The Forge Archives

Hello everyone!

I've recently been trying to figure out what System really is. So I started off with the Lumpley Principle, as it defines what System is (according to the Provisional Glossary).

QuoteSystem (including but not limited to 'the rules') is defined as the means by which the group agrees to imagined events during play.

The Provisional Glossary suggests having a look at this thread, if I'm not mistaken.

From the actual wording of the Lumpley Principle and said thread, I came to understand System as being the sum of various sources of Authority given Credibility by the participants (who are the final Board of Approval). System is legitimate Authority.

So I was thinking about a few things and looking at the Big Model picture when suddenly I wanted to ask :
Are Creative Agendas part of System?

The CA arrow goes through the System label. Was this intentional? In the Provisional Glossary, this isn't very clear.
It says that CA is expressed mainly through System. But is CA part of System or beyond it?

It seems to me, according to Lumpley's Principle, that CA is just another part of System.
Having defined a specific CA, participants are going to agree to play imagined events that tend to fit the CA. They deliberately choose to put aside other priorities in favor of the chosen one and they now have a solid reference for this choosing, as it depends on their definition of the CA.

This could perfectly describe all those groups that aren't conscious of the formalities of the Forge. They might play incoherently from one game to another, because they haven't precisely defined what they're going to do (that's happened to the campaigns I've played in up to now, to some extent at least).
For us, CA could have been a source of Authority to guide our games, had we known about it (or some equivalent form) and lent it legitimacy/credibility. But we didn't and still played.
I believe that CA is the most important thing to agree upon and that it is an element of System. This became evident to me in my most recent games, where it was much clearer what CA we followed, and play went along smoothly (and still does).

Is this the way it's understood here?
If it is, well then all's fine and I can rest for a while :)

Perhaps I'm not getting the Lumpley Principle though, and in this case, I'd love to hear more about it.
Maybe CA is separated from System because it is not a means by which the group agrees to imagined events, but it is an outright guideline to what form those imagined events are goint to take, and System kicks in to iron it out and settle disagreement. But still, at least as a last resort, CA will work as System as well, IMO.

Either way, I need help from more experienced theorists!

Thanks ;)

Well, I disagree with your conclusion that CA is a component of System. To me, CA is an aesthetic. It's something you notice in retrospect, after reflecting on your play experience. System is the reality of affecting the SIS (Shared Imagined Space).

Ultimately, I think it's more important to have that smooth flow of play that you're presently enjoying, regardless of the hows and whys.

Quote from: ArtanisMaybe CA is separated from System because it is not a means by which the group agrees to imagined events, but it is an outright guideline to what form those imagined events are goint to take, and System kicks in to iron it out and settle disagreement.

To me, CA is not designated or sought through play action. It's more like a trend.

** ** **

I haven't had much success with having explicit discussions about CA preferences. But awareness of them and their variants (e.g. high concept Sim) has led to less unfamiliarity with other players' approaches to play, less resistance on my part and greater overall enjoyment in role-playing.

I have, however, been successfull in applying various Techniques and Ephemera (which, for me, have been synonymous in function and application). These I find suitable for knowingly, willfully making adjustments during play, and achieving clear, immediate results.

Hi there,

I'll clarify.

First, yes, the arrow of the Creative Agenda is deliberately placed through System, in the diagram. As long as the reader keeps in mind that all five components of Exploration are always linked, and never isolated, this is a useful concept.

I think that's why you're seeing CA as "being" System, Artanis. What you're seeing is how they're related, or rather, how CA links the group's collective imagining (Exploration, particularly the events of play) to what they actually do (Techniques).

In many ways, unless the group has some kind of shared CA, the Techniques being employed will either be a hodgepodge or they will not be satisfying to one or more of the people involved.

Does that help, or make sense?

Best,
Ron

Quote from: bcook1971Well, I disagree with your conclusion that CA is a component of System. To me, CA is an aesthetic. It's something you notice in retrospect, after reflecting on your play experience. System is the reality of affecting the SIS (Shared Imagined Space).

Ultimately, I think it's more important to have that smooth flow of play that you're presently enjoying, regardless of the hows and whys.

Hum... I see that I'm still very confused about all this.
I'm not sure CA is something I noticed in retrospect. I mean, systems are supposed to be written to support CAs, so if you choose a game, it's with a specific CA in mind.
And in my experience, if things are not somewhat defined, play will go in all directions, until ultimately it doesn't really satisfy anyone anymore.
When we play board games, we know that we're going to concentrate on tactics and strategy according to the game's rules, and one can always grab another game if they're looking for something else.
When we play RPGs, we know that we will have a story... and it will greatly be affected by the system, which in turn is here to express a CA. But if the group doesn't understant what CA is expressed by the system (by ignorance, bad system designe, or whatnot) it's going to be a bit muddy.

I agree that the most important thing is to let the game flow on depending on how we are enjoying it. But different CAs imply different forms of enjoyment, and when we start drifting, are we still sure everybody will enjoy it?
Maybe we concentrated too much on RPG in the begining, believing it was an "All-in-one" game. But that was surely wrong. Better play a bit less RPG and play other games that do their stuff better than rpgs, keeping role-playing for what we specifically want. And that we express through CA, before playing.

As for the tip on Techniques and Ephemeras, I'll have to learn more about what each really means and how they relate to the game, but I will definetly get to it, thanks for pointing it out!

Quote from: Ron EdwardsFirst, yes, the arrow of the Creative Agenda is deliberately placed through System, in the diagram. As long as the reader keeps in mind that all five components of Exploration are always linked, and never isolated, this is a useful concept.

Ok, I didn't realize how linked the components of Exploration really where. You might want to add a bit of emphasis on that aspect in the next glossary.

QuoteI think that's why you're seeing CA as "being" System, Artanis. What you're seeing is how they're related, or rather, how CA links the group's collective imagining (Exploration, particularly the events of play) to what they actually do (Techniques).

Hum... I'm not sure I'm understanding this very well. Any recommended reads for this?
CA gives guidelines to how system should make people agree, but doesn't help them directly to agree (on imagined events), and thus is not included in system? Still foggy to me :)

QuoteIn many ways, unless the group has some kind of shared CA, the Techniques being employed will either be a hodgepodge or they will not be satisfying to one or more of the people involved.

This makes perfect sense to me, as it seems to mean that people have to share the CA, and that can only be done consciously before play (or through adjusting it during play).
I don't explain to my players what priorities I'll put forward in my game using Forge terms, but I do it more and more in easier to understand terms (most don't share my taste for hardcore theory as much as I do :)) and I think we're beginning to get interesting results (but that's also because of a greater roleplaying experience we all have).
Interestingly, we play more one-shots and less campaigns now. Each one-shot being quite different one from another (in CA terms). It seems like my usual group likes variety, although maybe I'll be able to understand the most fundemental priorities better, by comparing the different sessions, retrospectively (is this what you meant Bcook?).

Quote from: Ron EdwardsIn many ways, unless the group has some kind of shared CA, the Techniques being employed will either be a hodgepodge or they will not be satisfying to one or more of the people involved.

This is a good reminder to me that CA directs Technique.

Quote from: ArtanisBut different CAs imply different forms of enjoyment, and when we start drifting, are we still sure everybody will enjoy it?

They probably won't. I didn't mean to suggest that sharing a CA (or at least, enjoying an intersection of it) is not desirable. It is. I was relating my experience in trying to get on the same page in my group, CA-wise.

Like you, I found they disdained any theory talk. IME, leadership during play, more than the game manual, defined CA. (That's not to say a game manual isn't supportive of a particular CA; it is argued here that well-written ones are.) And I got more mileage out of moving toward the middle, through a combination of imitation and divining intent (greatly assisted through my readings at the Forge).

Quote from: Artanis.. maybe I'll be able to understand the most fundemental priorities better, by comparing the different sessions, retrospectively (is this what you meant Bcook?).

Yes. Reading the essays and then reflecting on my play experience helped cement my understanding. (Not that it's perfect:)) That's what I recommend.

Hi Artanis,

Good discussion. I'm quoting the next line not to isolate it, but because we (including Bill) seem to be agreeing on the most important part.

You wrote,

QuoteCA gives guidelines to how system should make people agree, but doesn't help them directly to agree (on imagined events), and thus is not included in system? Still foggy to me

I think Bill's point about actual play is the right way to resolve the fogginess. You see, talking about CA is primarily descriptive. It's a bit weird or "off" to talk about a given CA as kind of being there like a magic agent in someone's head. It's far more useful to talk about concrete techniques, a concrete social contract/situation, and a concrete set of Explored Components. Then it's easy to say something like, "Obviously, we're playing Gamist" or "Oh my goodness, Incoherence," or whatever.

Maybe if I break it down like this ...

1. Let's say the group currently shares very strong agreement and enjoyment out of play - specifically, out of which Techniques they currently employ, what Ephemera are found in those Techniques, and so on. We can even trace it all upwards into the overriding Social Contract, and perhaps with squinting, into parts of that Social Contract which concern food, favors, etc.

2. Let's consider a unit of play in which pretty much all of System could be observed among most or all of the participants. System concerns character creation, multiple forms of resolution, and at least one full "cycle" of the reward system (whatever that entails for this game).

3. Is it reaching too far at least to look for an social-aesthetic standard, in terms of "why we play" or "how we have fun," in this group? I don't think so. Historically, when people do this, a pretty solid N, S, or G can be perceived, and in some cases (less than most people think), a distinctive combination of a couple of them.

So maybe the best way to look at it is, CA is not "something which makes us agree," but "the content or identity of our agreement in this particular case."

Unfortunately, in many cases, groups can't even start this because they're stuck at #1 - "Hey, we uh, don't really have much fun." Then another set of dialogues start up. But the questions you're asking imply to me that you're OK with #1 and that #2-3 will be easy.

The way to do that is to post in Actual Play. What's the last game you played? Or maybe, what's a great game experience that you recall? Or maybe, what's a real stinker that you recall? Describe it - socially, creatively, imaginatively, procedurally.

Then all this GNS-talk starts to work a lot better.

Best,
Ron

I'll be absent for a few days, and haven't yet quite fully understood and thought about your last two posts, Bill and Ron.

But I'll be sure to get back to it asap, and I'll also try to read more about Techniques and Ephemeras, I was perhaps too centered on System and CA, forgetting the rest.


There was one thing you didn't comment about, and that was my statement that System is legitimate Authority (as "decided" by the participants).
Is that in line with Forge theory, am I using improper terms (aka "saying the same things differently") or am I completely lost? :)

Oh, and thanks for helping ;)

In line. Proper. Not lost. :)

Ok, I think I'm getting this, very slowly :)

Just to get things right, Ron:
Are the three points you give three different instances of where we can attempt to glimpse the underlying CA?

Hi Christophe,

Point #3 is the step which reveals CA, and in many cases, it's not a "glimmering" at all but a huge shouting banner, once you know how to look.

Point #3 is only possible upon understanding points #1-2 first.

Best,
Ron

Ok, so once we get an idea of our CA for a given game, why not try to make it even more consistent, by conforming to it's idea (choosing techniques that fit better, choosing not to act in a certain way that would really mess up the CA, etc.)?

I know some people who are very fond of narrative gaming, but cling on to the "act as though I where the character, thus I have to ignore this fact I read in the setting book", even though it often isn't such a relevant aspect of narrative gaming.
If we agree on a given CA (for a given campaign for example), we can then use it to agree on some event resolution.

How is this not some part of System?

(I'm afraid to sound obtuse...)

Hi Christoph,

When that happens, the group is using their CA as a "gold standard" for deciding how to conduct play, which is System.

We call that "Drift," around here - altering the System (i.e. the procedures for what we really do in play) to fit a given CA, or specific combinations of CA, better.

I'm not sure if that answers your question, but perhaps it will help if I say that "System" is really what we do in play, the combined effects and relations among all the Techniques. The "rules" are a bunch of words on pages in a game book.

If we're using the rules as a basis for System, and not enjoying it much, then alter our System to enjoy it more, often that can be a good indicator of what sort of CA we would most prefer. As I'm sure you're aware, this is a very common practice among role-playing groups.

Best,
Ron

Quote from: Ron EdwardsWhen that happens, the group is using their CA as a "gold standard" for deciding how to conduct play, which is System.

Yes, this is precisely what I was trying to point at :)

QuoteWe call that "Drift," around here - altering the System (i.e. the procedures for what we really do in play) to fit a given CA, or specific combinations of CA, better.

So is it System or is it the drive that changes it?

Sounds like it's sinking in!

Hiya,

QuoteSo is it System or is it the drive that changes it?

There are too many "its" in that sentence for me to understand what you're asking. Can you re-phrase the inquiry for me, please?

Best,
Ron