Exclusivity of Creative Agenda

[Ben Lehman]

Arrgh! Why is it that every GNS thread these days seems to veer off into discussing "null play" of some kind?

BL>  It's a simple example, I think ;-)

... my question may really be, what would be symptomatic of a "new" creative agenda? I would imagine it would be that we would see all the other threads of the CAs, while still existing, subservient to some other creative drive, similar to how there are still elements of Gamism and Simulationism present in Narrativism, and so on. Does this seem like a reasonable jumping off point?

It could be a jumping off point for this question, sure. However, I tend to think more in terms of definitive and identifiable differences. In other words, for diagnostic purposes, a given Creative Agenda ought to be able to stand alone, without relying on features of the other modes.

BL>  But don't Gamism and Narrativism rely on a Sim bedrock?  Doesn't Narrativism contain some amount of OOG competition to produce good story?  Doesn't Gamism produce, inherently, a narrative of power and challenge in and of itself?

 In other words, aren't they always intertangled, just *prioritized differently*?

 I have a recommendation for a candidate, although you will not like it.  Social.

Yes, I know, Social contract level.  Yes.  But.

In my west coast group we had a girl who would come to games, make a character, and then sit in the corner and draw (usually material relevant to the game, albeit) until forced to take some sort of action.  Nothing would draw her out of this cocoon, or, when it did, she would be very unhappy about it.
 Eventually, she just stopped making characters, and just hung out, and I think everyone was happier for it.  But, while she was playing, she was prioritizing the act of being together with friends over anyone's in-game enjoyment.  Was this incoherent play?  Definitely!  What is the result of everyone playing in this mode?  No RPG.  Nonetheless, a candidate.

In my east coast group, which has more LARPs, some people will do anything to be able to play with their own small group of friends and will avoid interaction with anyone else at all costs.  For some people, they simply create with their friends a group of characters who implicitly trust each other, and thus can still coherently act as a group.  But other people, influenced by what one might call Hard-Core Simulationist Ethics, insist on creating characters seperately, and then will bend heaven and earth in game to get to hang out together.  Again, the null mode of this is no game, but in the context of a LARP with other things going on it seems to me to constitute a reasonably straightforward game-play goal -- get together with some random group of characters.  This clearly violates the Sim tenents that most LARPs are based on, it often violates the Gamism that emerges during LARPs, and it has nothing to do with Premise at all, but it eclipses them all in an overarching drive to hang out.

Social.

At least worth consideration.

yrs--
--Ben

P.S.  Edited once for tag problems.

[Ian Charvill]

But don't Gamism and Narrativism rely on a Sim bedrock?  Doesn't Narrativism contain some amount of OOG competition to produce good story?  Doesn't Gamism produce, inherently, a narrative of power and challenge in and of itself?

My take on it would be Gamism and Narrativism cannot rely on a Sim bedrock.  You cannot rest the prioritization of Step on Up on the prioritization of the Dream.  G & N rest on a bedrock of Exploration - S also rests on a bedrock of Exploration.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

Ian nailed it, Ben. I really do think that "well, they're all present" is a path to madness - it fails to recognize the importance of agenda in the term "Creative Agenda." My use of that term tends toward the idea of "illustrated through action," as in, "undeniable."

Also, I'm really squinting hard at your whole "social" point. Is it possible that you are not seeing that what you're describing is already accounted for in the model?

Best,
Ron

[Emily Care]

Hi Ron, Ben and all,

Also, I'm really squinting hard at your whole "social" point. Is it possible that you are not seeing that what you're describing is already accounted for in the model?

This can of worms has my name on it.

This is an issue I struggle with as well. Yes, social contract issues already appear in the model at the "social" level.

[Social Contract [Exploration [Creative Agenda --> [Techniques [Ephemera]]]]].

Creative agenda is subsumed within social contract. Everything that occurs while roleplaying is.  G, N and S are acknowleged priorities that occur within exploration, which guide the choice of techniques and ephemera employed by the participants.  Kosher so far?

What are techniques, ephemera? They are social interactions that have to do with in-game elements (shared imagined stuff). The "social" does not just exist at the outermost level, it is the field in which all the other levels occur. This is because roleplaying is done with other people, in order to create these shared elements we must communicate them to one another.  

Some activities like rolling dice, for example, may not seem that social, but the roll of the die is meaningless outside of the context of what the people involved with rolling it say it means.  To use the upper/lower case terminology: G, N and S are  made up of countless social interactions; g, n and s are individual interactions.  We can talk about them as "decisions" (gns) or "priorities" (GNS).  

A game participant exhibiting a G priority would (at least fairly) consistently make g decisions.  That is to say, they would have lots of social interactions with other participants that involved player risk of social standing and/or include creating shared imaginative events or elements that involve challenge.  These are the experiences the player likes (presumably), and which they may try to make occur even if the written rules-set doesn't support them, or the creative agenda of other participants conflicts with this goal.  

We care about this because these decisions affect the whole of play. If you have a written system that orchestrates investment by the players in a given priority and the players run with it, you've got a great experience on your hands.  Not only can the individuals get what they want, but there is synergy that happens, like when a jazz band hits the groove together.  Paganini posted about just such an experience here.  And when priorities and expectations of participants, and rules are at odds....well, that's really where this whole theory group was born.


Now, let's look at Ben's examples.

In my west coast group we had a girl who would come to games, make a character, and then sit in the corner and draw (usually material relevant to the game, albeit) until forced to take some sort of action. Nothing would draw her out of this cocoon, or, when it did, she would be very unhappy about it.
Eventually, she just stopped making characters, and just hung out, and I think everyone was happier for it. But, while she was playing, she was prioritizing the act of being together with friends over anyone's in-game enjoyment. Was this incoherent play? Definitely! What is the result of everyone playing in this mode? No RPG. Nonetheless, a candidate.

Ok, what kind of exploration was she doing? Illustration. Color. What techniques did she choose?  Graphic.  Was that all she did? Was she quiet all the time or did she talk to other players about non-game stuff, or comment on the in-game events?  I don't know if I'd really classify her as having any creative agenda at all since she wasn't engaged in (much of) any exploration. Though, once she stopped making characters, why didn't she stop coming all together? Did she take a pure audience stance because she enjoyed listening to it?  Seems like the "bedrock" of exploration was missing for her so I'm not sure she could even be accused of zilchplay.  In this case her agenda was purely social--not creative. I'd bump her up to the social contract of play level and say she just never bought in.

In my east coast group, which has more LARPs, some people will do anything to be able to play with their own small group of friends and will avoid interaction with anyone else at all costs. For some people, they simply create with their friends a group of characters who implicitly trust each other, and thus can still coherently act as a group.

This sounds like a contract of play issue to me. Was their play affected or stand out once they created the group of characters? This sounds like a compromise the group has found to bridge their desire to interact with one another, and the sim priority of the LARP community.

But other people, influenced by what one might call Hard-Core Simulationist Ethics, insist on creating characters seperately, and then will bend heaven and earth in game to get to hang out together. Again, the null mode of this is no game, but in the context of a LARP with other things going on it seems to me to constitute a reasonably straightforward game-play goal -- get together with some random group of characters.
This clearly violates the Sim tenents that most LARPs are based on, it often violates the Gamism that emerges during LARPs, and it has nothing to do with Premise at all, but it eclipses them all in an overarching drive to hang out.

This looks more like what I would call a creative agenda, if I'm interpreting you right. The players make up random characters that fit the campaign, then "bed heaven and earth" by using metagame information to bring their characters together. Their priority of socialization with a particular group of people affects their decisions about choice of techniques, the imagined elements they create and explore and (it sounds like) conflicts with the creative agendas of other people they are playing with.   It sounds like a contender to me.

Regards,
Emily Care

[Mike Holmes]

The corollary of Ron's point about the one mode not relying on another is that a new mode would be mutually exclusive of the other modes. Meaning that there would be times looking at the overall agenda that you'd be able to say that it's not the three others. That players aren't prioritizing story now, step on up, or exploration itself, but something else.

Looking at human behavior we could, for instance, theorize a Eatism mode of play where what was being prioritized was the player's attempt to feed himself food to the exclusion of the other three modes. Since the shared imagined space doesn't provide food, this can't actually be a mode. But if SIS did feed us, then it might be.

So the question is, what do players get from the SIS that isn't prioritization of story now, step on up, or exploration? Note how since socialization occurs outside the SIS that it's on another level. Humor occurs from the SIS, but isn't mutually exclusive.

So there are two qualities that are important, a mode must be behavior regarding play that deals with the SIS, and it must be mutually exclusive from the other modes.

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

One high-five to Emily and another one to Mike. Many thanks for those posts.

Best,
Ron

[Emily Care]

Hey Mike,

So the question is, what do players get from the SIS that isn't prioritization of story now, step on up, or exploration?

Something we get from exploring the shared imaginary elements is interaction with our friends. We could possibly play with people we hate, but it's dreadful. There are games where socialization doesn't matter: professional competitive sports, for example.  But in social games we're with the people we choose for a reason. However, as long as we are getting what we need socially from gaming, it doesn't end up being noticeable in exploration.

In the second and third of Ben's examples, the groups were being blocked at their goal of socialization. In the second example, the group dealt with the issue in character design.  They were able to find a way to meet their social needs in a way that did not seem to cause much conflict with the larger group.  However, the group in the third example, didn't address it at an initial phase of exploration so it shows up in a much more overt and obstructive way in their exploration.  Obstructive of other participant's realization of their creative agendas, that is.

Note how since socialization occurs outside the SIS that it's on another level. Humor occurs from the SIS, but isn't mutually exclusive.

If the desire for a certain type of socialization affects the choices made about shared imagined elements, then it is occuring on the same level. If it doesn't have to do with exploration, then it may be said to resolve at a higher level: at the social contract level of play. However, social aspects exist at all levels of play. All play is made up of social interactions.  Most of what we think of as "social" occurs outside of exploration, but everything that happens inside exploration is social too.  

Just as exploration underlies all creative agendas, sociality underlies all of roleplaying.  A "social" agenda--which another term would need to be found for, it's too easily confuse with social contract--would focus on the player's desire for interaction with another player. The nature of the interaction could vary wildly from needing to always play characters that are partnered with your partner, or are friends with your friends, to being able to needle people you hate.  I don't think the latter is an agenda many people would tolerate easily, but it's easily imagined.  Humor as an agenda would be about wanting to get feedback from the group--positive or negative depending on the type of humor. This a lot like step-on-up, but its the desire for connection or affirmation without the element of risk.

"Social" agendas may commonly be an expression of issues unresolved by the overt social contract.  Dissent. If a player or groups needs for socialization are met by the larger group's social contract, they won't need to have a separate social agenda.  

A note about mutual exclusivity: it happens at the individual decision scale. A person may exhibit incoherent GNS priority in play, though I haven't seen too many discussions about it. An omniplayer is (hopefully) a functional example of that, actually. So, if we're talking about mutual exclusivity on an instance by instance basis, social concerns that affect exploration can very easily be mutually exclusive with gamist, simulationist or narrativist concerns.  

However, most often, I must concede, social concerns dovetail quite nicely with the other creative agendas.   It might be said that socializing is always the highest goal of roleplaying, but sometimes the other agendas get in the way.

--EC

also, my error about bedding heaven in my last post. Nice thought, though, don't you think?

edit to add: My thanks to you, Ron.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Something we get from exploring the shared imaginary elements is interaction with our friends.

Curious. Because the social interaction happens besides the SIS, doesn't it?

I mean, this past week I went to a basketball game with my dad. I don't give a crap about sports. Period. I don't get why he tries to drag me to these things. So we're sitting in the stands. He's watching the game and I'm bored out of my frickin mind. Whenever he tries to explain the game stuff to me, it turns into "blah blah blah." I don't care if they're defending champions. The only thing I'm getting out of it is the chance to hang out with my dad. The game might as well not even be there.

Now, replace basketball with the shared imagined space.

[Emily Care]

Hi Jack,

Curious. Because the social interaction happens besides the SIS, doesn't it?

The creation of the shared imaginary happenings is also a social happening. It occurs between two or more people, and involves communication and emotional/intellectual contact of some sort.  It is a real world interaction even if what is described within it only happens in pretend.

Exploration is a specific--perhaps ritualized is the right word--type of social interaction. Socializing per se is often seen as interactions that occur while gaming that do not involve exploration.  But exploration and socializing are not dichotomous. Exploration is a subset of socializing.

Now, replace basketball with the shared imagined space.

Your experience with your Dad sounds like the woman in Ben's first example earlier in this thread.  When anyone tried to get her to actually play the character she made up or do something other than draw, she probably heard "blah, blah, blah".  If you liked basketball and could quote him chapter and verse about the teams, would it then not be socializing with him?

Best,
Emily

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Hi Emily

I seem to have been confused a bit by the portion I quoted previously

Something we get from exploring the shared imaginary elements is interaction with our friends.

But what you're saying here is

Something we get from interaction with our friends is exploring the shared imaginary elements.

[Ben Lehman]

In my west coast group we had a girl who would come to games, make a character, and then sit in the corner and draw (usually material relevant to the game, albeit) until forced to take some sort of action. Nothing would draw her out of this cocoon, or, when it did, she would be very unhappy about it.
Eventually, she just stopped making characters, and just hung out, and I think everyone was happier for it. But, while she was playing, she was prioritizing the act of being together with friends over anyone's in-game enjoyment. Was this incoherent play? Definitely! What is the result of everyone playing in this mode? No RPG. Nonetheless, a candidate.

Though, once she stopped making characters, why didn't she stop coming all together? Did she take a pure audience stance because she enjoyed listening to it? Seems like the "bedrock" of exploration was missing for her so I'm not sure she could even be accused of zilchplay. In this case her agenda was purely social--not creative. I'd bump her up to the social contract of play level and say she just never bought in.

BL> I think, largely, she kept coming because gaming was the major "big group" social activity of that social group, and so it was a good way to have a lot of her friends in one place and see them all.  It occurs to me that you are probably right that this is merely social behavior of someone who has gamer friends and never quite got the "exploration" level.

In my east coast group, which has more LARPs, some people will do anything to be able to play with their own small group of friends and will avoid interaction with anyone else at all costs. For some people, they simply create with their friends a group of characters who implicitly trust each other, and thus can still coherently act as a group.

But other people, influenced by what one might call Hard-Core Simulationist Ethics, insist on creating characters seperately, and then will bend heaven and earth in game to get to hang out together. Again, the null mode of this is no game, but in the context of a LARP with other things going on it seems to me to constitute a reasonably straightforward game-play goal -- get together with some random group of characters.
This clearly violates the Sim tenents that most LARPs are based on, it often violates the Gamism that emerges during LARPs, and it has nothing to do with Premise at all, but it eclipses them all in an overarching drive to hang out.

This looks more like what I would call a creative agenda, if I'm interpreting you right. The players make up random characters that fit the campaign, then "bend heaven and earth" by using metagame information to bring their characters together. Their priority of socialization with a particular group of people affects their decisions about choice of techniques, the imagined elements they create and explore and (it sounds like) conflicts with the creative agendas of other people they are playing with.   It sounds like a contender to me.

First off, thanks for your response, and to everyone else who posted.  You are all making me very happy about this thread.

I would say that the two LARP based examples I give constitute the same creative agenda, but the first group is setting up their social contract in such a way that it congrues (is that a word?) with the other creative agenda (simulationism, and with some imbedded gamism as well) present in the LARP.  The second group, meanwhile, is letting some personal denial of their real creative agenda set up a situation where there characters are completely at odds which the rest of the game, and hence there is incoherence.

It occurs to me that, at this point, I should link to http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=7834&highlight=">Imbedded in Sim play is..., an old thread on agenda congruence, particularly in regard to LARPs.  It seems to me that creative agenda congruence has a lot to do with what we are talking about here, in terms of diagnosing a "new agenda" if one exists.

It also occurs to me that sim-indoctrinated players internally surpressing their preferred creative agendas would be an interesting spin-off thread.

The other thing that occurs is that this might be a place where LARPs and tabletops are fundamentally different.

yrs--
--Ben

(some snipping and typo correction done to Emily's post.)

(edited once for tags.  must... learn... to... use... preview...)

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

So, unless you tell me otherwise, Ben, I think this one can be closed.

Best,
Ron