all role-playing, in practice, develops a Creative Agenda.

No, I'm aware about it.
Infact I wrote (note the italic bold):
Sufficient time spent on role-playing necessary to identify all features of System in operation (and so derive also... the creative agenda, if existing)

Finally, "instance of play" is fully and completely obsolete terminology. I can tell you more about that if you're interested, but the best way to do that is in the Your Stuff forum, if you were to describe more about your role-playing experiences.

Would the already posted "Pride and prejudice" play bit be enough? Should I go further?
Rob

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Rob,

It appears to me as if the group/individual issue is not an issue at all, which seems like good news to me.

Your more general concerns definitely call for more discussion, if that's what you'd like. I don't want to force it on you. If you want, however, then I ask that you describe some time you played, much as you did in the Pride & Prejudice thread, but this time, for a number of reasons, I'd prefer that you choose a game in which more people were playing, and the system was not in playtest but rather already published by someone else. I'm pretty sure you've played something besides your own designs.

Please briefly tell us who was playing, when this took place, the general social circumstances, and the game system being used. As long as the fictional events in play were pretty eventful, we will have plenty of material to work with. You do not have to describe everything at the start; even saying, "in one session, we captured the pirate ship," or "over three sessions, we planned our attack on the dragon's lair and eventually killed it," would be fine. I can always ask questions, so it's better to give me an overview rather than try to write an exacting journalistic report.

My goal is to show you the standards and ideas that I bring to assessing Creative Agenda for a given group at a given time. You don't have to try to assess it yourself at the outset.

We can keep going right here in this thread, which I will move to Your Stuff after we get going. Conversely, if you don't want to do this at all, then you don't have to, and we can end this thread here. Let me know which you prefer.

Best, Ron

[rgrassi]

Hi Ron. :)

Your more general concerns definitely call for more discussion, if that's what you'd like. I don't want to force it on you. If you want, however, then I ask that you describe some time you played, much as you did in the Pride & Prejudice thread, but this time, for a number of reasons, I'd prefer that you choose a game in which more people were playing, and the system was not in playtest but rather already published by someone else. I'm pretty sure you've played something besides your own designs.

My esperience with role playing is, actually, not so vast. I've mostly been a "voyeur" of rpg. Back in 80'-90's I've observed much more sessions than I played (you know, rpg was not my life... :) ). I played very few, as a player. Let's say 20-25 sessions. Mostly one-shot, or those never starting sessions of D&D. I remember (but you know, twenty years ago...) three sessions of CoC, two sessions of "Ken the Warrior" (from the japanese comic).
My time was more focused on computer based interactive fiction, graphic adventures, gamebooks and so on.
I got back to rpg and interactive storytelling in 2002, when I had to let my nephews play.
Would it be enough for you?
Or... alternatively I may count of sessions I've seen.
Rob

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Rob,

All I am asking is that you pick any experience of role-playing you've participated in, which you can describe fairly, using your own judgment, for the things I asked about.

Best, Ron

[rgrassi]

All right, one of my APs. Back in 1999 or 2000, don't remember well.
I was away from home, and had to spent some nights away in a town in the North of italy, for working reasons.
I had many friends over there, and the usually played rpg.
Don't remember if they were playing a campaign (but I think not).
Anyway, we decided to roleplay a little Cthulhu module. (Years later, I discovered it was taken from the "... minutes to midnight" series).
Time to roll for character stats and we started playing. It was basically a "haunted house" adventure.
I didn't knew the other players (we were 6, if I remember well, the keeper was a girl) except for two of them.
When playing, I remember that  my character was the most istintive and reckless (I discovered later that these are not good behaviours in CoC), but these led me to find some clues (don't ask me for details, or how the roll happened because I don't remember them. I only recall that we gave ourselves many five, because of my craziness in investigation (luck?)).
We completed the module in two sessions, my character got killed by the servants of the house (they were of course 'insane').

Cheers, Rob

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Rob,

Playing Call of Cthulhu with people who don't all know one another well is practically a subgenre of role-playing. It is often most successful when everyone present shares specific expectations, typically that play will be both humorous and creepy, that player-characters should be colorful and quirky, that player-character survival (physical or mental) is not a deep priority, and that the sessions will involve acquiring information and conclude with a climactic confrontation. Do you think that list describes the group's shared expectation in this case, at least to some degree?

I'd like to know more about what the woman who acted as the Keeper said or did to orient you, when you made up your character (or did someone else help you do that?). Was she also the person who organized the game, socially speaking? Was she one of the two people whom you knew before playing?

Playing an instinctive and reckless character is actually one of the greatest gifts a Call of Cthulhu player can provide for everyone else at the table. It means the Keeper does not have to drag the characters into finding clues as the players strive to keep them from being in danger, and it also means that one or more characters can come to horrible personal endings, which - at least in a lot of Call of Cthulhu play - is part of the fun.* Did you receive any positive feedback from anyone at the table regarding your character's reckless behavior? Or did they try to convince you to play more cautiously?

I need a little help with this phrase:

I only recall that we gave ourselves many five, because of my craziness in investigation (luck?)).

"... gave ourselves many five" isn't readable English, and my limited Italian doesn't tell me what you might be describing. Can you explain that phrase in more detail? I do understand that your character was conducting the investigation recklessly (and it sounds fun to me), which resulted in the group being in danger frequently. I'm curious about the specific details you might be summarizing with that phrase.

After the first session, how much information and danger had appeared, concerning the adventure/scenario? Had any player-characters been killed or otherwise badly affected enough to impair their effectiveness? Also, did the GM provide any experience points which you could then spend for the next session?

After the second session, what kind of social "finishing" events occurred? Did people simply pack up their things and disappear into the night, or did they interact socially for a while afterwards? Did anyone offer opinions or appreciation about the way others played their characters, or about the contents of the scenario? Specifically, did anyone express a liking for your character and for his (apparently understandable) unfortunate end?

Best, Ron

* One of my favorite last-words moments from a fellow player, regarding her character in exactly this sort of game: "No! I'm too rich to die!"

[rgrassi]

Hi Ron, thanks for reply.

Playing Call of Cthulhu with people who don't all know one another well is practically a subgenre of role-playing. It is often most successful when everyone present shares specific expectations, typically that play will be both humorous and creepy, that player-characters should be colorful and quirky, that player-character survival (physical or mental) is not a deep priority, and that the sessions will involve acquiring information and conclude with a climactic confrontation. Do you think that list describes the group's shared expectation in this case, at least to some degree?

Absolutely. At least from my side. Don't know about group expectations but I assume that you should be right. I was a guest player and we knew that that group was temporary (because of my presence).
In all honesty I don't know how much stable THAT group was (i.e. if the group was formed all by the same people. For sure I know that they played together. Don't know the frequency). We had fun. That I'm pretty sure.

I'd like to know more about what the woman who acted as the Keeper said or did to orient you, when you made up your character (or did someone else help you do that?). Was she also the person who organized the game, socially speaking? Was she one of the two people whom you knew before playing?

I didn't know her. I was helped by other players (including the keeper) to make up my character. The game was asked by me (why don't we roleplay, this night) and the other friends started some phone call to organize. She made the Keeper because, I imagine, she had the greatest expertise in doing so.

Playing an instinctive and reckless character is actually one of the greatest gifts a Call of Cthulhu player can provide for everyone else at the table. It means the Keeper does not have to drag the characters into finding clues as the players strive to keep them from being in danger, and it also means that one or more characters can come to horrible personal endings, which - at least in a lot of Call of Cthulhu play - is part of the fun.* Did you receive any positive feedback from anyone at the table regarding your character's reckless behavior?

Yes. Positive feedback by other players.
And about "give five". :)
I'm sorry. Maybe I've misused a statement.
"Give me five" is the english as-is translation of an Italian statement indicating assent and sharing between people. It's usually done to replace something like. "Good." "Well done." or "Keep going."

Or did they try to convince you to play more cautiously?

Mostly the Keeper.
But I didn't want to play cautiously and my character sheet supported this interpretation.

After the first session, how much information and danger had appeared, concerning the adventure/scenario? Had any player-characters been killed or otherwise badly affected enough to impair their effectiveness? Also, did the GM provide any experience points which you could then spend for the next session?

No experience point, if I remember well.
And no character died at the end of the first session.
I spot one of the evil creatures moving on the external wall of the building.. It attacked us in the library and we fought until its death.

After the second session, what kind of social "finishing" events occurred? Did people simply pack up their things and disappear into the night, or did they interact socially for a while afterwards? Did anyone offer opinions or appreciation about the way others played their characters, or about the contents of the scenario? Specifically, did anyone express a liking for your character and for his (apparently understandable) unfortunate end?

It was really late at night and we had to go to work next morning.
Most of comments were done while playing (including liking for my character and for other characters also).
Most of the social interaction after the play was to greet each other, hoping for another session.

* One of my favorite last-words moments from a fellow player, regarding her character in exactly this sort of game: "No! I'm too rich to die!"

Hehehehe... :)
That's fun.
Was he one of the Lehman?
Rob

[Moreno R.]

For "five", I suppose Roberto means what it's called a "High Five" in the USA.

[rgrassi]

Thank you Moreno! :)
Rob

[Ron Edwards]

This is fun! I am getting a strong and I hope accurate impression of the game.

Your English idiom was closer than I thought. In modern use, that expression usually includes the pronoun "me," as in "Give me five," or more typically, "Give me a high five." Or to make it harder, the Americanism "Gimme." I should have figured out what you meant by myself. The exact translation would have been "... giving ourselves high fives," which people would understand to mean "among ourselves." (whoops - Moreno got here first)

As a personal note: I love languages. I am not fluent in anything but English due to lack of practice, but I can function in three others well enough for native speakers to appreciate it (not Italian though, which has to be the stepchild of Spanish for me). Whenever I try to use them, I don't mind being corrected. I hope you don't mind me using a moment on this expression with you.

Now let's talk about the game! The worst thing to do is to begin with Creative Agenda. Instead, we should address Color and Reward.

Color is the vivid quality of the situation and the events, as you play them. Perhaps counter-intuitively, it is usually not accomplished by long, elaborate descriptions, but by providing brief introductory phrases, combinations of voice techniques and hand gestures, and specific details which prompt people to imagine more of them. It also includes specific images which carry a lot of social or cultural meaning. It is truly a shared phenomenon - it's not Color unless it's contributed to by both speaker and listener, even if the latter is quiet at that moment.

At the moment, that's the one thing I still need to know: what was the color like? Did you enjoy the images in your mind, during play? Did you use the color content provided by others as material for what you said, once in a while? In very few words, what was the Color? (Sometimes people use the Hollywood technique to describe it: "Pulp Fiction + Transformers!" Other people use two or three adjectives.)

Published Call of Cthulhu adventures are famous for the Color they provide in text. In some forms of playing that game, the Keeper's job includes conveying that textual content to the players in a way which leads the whole group to continue providing it - usually focused on the exact period of play (1920s New England, 1890s London, modern anywhere-in-America) and on the classical Lovecraftian imagery, or its gamer equivalent which probably owes more to Clive Barker and Stephen King. Did your group do it this way?

Reward is the genuine appreciation and joy found in doing and remembering something. You've described this quite well, and I'll try to articulate it toward the point of our discussion as soon as the Color is clearer in my mind. I am also oriented regarding what was not considered reward material, which is important too.

Best, Ron

[rgrassi]

Hi Ron. :)

Whenever I try to use them, I don't mind being corrected. I hope you don't mind me using a moment on this expression with you.

It's no prob. :)

At the moment, that's the one thing I still need to know: what was the color like? Did you enjoy the images in your mind, during play? Did you use the color content provided by others as material for what you said, once in a while? In very few words, what was the Color? (Sometimes people use the Hollywood technique to describe it: "Pulp Fiction + Transformers!" Other people use two or three adjectives.)

My perception of Color was pretty good.
Let say that I've been an avid reader/viewer of 'horror' related material, so it was pretty easy to me to imagine the "supposed color" provided by both the keeper and the play material.
Setting was 1920, IIRC, and the group was pretty good to keep and sustain the 'color'. I don't remember deliberate breaking of 'Suspension of Disbelief' (aside from the 'high fives' and out-of-fiction discussion).

Reward is the genuine appreciation and joy found in doing and remembering something. You've described this quite well, and I'll try to articulate it toward the point of our discussion as soon as the Color is clearer in my mind. I am also oriented regarding what was not considered reward material, which is important too.

I may imagine that something NOT rewarding was the possibility to break the game and leave a bad memory in the participants of the extemporaneous group.
Rob

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Rob,

Now we can really talk about Reward. To do this, we have to get away from the topic itself, which in this case would be the game-setting version of Lovecraft's fiction and the corresponding 1920s tropes. That's the subject, much as if we said, "We like swords." I want to talk about what's fun, good, and exciting in practice about the subject. For you and the others. In that game. You've given me what I need to talk about for that.

I can fairly say that competing to win, with the possibility of real-world loss, was not present. Superficially, it's clear that character improvement and its mechanics weren't involved, nor were concerns of character death which are unlikely in most Call of Cthulhu play anyway. Note, those are mechanics, i.e., Techniques, and that's why they are only a possible indicator of Reward, not Reward itself. More directly, as far as I can tell, the high-fiving and general appreciation you described were not directed toward maximally-tactical play, otherwise your reckless character would have been considered either bad play on your part (for team-based Step On Up), or simply losing.

Oh! That reminds me. 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. 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.

It strikes me that I'm getting ahead of myself. I have not yet worked through the identification of a Creative Agenda for you, nor for what it might be. The fact that Reward was present says, "there's an Agenda here." That was easy. Notice that my standards for observing Reward are actually quite high; merely successfully making an SIS isn't enough, for instance, nor "completing the story," or any number of other things which are limited to the Exploration level and just ... sit there, creatively and socially. Nor is the absence of dysfunction enough - I've seen too many groups in which the fact they don't argue is taken as the sole evidence for their awesome and wonderful experiences. Your game as described meets my standards.

What are the other possibilities? The setting and ideas underlying Lovecraft's fiction potentially offer some provocative content - for example, whether the generally traditional and positivist values of the heroes are rendered obsolete by their insights, i.e., whether the worshippers of the chaos gods are indeed "true religion." Or whether human values like kinship take on horrible forms when examined too closely. Such content can be loaded into play at all points as questions, making a given plot absolutely uncertain, as it is strictly emergent from unpredictable decisions during play itself (hence Story Now). But I don't see Reward for that kind of content in your game at all, and as a side point, any potential for it is glaringly absent in nearly every published adventure for Call of Cthulhu and in most play I've ever seen or read about. (Arguably, the game is far more August Derleth than H. P. Lovecraft.) That's a side point because we're talking about the actual play of your game experience, not the text, but it's worth noting in terms of what the texts are built to do.

As another side point, when I say "plot is uncertain" in that kind of play, I mean something pretty harsh - more than just "this character may die, or that one may die, I don't know." I mean that the story's point, what screenwriters call its spine and what playwrights call its heart, is only formed through play itself. Playing Story Now is very much like having sex with a large carnivorous animal* - you don't even know whether it's a good idea.

OK, so what else might it be? Fortunately another option exists which looks like it will fit, and not merely through process of elimination either.

What I see in your game is an ongoing, explicit, reinforced agreement about the SIS that cannot be threatened, but not only the five components of Exploration, rather, including any thematic or other content - in other words, such things cannot be  emergent, or if they are, they can't be a surprise. Basically, you all went into it saying, we love this about the Cthulhu Mythos, and you made it easy for me by choosing an example which relies on a specific body of fictional content. (Other approaches are possible and we can talk about that some other time.) Arguably the game books for Call of Cthulhu have no other purpose except to invoke that exact love for this exact thing, in an "on the same page" way.

Keeping such things so rigid instantly tanks any possibility of Step On Up or Story Now play, but it opens up another, quite challenging possibility for play: to stress-test that content, putting it into some other context or in the case of author-based content like this, subjecting it to a new authorship (ourselves). If we can add to or develop this beloved content, then we can also enjoy its resiliency against potential violation. At its least extreme, this is pure emulation. At its most extreme, it is parody. In between, you get modifications like "Lovecraft on a starship" or "steampunk fantasy" and so on. In all cases along that spectrum, the goals are just as I've stated.

The resiliency is what matters. When play hits a point when the beloved material is stress-tested, and it works anyway, that is fun! It confirms the love, and shows that the love is shared. Playing Call of Cthulhu is practically the gold standard for doing this "light," i.e., with the privileged content at maximum and the stress-testing set at a fairly low bar for success.

There's more to talk about in this topic, specifically something I called constructive denial, but right now, the question is whether any of this seems to apply to your game. The one thing about constructive denial which does matter is that the group is generally very careful never to mention the stress-testing, focusing instead of the beloved content even when their very actions are subjecting its limits to scrutiny.

The above paragraphs were modified from Ignoring the subjective, from 2005; see also Constructive Denial? from a month or so later.

So: ladies and gentleman, I present to you, The Right to Dream.

(You may be saying, "But Ron, this is nothing like the argument in your Simulationism essay," and I say, "Yes, Rob, I wrote that ten years ago and mainly to challenge people to provide me with something concrete, which they had failed to do to date. They finally did it by 2005.")

Best, Ron