So I was chatting with Andrew Cooper at GenCon, and we were talking about how Capes falls apart if nobody brings the excitement to the table. It's like people come to a basketball court, put a basketball down in the middle of it, then sit around in a circle and stare at the ball. Eventually someone says (quite rightly) "This is stupid."
And Andrew said a wonderful thing, which I can only paraphrase: "In a normal game, everybody understands that it's the GM who brings the excitement to the table. In Capes, there's nobody singled out for that role."
That role.
Can you tell that I'm excited by this idea? Let me transmit that excitement to you.
As with many other roles that must be fulfilled in a game (provider of adversity, manager of pacing, resolver of conflicts) the role of provider-of-excitement (herafter Pep-Squad) is absolutely indispensible. This is where the gaming fun begins. If you haven't got it, you haven't got it. Period.
Centralizing other responsibilities will often (but not always) make people feel responsible for the Pep-Squad role. But I've certainly seen many games where the Pep-Squad is visibly one of the players.
Okay, you've got enough to run with here. Do you see it? Do you see it in your games? Do you see how to use it in your games?
Right now I'm talking about individuals, and what their excitement is. You want to know how excited I am, though? I think that this may be my Grand Unified Theory of gaming, starting right here. Because game systems and gaming techniques mediate the way in which excitement flows, rebounds and changes in a group. It mediates that flow of resource between the players.
I'll give one example (though I now see it everywhere). In my super-fast demo of Capes, I have a bunch of pre-made Conflicts, including "Humiliate Major Victory." I hand them out and say "Pick one of these to pursue." Then, if "Humiliate" doesn't come out, I put on the cheesy MV voice, and say "Give it up Iron Brain! You should know by now that Justice will always lead... to VICTORY!"
I kid you not, every single time I do this, people go back through the cards, pull out "Humiliate Major Victory" and replace whatever other goal they put down with it. Always with gleaming eyes and a predatory grin.
I've just taken my excitement (as semi-official Pep-Squad) and succeeded in infusing it into another player. Reliably! But if it were D&D, and I was being that obnoxious as a Paladin, I'd evoke no excitement in return. The Capes rules system creates a structure that lets me transmit that excitement effectively. All of our rules systems create channels through which excitement flows, increasing as it is transmitted. Keep those channels clear and wide and nothing else matters.
Hi Tony,
I hope you can see that you've paraphrased the Big Model.
No, really. Check out the first two pages of the Glossary and you'll see.
Best,
Ron
Yep! But, like I said, it's my Grand Unified Theory... the way of saying it for me that lets me get my mental grips around it, and communicate it to others.
Quote from: TonyLB on August 24, 2005, 09:46:58 AM
Right now I'm talking about individuals, and what their excitement is. You want to know how excited I am, though? I think that this may be my Grand Unified Theory of gaming, starting right here. Because game systems and gaming techniques mediate the way in which excitement flows, rebounds and changes in a group. It mediates that flow of resource between the players.
Ron,
Is this the core of what you're talking about? If it is, I think I suddenly understand the Big Model much better than I did.
Hi Andrew,
Yes, it is. Go and read those pages yourself. Spend a little time thinking about reward systems, and contrast (say) L5R with (say) The Mountain Witch. Don't twist yourself into knots about identifying Creative Agendas. Then go post a lot in Actual Play.
Most people who grapple with the Big Model are trying to make it really hard and arcane so they can object to something. It's very easy.
Best,
Ron
Quote from: Ron Edwards on August 25, 2005, 09:14:33 AM
I hope you can see that you've paraphrased the Big Model.
No, really. Check out the first two pages of the Glossary and you'll see.
Whuh? (Checks the glossary to be sure.) Uh, I've never seen anything in the Big Model that says what Tony just said. At best, I can go back and liberally interpret statements in the Glossary to support this "pep squad" thing Tony's talking about.
And Ron is certainly the last person to try to get away with "well, that's what I
meant." So... now I'm just confused. Ron, could you elaborate or something?
Tony, I totally dig what you're saying, and when I think about actual games I've played, that seems to be a major factor in suck vs fun. That I've played more Capes than any other single game in the last year may have influeced this understanding, though. Wavelength or something.
Larry,
I'll give an explanation a shot.
Tony said this...
QuoteBecause game systems and gaming techniques mediate the way in which excitement flows, rebounds and changes in a group. It mediates that flow of resource between the players.
This is the Big Model in a nutshell. The model simply diagrams visually how the "excitement" or "fun" or what-have-you flows in a group engaged in the activity of role-playing. Dysfunction is when some part of the model is messed up and that flow doesn't take place. I don't think Ron was talking about a specific someone (the Pep-Squad) being the Big Model.
Hello,
Andrew's right. The Pep Squad is a good term for the (crucial) part of the Big Model that states:
a) Reward Systems are the heart of System
b) System is what makes Situation (the heart of Exploration/SIS) "go"
c) Group commitment to sharing the Exploration creates the SIS and reinforces its continuing to be created
d) The specific features of what the real people get out of this, specifically concerning the fictional events, nail (a)-(c) together as well as extending "deeper" into specific techniques and ephemera, in groups/families.
(d) is Creative Agenda. The Pep Squad is a good term for what makes Creative Agenda exist. It's why I consistently ask people in Actual Play threads what the real people said to one another, or how they looked at one another, about one another's statements about what characters did or said.
Best,
Ron
Ron,
Okay cool, I think that's sufficient for me to get it, but I'll have to stew on it a while. I keep wanting to bring Lumpley Diagrams into this.
I'll see if I notice these things at the game this weekend.
At least for me, however, while Big Model is interpretable in Pep-Squad terms, there are also fascinating practical "use this right now" type techniques that I get from Pep Squad. Probably because I can combine with other Big Model derivatives.
For instance, long ago I was struck by Vincent's description of how he demos Puppies: "So the kitten is in the blender. It looks at you with big, wide, innocent eyes. You don't... push the button, do you?" "YEAH! YEAH! We push the button!" "Eeeeeugh! You don't... drink it, do you?"
That, right there, is a tricky technique for transmitting maximum excitement. If you say "What do you do next?" then the other players have to be responsible for pushing the frappe button on a kitten. They don't know whether that's something that will be accepted or appreciated. That's a barrier, and even if they're excited about doing it they're not going to be as excited as if the barrier didn't exist.
Likewise, if you said "So you push the frappe button, right?" then you're not letting your excitement become their excitement. You're making your decisions, and acting them out through other characters, rather than sharing protagonization and credit. You're only being excited about your own contributions.
By proposing the solution yourself, but giving the other players full control and credit, you increase the percentage of your excitement which gets transmitted to the other players and returned as their excitement.
And, yes, CA coherency is a key technique (perhaps the key technique) for channelling excitement. If you are consistently directing your excitement toward things that do not excite another player in the table then it's like you're trying to have a conversation by shouting into a canyon. You'll never get their excitement redoubled back in return, only weak echoes of your own. You can waste a lot of breath that way if you're naturally excitable (like me). It's exhausting, not least because you have those moments where (because you've made a huge amount of effort) the weak echoes sound pretty good for a moment, before fading away.
It's a really wonderful illumination on the big model. Thanks for sharing Tony.
-Eric
That final paragraph was freakin' gorgeous, Tony.
Best,
Ron
'cept Coherence ends with an "e."
Quote from: TonyLB on August 25, 2005, 03:35:31 PM
If you are consistently directing your excitement toward things that do not excite another player in the table then it's like you're trying to have a conversation by shouting into a canyon. You'll never get their excitement redoubled back in return, only weak echoes of your own.
Just because it may be of interest to some: One of the key virtues in Swedish ensemble-play larps is (currently, at least) the ability to reflect the role-play of others. In Forge-speak, it is the idea that it's each player's responsibility to be receptive to the CAs of others, to heighten the experience for other participants than oneself. They're gunning for the same result as mentioned above, but from the directly opposite vector. Everyone yields in response to what the others require, not because they receive a weaker reception. So, in comparison, one there reduces one's experience in advance, but gains more feedback in return, which (for many players, but definitely not all) more than compensates for the loss .
-Jiituomas
That sounds positively awesome, Jiituomas. Can you give us some concrete examples of how that works? I'm grasping for something similar myself, but I'd love to hear if somebody else has already nabbed it.
Wow! It's times like these when RPG Theory reveals itself.
Yes, more, folks. Talk here. This is wonderful. And take it to Actual Play threads as soon as you remember something that applies.
Best,
Ron
I'll be quoting that actual play example many times in the future, I think.
I agree with everything except this conclusion: "I've just taken my excitement (as semi-official Pep-Squad) and succeeded in infusing it into another player."
I've thought (a variation of) that for many years. That I could make the players feel something, or put some feeling in them. Certainly I'd run games and parts of them would make the players excited. So, for lots of reasons, how do I make them excited again? Eventually as the efforts to make them excited failed, I lost part of my own sense of excitement. As you might guess, further efforts failed even more because of this, leading to me being even less excited. And so on in a gaming death spiral (of course, after not gaming for awhile the itch/the excitement would come back in all of us...only for the spiral to return as well).
This threads really clarified some thoughts. What's going on is that your providing a fascinating object and a conduit to it, through which others can explore it/interact with it. The other player is already excited about fascinating objects even before you provide it and already keen to explore/prod it *. What you've done is made them aware a fascinating object is present/available, and they see the means by which they can explore it through the rules (ie, the humiliate conflict). System certainly does NOT matter in terms of the players excitement in using that conduit. All system does is open it up so the player can interact with the object. It's a miss-association (I think) to link conduit with player excitement creation. It's like thinking that if you make a hole in a dam, the hole is somehow creating water. Rather than thinking the water comes through the hole, from another source. Or it might be like thinking the newly created hole makes the water on the other side of the dam suddenly come into existance. Atleast that's what this thread says to me now.
The key to the facinating object is the clear connection between you and it. I'd like to emphasise the importance of this by rambling on about it in an attempt to explain just what that means as a connection and how significant it is in terms of contact with something real. I'll save it for another thread though, and just leave it at the idea that it's really important. :)
The dark side of pep
Looking at some dysfunction around this region, I think you get that with "these rules don't let me get to what I'm really interested in, they just get in the way! To hell with rules, let's freeform!". Looking at it in this light, although you get to show what you'd like to invest in, this does away with a firm conduit by which other players can manipulate the fascinating object. I think I've just figured out what really bugs me about tossing away the rules! It brings in really interesting stuff, then neuters my ability to explore it/prod it to any significant degree. How frustrating...it's blue balling!
* Keeping in mind, they are always interested in something...it might not be the same sort of thing your interested in though. GNS helps to figure out who is aligned with your interests, at a broad level.
(I've experienced ensemble play just once, at "Moira" last weekend. But I hope one of the resident Swedes notices this thread and explains further. This is still a limited phenomenon, not even a completely acknowledged one, and only exists within a sub-set of larpers there.)
The is a few years old, and has some connection to the fact that same people see one another in games. So it's easier for them to read one another (a spaceship-larp, "Carolus Rex", played in a real submarine was stated by some as a key starting point of the movement). Furthermore, character creation happens through "group templates" which the players then semi-jointly fill with personal stuff until each concept becomes a character in its own right (as opposed to getting a complete character description from game designers).
These factors create a base where it's relatively easy to start reading the playing style of other players, especially on the general level. In any discourse it becomes quickly obvious whether someone is strongly dramatist or character-intensive, for example. A good player ("good" according to those criteria, anyway) then reacts to what she reads, and provides what she sees as supporting the other's playing style the best. The things that have most potential to develop in the hands of the player being read. As the other player does so as well, both benefit even though they initially had to play less intensely in order to take such meta-level considerations into account.
This system favors drama-oriented and environmentally immersive players (the latter are those people who play larps primarily to feel the sense of being somewhere else, of "living within the fantasy" for a while), but is acceptable to most. Especially when two or more hard core dramatists meet in-game, the results transmit to a heightened game experience for all present, even those not directly involved in their discourse. The downside is that for heavily character-immersive players such as myself, playing "well" according to this system means giving up a part of what I love most in larps, and thus it doesn't work for me /when I'm directly involved/ (it works wonderfully when I'm affected by others doing it, of course). Furthermore, the system isn't often acknowledged, so that ensemble outsiders may not even know that they have to read the others as much as they do. A funny side effect of ensemble play is that this is one of the few playing styles where it's actually possible to play Nordic experientalism stuff with a gamist approach: in return to your accepting that your victories are fixed and will have to fit the game's structure flawlessly, the other players will provide the triumphs you desire for you.
Basically you can sum it all up, to a stereotypically Swedish culture -seeming maxim, as "It's each player's responsibility to make sure every other player in the group has a good game, even if that means giving away a part of the intensity of your own game experience. If everyone does the same, you get more back in return than you initially gave." (Love-bombing -style larp, the religion analyst in me would say. :)
When I'm less busy, I'll post a couple of examples on Actual Play.
-Jiituomas
"Responsibility"? I suppose. But doesn't that word have a lot of burdensome, joyless connotations? I listen to other people because they say brilliant, fascinating, surprising things, not because I have a responsibility to suppress my own desires in favor of theirs.
It seems (correct me if I'm wrong) that you're talking (a) about being excited about what I'm doing in the game, but also (b) being excited about what (say) Jordan is excited about in the game. Because, of course, Jordan got excited about something in the first place in hopes that it would spark further excitement in me. So by taking the time to listen actively, I help to close the feedback loop of excitement (Jordan -> Me -> Jordan) plus I validate Jordan as a human being and a friend by listening and understanding.
Quote from: TonyLB on August 26, 2005, 03:16:21 AM
But doesn't that word have a lot of burdensome, joyless connotations? I listen to other people because they say brilliant, fascinating, surprising things, not because I have a responsibility to suppress my own desires in favor of theirs.
That's precisely where the ensemble approach differs from the typical gaming approach. It's indeed the /responsibility/ of each players, which is then rewarded, not a situation where my excitement in the game creates a positive feedback loop as it encounters yours. So the idea is indeed to suppress your own desires so much that you can give everyone else more. In return, they are supposed to give you more. What is created is a larp that somehow seems both more and less intense than a game working on the more individualistic style of interplay. For an ensemble-play first-timer, it can be thoroughly unsettling (if you have a fixed idea of how a game should be experienced) or very welcoming (especially if you're new to larping). It's also a noted fact that some players are simply unable to enjoy a game where they have to suppress their desires, and some others find it weakening their game experience, meaning that the method isn't suitable for everyone.
-Jiituomas
I'm confused by the distinctions you're drawing.
Are you offering "show no interest in other people's material" and "suppress your own desires" as the only two possible choices?
Or are you actually arguing that, between the choices: "show genuine, excited, interest in other people's material" and "show duty-bound, joyless interest in other people's material" the latter is better?
You've only been in one of these LARPs, right? Can you give some illustrative examples (perhaps over in Actual Play) of this principle in action?
Remove the word "only", above. That was early-morning dead-brain of me. You have been in one of these LARPs, yes? You are, therefore, the de facto expert for this conversation. If you've got Actual Play moments to describe, I'm all ears!
There's now one personal experience (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=16549.0) on the Actual Play forum, to provide an example.
Tony is correct in that I've only been exposed to the method for one three-day game plus the about 10 hours I spent discussing its differences with character-conscious ("selfish") playing with the local players and game designers. So I'm in theory versed with the idea, but am still very much an outsider. What I do know is that it's not better for the kind of larp themes I prefer to play (and create in my own works), but it certainly seems to fit people who have a narrativist/dramatist approach to larping.
-Jiituomas
First off:
Quote from: J. Tuomas Harviainen on August 26, 2005, 01:55:28 AMa spaceship-larp, "Carolus Rex", played in a real submarine
That is too fucking cool for words. How easy is it to immigrate to Sweden? Roleplaying on real submarines!
To the topic at hand, though: I think I get what you're saying, Jiituomas -- it's part of the social contract that all players are expected to try and puzzle out what the other players want, and serve them up some good stuff. Sort of like the traditional GM role of 'figure out what the players want and make a plot about that' except with twenty-or-more players doing it simultaneously, your success rate will be much higher than the GM figuring and balancing everyone at the same time I'm going to take a wild leap and guess there's a lot of female players involved -- us boys aren't that interested in (or good at) discerning others' interests and intentions, but I can certainly see it as an element of the metagame. It probably also creates powerful rapport between players who 'get' eachother.
Sounds like MUSHing, actually. Adam? Sound familiar to you? Lots of MUSHers end up playing with the same people consistently, and fall into groups of folks who feed off eachother. Out-of-game conversations also reveal and align interests in specific authors, genres, movies, and the like.
Tony, I agree that the word 'responsibility' has some negative connotations to it, but I also don't think it's too far to say that when gamers sit down at a table, they are assuming a set of responsibilities -- most of these are things like "be nice" and "don't exclude one player" or "protect everyone's niches". It's not too much of a stretch to define some of that positively: "listen to your fellow players, see what they respond to, serve up what they're looking for." This can also certainly be reinforced mechanically -- player-driven reward systems where you give folks points/xp/dice/whatever for doing something "cool" is nothing more than communicating to the table what you like, after all. Now we just need to systemitize rewards for
providing opportunities for other folks to shine, too.
If your busy supressing/hiding your own desires and trying to figure out what someone else wants, your going to have a hell of a hard time. Just as much as someone else is going to have a hard time figuring out your hidden desire, your going to have a hard time figuring out theirs.
I'm playing this way...I can see it now!* Everyone hiding what they want in the interests of a better game...but if everyone does it, it ends up a mexican stand off/dead heat. Everyone sort of tensely staring, looking for the slightest sign of desire in someone else, while doing their hardest not to give away their own desire.
What you need to break the stand off is a selfish bastard** who just does what he wants (within rule constraint) and then everyone else just runs in and supports him. This is the only way the above 'watch everyone elses desires/hide your own' rule works...if someone can break it and be the exception to the rule (everyone can take turns at doing this via some distribution method, of course). Of course, usually no one can break it. Since if they do, no one rushes in to support the selfish git. It's thought only the 'watch everyone elses desires/hide your own' rule is good roleplaying. This git is obviously a bad roleplayer, to this line of thought.
The selfish bastard ties in with the pep squad position I think!
* Must work up some clear actual play accounts.
** Jokingly overstated.
Quote from: Callan S. on August 27, 2005, 12:32:09 AM
If your busy supressing/hiding your own desires and trying to figure out what someone else wants, your going to have a hell of a hard time. Just as much as someone else is going to have a hard time figuring out your hidden desire, your going to have a hard time figuring out theirs.
The Swedes actively involved in this way of playing had a lovely word, something like "playing by ear" to descrive how it works. (Apparently) the trick is in learning how to give as much as possible while still staying as closely true to your character and your own desires as possible.
Think improvisational jazz: Instead of playing your own tune that gets close to what the others do but would be dissonant, you transform your idea slightly so that it fits in to the music. In return, the others will adapt their playing slightly so that your contribution is intergrated as well as possible. This gets repeated whenever someone wants to bring in a new thing - if the thing requires adaptation, that is. That last part is very important. In a well-designed game, the suppression may not demand much of you - for instance, in my Actual Play example, I simply did not choose the most likely pattern, but I stayed well within the confines of the character I'd been given. To do otherwise would be a betrayal of the game designers' vision.
QuoteWhat you need to break the stand off is a selfish bastard** who just does what he wants (within rule constraint) and then everyone else just runs in and supports him. This is the only way the above 'watch everyone elses desires/hide your own' rule works...if someone can break it and be the exception to the rule (everyone can take turns at doing this via some distribution method, of course). Of course, usually no one can break it. Since if they do, no one rushes in to support the selfish git. It's thought only the 'watch everyone elses desires/hide your own' rule is good roleplaying. This git is obviously a bad roleplayer, to this line of thought.
You're very right here, but only as far as a worst case scenario is concerned. In a game done well, it never happens, since the characters and situations tie in to support one another most of the time, and when they don't, the suppression needed isn't too much. In addition, external events break the suppression processes and force direct character-to-situation relationships to appear. Under this system, a good player is one who is able to stay true to his own character and its connective social network while also being able to play by ear. Too much and too little suppression is in such cases "bad playing".
It's also worth noting that in such games, (I've been told) it's quite common that players of character groups negotiate within their groups before the game on intra-group systems for helping others experience more, and then /integrate those systems into their characters/, so that much of the time in-game, they can provide what is needed by simply playing their characters /as they are/. ("Your Troll needs a translator availlable, so that you can both experience and convey his slow-mindedness better. So we'll write that my Sylph often likes to hang in the company of people who can protect him when he foul-mouths someone. And I'd like to emphasize the predatorial aspect of my Sylph. Since your Troll needs to drive humans from his lands, can we define in advance how he usually does that, so that when you speak of it to others, I can tie in talk about my character's experiences in hunting humans?")
-Jiituomas
Quote from: Callan S. on August 27, 2005, 12:32:09 AM
I'm playing this way...I can see it now!* Everyone hiding what they want in the interests of a better game...but if everyone does it, it ends up a mexican stand off/dead heat. Everyone sort of tensely staring, looking for the slightest sign of desire in someone else, while doing their hardest not to give away their own desire.
This is why I've been gushing all over Capes. The game basically forces you to jettison this style of play. If you're not properly communicating your desires to the other players -- thus giving them an opportuny to create opposition to those desires -- the game just sits there like Tony's basketball.
Hey, maybe all the "Is Capes a G/N hyrid?" fuss is actually just observing "Pep" and deciding it must be "Step On Up."
Jiituomas: I guess what I'm not getting is the notion that suppressing your own desires is necessary to help you show excitement for the works of other people.
Basically, I see four mathematically possible interactions:
- Adam suppresses his excitement about his own contribution, in a way that blocks Bob from doing his thing (Callan's stand-off play)
- Adam gets excited about his own contribution, in a way that blocks Bob from doing his thing (near-zero-sum, selfish).
- Adam suppresses his excitement about his own contribution, in a way that gets Bob excited at the same time. (near-zero sum, selfless).
- Adam gets excited about his own contribution, in a way that gets Bob excited at the same time (Pep Squad).
I get the impression that you think only the near-zero-sum is possible: that in local play, any increase of
your excitement must create a corresponding (though perhaps not equal) reduction in someone else's excitement. I'm going to move beyond that, but seriously, if I've got it wrong do correct me. It's only an impression, I won't be offended.
In my experience, the near-zero-sum game arises from certain
modes of excitement. I'll highlight three functional modes (there are some negative-sum-game modes that are just odious, and if I were doing an exhaustive essay, as I may some day, I would get into them, but not today):
- Entertainer Mode: "I'm going to do something so cool that everybody will be amazed by watching it."
- Spectator Mode: "I'm going to be amazed by watching the cool things other people do."
- Riffing Mode: "I'm going to do something so cool that everybody will be forced to be cool and respond to it, which I'll be amazed by watching."
Obviously, Entertainer and Spectator go together like ... two things that go together really well. If you have LARP players who are switching back and forth between Entertainer Mode and Spectator Mode then you are going to have a near-zero-sum game in terms of excitement. Their excitement about their own stuff will be high in Entertainer Mode. Their excitement about other people's stuff will be high in Spectator Mode. So they can reduce their self-excitement to increase their excitement about others, or vice versa. And, probably, the amount that they increase excitement (when properly played) is more than the amount they reduce excitement, so while it's near-zero-sum it's not
actually zero sum... you don't capitalize on every moment of fun, but you capitalize on more (overall) than you would if nobody were in Spectator mode.
This avoids the dreadful head-butting that happens when two Entertainer Mode people go at each other. "Sit still and watch my uber-cool stuff!" "NO! You sit still and watch
my uber-cool stuff!" "You selfish jerk, you're ruining my fun!" And I'm all for avoiding that heart-ache. Yuck!
But swapping between Spectator and Entertainer mode fails to get to the productive head-butting that happens when two Riffing Mode people go at each other.
Quote from: Riffing-Excitement in action"So, you value Peggy Polyphone? Well I've got her trapped in a laser cutting machine! What do you say to THAT?"
"You FIEND! That rocks! You think evil's cool, huh? Well by rescuing Peggy I will show that justice will always lead... to VICTORY!"
"Oh, the hell you say! Very cool. Like Justice, do you? Well sure, you've rescued Peggy Polyphone. But now it turns out that I've brain-washed her to be a villain! Will you pursue justice even at the cost of opposing her?"
"URRRGGGGH... nice play! I... I... YES, Justice is more important that personal feeling. I smack her across the chops!"
"Oh wow... that's quite a statement for him."
"Yeah, isn't it just?"
So here's my position: Whether rightly or wrongly, when I hear things like "It's your responsibility to listen and figure out your fellow players" or "You suppress your own desires in order to help other people achieve theirs" I hear echoes of the near-zero-sum game of Entertainer/Spectator modes of excitement. And I think that's very functional. It's just that I like the full-bodied flavor of Riffing-Excitement so much better than I wonder whether folks who do Entertainer/Spectator realize that they can have Riffing as an option. Does that make sense?
p.s. If I haven't boggled people with terminology (a big "if") maybe we can also split off a thread to talk about how rules systems encourage and facilitate particular modes of excitement, and how they link them to particular roles (GM-Entertainer and Player-Spectators, for instance).
The entertainer set up (my personal approach in relation to it) - I've tried to move away from that style because it's just me having my own way. It's something I can do all by myself. If I were fascinated by Major Victory for example, I could sit at home thinking of how he'd beat all the bad guys just the way I wanted him to (I might write fiction about him...possibly end up publishing something about him).
I could entertain these people with just what I like, but it's just showing off something I'm making all by myself. Why am I inviting the input of these guys if I just want to do that by myself?
MOST importantly, if I'm going to have to do all the entertaining from start to end, then I want and NEED to be doing exactly what I like from start to end. Any input from other players will only interrupt what I like doing. Take Tony's example of the Major Victory speech...imagine him saying 'Justice always leads...' and then another player cuts his sentence short, to say he's leaving the room so he can examine a particularly interesting tree outside. While Tony is left thinking 'Why? Why cut in then? Just let me finish what's important to me!'. Tony's example of what he cared about only takes a few seconds to finish. But the role of the entertainer is to entertain for a whole session. It takes a whole session for him to finish what he cares about. Until then, players can only interrupt what he likes doing, unless they try and do exactly what he envisioned (illusionism/participationism).
I'm totally seeing this now!
I've been continually trying to reject that style of play during my career. But the style I try to head to has it's own problems. Let's call it cold start riffing.
Basically how it works is the GM is setting out to make the players get excited. However, the GM doesn't inject into the game what he himself finds exciting because A: Play should be about what the players find exciting and B: If as GM I do what I find exciting, I'll need to do it from beginning to end (which leads to the illusionism above)*. So the GM is showing zero excitement (the opposite to Tony's Major Victory speech, which shows lots of excitement for something). This gives the players nothing much to get excited about. If the players aren't excited about anything and the GM isn't excited about anything then absolutely nothing happens.
I've noticed this previously in my own group, how play has to go through 'warm up' before we are really playing. Pre-prepared material is entered into the game with a sort of shotgun strategy in mind, in that with enough prep fired into the game you'll 'hit' something and make a player excited.
And over time you do score hits. Depending on the time between 'hits', the players excitement starts to build. At this point the GM's excitement starts to grow because of the players energy. This feeds back to the players, who start getting more excited about the game stuff. This builds up over time and eventually makes an enjoyable game. The problem is these days, by the time we get there we're exhausted. Eight hour sessions aren't possible for us as adults, only two hours. Another player actually said to me once that it feels to him like we've only just begun when we stop. Two hours just isn't enough for cold start riffing to get anywhere really satisfying. Not to mention I hate the prep. The shotgun strategy means so much gets used up to no effect.
I was going to have a wild stab at how Tony's Major Victory example differs wildly from this. But instead, what does everyone else think the difference is?
* I have to do it from beginning to end, because when I write a beginning I'm interested in I'll end up wanting a certain type of ending to go with it. The only way I wont want that, is if I'm not interested in the beginning.
Quote from: TonyLB on August 27, 2005, 10:18:22 AM
I guess what I'm not getting is the notion that suppressing your own desires is necessary to help you show excitement for the works of other people.
I'm saying it isn't. What has been presented here has simply been an alternative way of getting more excitement, one that works on different principles and in different circumstances from what most players seem to be used to. FOr some players it's better, for others it's worse. Simple as that.
QuoteI get the impression that you think only the near-zero-sum is possible: that in local play, any increase of your excitement must create a corresponding (though perhaps not equal) reduction in someone else's excitement. I'm going to move beyond that, but seriously, if I've got it wrong do correct me.
No. I'm demonstarting a system where people try to avoid conflicts between the different playing styles (vall them CA or not) by training participants to be less obsessive about them. I for one prefer the riskier "excitement breeds more excitement" method most people are familiar with.
QuoteIn my experience, the near-zero-sum game arises from certain modes of excitement.
It also rises from what one might call experiential modes (immersive attitude on narrative, character or environmental elements, or some combination of those (http://www.laivforum.dk/kp03_book/thats_larp/multi-tier_immersion.pdf)) come in conflict with one another and/or the modes you describe, for example a character-immersive obsession comes into conflict with an entertainer. In many games this would not be a problem, but you have to understand that the Swedes invented the ensemble style precisely for games where the experiential factor is much more important than in, say, a general fantasy or assassin larp.
-Jiituomas
Quote from: Riffing-Excitement in action"So, you value Peggy Polyphone? Well I've got her trapped in a laser cutting machine! What do you say to THAT?"
"You FIEND! That rocks! You think evil's cool, huh? Well by rescuing Peggy I will show that justice will always lead... to VICTORY!"
"Oh, the hell you say! Very cool. Like Justice, do you? Well sure, you've rescued Peggy Polyphone. But now it turns out that I've brain-washed her to be a villain! Will you pursue justice even at the cost of opposing her?"
"URRRGGGGH... nice play! I... I... YES, Justice is more important that personal feeling. I smack her across the chops!"
"Oh wow... that's quite a statement for him."
"Yeah, isn't it just?"
Tony, in your example you're including where the players are tuning into eachother as well as throwing out what they're interested in. That is, they're saying "You think evil's cool, huh?" or "Like Justice, do you?" I think that's an important element that is getting some seriously short shrift here. In addition to doing what you think is cool, you really need to try and figure out what the other player thinks is cool. It's then and only then that you can connect what you think is cool and what they think is cool. Otherwise you get this:
Quote from: Me me me Play"I've got Peggy Polyphone in a laser cutting machine!"
"You fiend! That laser cutting machine was made by poor, eyeless children in southeast asia!"
"...uh... yeah, and it's going to slice up Peggy Polyphone!"
"Where did you get that machine? What company made it? Where are its factories? I'll go rescue those poor children!"
"You do that, and I'll, uh, put this machine on pause until you come back."
Hi Joshua,
Keep in mind you don't automatically know when to say what your excited about and when to probe for what other people find exciting. If everyone probes for everyone elses excitement, nobody finds out anything (everone is probing and not expressing what they like) and you get a dead heat. If everyone expresses what they want, they but heads dysfunctionally.
However, I think this is getting off topic a bit. The threads main focus is on someone bringing what they are excited about, to the table. If no one brings this, the game just doesn't happen.
Tony,
Just a thought, can the idea of excitement and personal investment be seperated?
Take your "Justice always leads to...Major Victory" speach. Imagine some else (player A) said that and player B goes "Kewl, I'm so gunna humiliate MV and see what happens!". That's basically player B's motivation to use the system. So he manages to pull it off system wise and humiliate MV. Player B then turns to A and...player A is just sitting there, watching what B has been doing. A was excited about making the speach...but had no personal investment in MV, so he wont actually respond once B drops the humiliation on MV. Player A just wanted to add the idea and watch other people get excited about it.
No responce from player A means no excitement feedback to player B and the excitement feedback loop is broken.
My example isn't that great. But can you imagine someone being excited about introducing an element into play, but wont respond in interesting ways in relation to how that element is treated?
Sure, I see that all the time. People get all stoked about what they can do, and how excited that will make others, but they don't actually get excited about the response, either because (a) they're being entertainers and have no interest in a response except as a sign that they've entertained, or (b) they're riffing, but they can't think of anything to do with the response they get back.
Quote from: Callan S. on August 29, 2005, 10:47:51 PMKeep in mind you don't automatically know when to say what your excited about and when to probe for what other people find exciting. If everyone probes for everyone elses excitement, nobody finds out anything (everone is probing and not expressing what they like) and you get a dead heat. If everyone expresses what they want, they but heads dysfunctionally.
We can't do both at once? I get that Tony is pointing out that we have to have some mechanism for introducing excitement. It's also important, though, that once that excitement is introduced, it also needs to be received. If we want to look at systems for bouncing that excitement back and forth, we need to recognize both the transmission and the reception.
Tony, thanks for this thread. I had never thought of being a Gamemaster as, "The Way of bringing excitement." I'm going to find that a very helpful way of seeing things.
I want to just poke at a few things.
I think that you and the Swedish Submarine Gamers (S.S.G.), are a bit closer than you realize. I think they've hit on sort of the same idea but are describing it in a different way. Jiituomas please correct me if you feel that my understanding of the underlying message in the S.S.G style is incorrect.
What I'm getting from Jiituomas is S.S.G's are basically saying, if you want to have a good game overall then sometimes you modify the way you play to increase the excitement for other players. It seems they are saying this is what good players do. That really seems similar to what you are saying, perhaps they just haven't got all the verbal tools that are laying around The Forge to work on things with. No insult intended to the Swedish, I'm mainly just complimenting The Forge.
As to some of the other discussion, the rest of this post is general and not aimed at any one person per se.
I'm unsure about the ability to codify a ruleset that brings excitement. I think excitement is something we can all understand, we can point it out and say, "look excitement.", but the roots of it can differ. I think it might be better to make games that excite us, and try to develop and discuss different techniques that we have found successful and not successful in creating excitement, to learn how best to get back twice what we give. Oh... wait... I think thats already what's going on.
-C
Actually, I agree that the SSG and I are far closer to the same wavelength than (say) either of us is close to the spectator sport that I see in a lot of mainstream gaming. So, yeah, it's largely a matter of really subtle distinctions between us, in terms of mindset more than what we actually do.
On the rulesets, though: I'm quite sure that we can codify certain techniques of excitement into games.
You can't codify "players will be empowered" into a game, it's too vague. But you can codify "Players will narrate the results of their own successes, rather than the GM doing so," and that's a technique that leads quite reliably to player empowerment.
Likewise, you can't codify "players will be excited" into a game. But you can codify (for instance) "When Player A is excited about proving a proposition against opposition, players will get off their duffs and provide her with the opposition she needs, but be excited about the prospect of being beaten (so that Player A gets to prove the proposition against opposition, not just get beaten down by that opposition)." That's a technique that works quite reliably to generate feedback loops of excitement ("Foolish whelp! You think that you can stand for virtue? I will show you that you are too weak to do any such thing!")
Does the concept of techniques to manipulate excitement ring true for anyone else?
Quote from: TonyLB on August 30, 2005, 12:41:38 PMDoes the concept of techniques to manipulate excitement ring true for anyone else?
Hell yes. A lot of this I've already got in piecemeal form in
Full Light, Full Steam -- I may need to revamp (again) to include it more explicitly.
Quote from: c on August 30, 2005, 12:06:57 PM
What I'm getting from Jiituomas is S.S.G's are basically saying, if you want to have a good game overall then sometimes you modify the way you play to increase the excitement for other players. It seems they are saying this is what good players do. That really seems similar to what you are saying, perhaps they just haven't got all the verbal tools that are laying around The Forge to work on things with. No insult intended to the Swedish, I'm mainly just complimenting The Forge.
(First, in all honesty I must admit that I broke into hysteric laughter when I read that. No offense meant, though. Simply a cultural issue.)
So first of all (and highly off-topic, at least in some sense), it must be stated that among this group we have been briefly discussing here are some of the most experienced larp designers and analysts in the world. Seriously. They're approaching the issue from a combined "fine arts, larp-without-tabletop-connections" angle instead of academic analysis, however, which means it's occasionally quite hard to translate their ideas to the rather tabletop-oriented Forge. (For some descriptions of what you're dealing with, see here (http://www.ropecon.fi/brap/ch18.pdf). To say they lack the vocabulary is like saying a poet understand less about humanity than a sociologist does. There's at least as much conceptual work present in that discourse as there's on the Forge. The words used are just very different.
More on-topic: What sets this particular approach apart from typical /momentary/ suppression so common among role-players (or any sane discourse participant, really) is that it has become standard practice among them. The permutations that arise from everyone sharing the same yielding attitude are something not seen before in such scale, and thus bear watching. In some sense, they are a clear indicator of role-players actually breaking what's called CA here, and thus form an important exception to what is usually considered the norm.
What is most important (in my opinion) in all of this is the observation (or, more precisely, re-introduction) of the fact how much reception affects the gaming experience, both for the recepient(s) and the person who is actively introducing a game element. And furthermore, how there's apparently a level of receptive, supportive yielding affecting the process that is more a question of social contract than an intrinsic value - despite how it's usually depicted. The logical way forward from this observation isn't to debate how much is optimal where, but rather how we can take advantage of the differences and create systems (both reward and otherwise) that facilitate the optimization.
-Jiituomas
Quote from: TonyLB on August 29, 2005, 11:15:22 PM
Sure, I see that all the time. People get all stoked about what they can do, and how excited that will make others, but they don't actually get excited about the response, either because (a) they're being entertainers and have no interest in a response except as a sign that they've entertained, or (b) they're riffing, but they can't think of anything to do with the response they get back.
(a) is what I was getting at. But I was thinking of it in contrast not to (b), where the person tries to
think of a responce. Instead, I was meant where the player
reflexively reacts to the other players responce. It's reflexive, because there's such a personal link between the player and the imaginary character/thing. When there's that link in another player, it's a really big draw to play and find out what reactions you can get in interacting with that character/thing.
As opposed to if the character/thing is just some numbers the other person gave to try and entertain you.
Callan: Agreed. My "(a)" and "(b)" were two different failure modes, where the feedback cycle of excitement breaks down. You're talking about a success, right?
Both (a) and (b) are in contrast to the successful transmission of excitement.
I'd generalize beyond that, though: it's not as if the fictional character is a separate person that you can get excited, who will in turn get their player excited. The character is the player's vision of their own contribution to the game, made manifest. So what have you done, to the player, when they reflexively respond because of their link to the character? I would argue that you have clearly demonstrated that you understand that creative vision. That alone is enough to get people very, very excited.
Again, with emphasis: Merely showing somebody that you understand their creative vision will get them excited. Anything that you actually
do with that understanding is a bonus. It is a sad commentary on much of people's past roleplaying that they can get utterly worked up just by the idea that anybody else in the world understands what they're getting at through play.
I want to cite some examples, though, lest people think I'm talking about only the huggy-puppy-bunny-flowers version of understanding someone else. Say I come upon someone who is describing everything about their character in terms from adolescent male anime: the big eyes, the peppy "Hai!", the spiky hair. I can show my understanding of their vision in several ways:
- Support: "And a huge swatch of his hair falls over one eye, but he can still see perfectly well, right?"
- Expectation: "Wow, that's one big monstrous bruiser we're facing. Go, lanky and effeminate martial artist! You're the perfect person to take him!"
- Opposition: "Now that your character has been beaten to the edge of collapse, I'm creating a conflict. If I win then the character has no secret finishing move, no sudden access of power to save the day. He just falls over. So, roll dice, let's go!"
These are some of the "What can you do with the understanding" things I mentioned above. But my point is that any of these three shows, unmistakably, that I've recognized and understood the anime theme that the other player is trying to convey. Even when I'm providing the opposition that might prevent him from realizing that vision, I can only do it because I understand the vision so well.
Tony:
QuoteDoes the concept of techniques to manipulate excitement ring true for anyone else?
QuoteMerely showing somebody that you understand their creative vision will get them excited
Yes and yes. This whole thread is great. Validating someone's contribution and personal expression is such a positive reward, they will contribute and express more. (This reminds me somehow of a thread of Emily Care's ages back, about how you inflate the basketball. Wish I could refference it better)
Yep Tony, that's what I meant and new stuff I didn't know on top!
It reminds me of what I said in A Model for a CRPG? (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=16435.0).
Quote from: CallanI have the sneaking feeling that "someone/something taking those actions and adding to them so they provoke another address of premise from the player" isn't just desired for the greater fun it causes. In addition to that and more importantly, if someone can manage to do that, they must be really getting your address of premise. They wouldn't be able to twist the knife in the wound so expertly if they didn't understand the pain you've expressed. The more they are able to 'hurt' your PC, the more they must understand your PC's hurt.
I think this may be the reason there is resistance to the idea CRPG's are really roleplay. It clearly lacks another person understanding you like this, of course.
But how about the thing in question being tied to the player in another way? What about if they fear something, and want to bring it into play to somewhat confront that fear? I started thinking about this when I recently read Tunnels and Trolls. I looked at where it got all GM-fiaty and thought "Oh great, this is where I as GM have to work out all the mathematical bits of challenge". But then I read the monster creation section and the list of nasties the author says he has lurking in his imagination. And it sort of clicked to me, that rather than having mathematically precise CR like math, what if it was driven by what creeps you out as a person?
On the math side, you get two psychological rules controlling the monsters power. One is that your instincts tell you not to underestimate its power, or else. But on the other hand you want to see the horrible thing bested. Rather than concious
thought controlling the monsters mathematical power, these rather intense rules control it.
Now, in context with this thread: I thought at that point "But isn't that unbalanced?" and another part of me came forward and said "Yes, but THAT is balanced out by the fact you get to fight a real, wild horrible thing. Not just numbers. This fear is a real thing...you get to fight a real thing!" and then I said back "Hey yeah, your right! Damn, that is a good trade off! Sweet!"
QuoteAgain, with emphasis: Merely showing somebody that you understand their creative vision will get them excited. Anything that you actually do with that understanding is a bonus. It is a sad commentary on much of people's past roleplaying that they can get utterly worked up just by the idea that anybody else in the world understands what they're getting at through play.
HEY! I resemble that remark! :)