Creation & Agenda

[Storn]

Okay, I'm reading two threads, my own that I started; Gm is god.  And the Hard Question part deux.

And Hard Question takes as a link to an older discussion, Clarifying Simulationism... which didn't really do it for me...http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=8114&start=45&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=

But what IT did do, was bring up "Creative Agenda" in my mind (in conjunction with the other threads) as a real red light!

When I said that GM is god... many thought my statement was about power.  Let me say this: IT WAS NOT.  It is about CREATION.  There is a German painting teacher on NY state public TV.  He is always saying 'you are GOTT!  Paint whatever you want on your canvas."  He is hilarious.  Certainly, Power is inherit in Creation.  And I think this what people focused on with my statement.  But, in my opinion, the wrong focus.

But I'm biased.  I'm a professional storyteller.  With images, to be sure, instead of words...but I tell stories every day.  Artist as god is a pretty recognized and considered healthy state.  Remember, god, just one little domain... the artwork, the story.  If said Artist (as many have done) starts walking around thinking he/she is the best thing evar... people will react with scorn.T

he creative process is something that I'm keenly aware of.  And much of what I do on a canvas, translates to the creative process of Role Playing Games.  So when I say I'm a god of creation as an illustrator... that probably won't bother people as much.  After all, you don't have to look at my pictures if you dont' want to.  But if I say I"m god of creation as a GM, well, there's the rub.  For one, I have a captive audience, the players, for two, it implies that they don't have a hand in the creation...which couldn't be further from the truth.

Now, getting back to the Creative Agenda... much has been said that it is a technique.  Suggesting a subordinate role to G N and the much debated S.  Now, I think CA is a wonderful idea... and a terrible term.  It points out the group's focus and where they wanna go.  

But roleplaying is Creation.  Period.  Creating story, character, rules etc, etc.  Creative Agenda is not a technique... it is THE whole ball of wax.  

There is no Simulation, Gamist or Narrativist w/o the Creation to hold them in.  Creating any situation AND reacting to said situation, within game, whether it is GM or Player, is a creative act.  

My point:

Don't call it Creative Agenda.  Just call it Agenda.  

By calling it *Creative* Agenda... all kinds of discussion has been raised about games that don't have an Creative AGenda.  Suggesting there is no Creativity there.  I think that is wrong.  There is always Creativity... at every level, rules, GNS model, you name, Creation has been done.  There is NOT always a STATED Agenda among a group, but I would hazard that often there is an Un-stated Agenda.

Now, I think that defuses the backlash of GNS vs. "Creative" Agenda.  And we get closer to talking about how you
Create a Game
Create a Narrative
Create a Simulation

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Storn,

I think you're talking yourself into circles of confusion.

Creative Agenda is not a Technique, and no one has ever said that it was. I think it might help if you reviewed the "big model" section of the Narrativism essay, just that one section, and asked questions here about anything that doesn't seem clear to you in that section alone.

Best,
Ron

[Storn]

Creative Agenda is not a Technique,

Yeah, you're right about me mislabling CA as a Technique.  But the main thrust of my arguement still stands.

YOu have CA as "level" or step.  As in:

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

or

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

What I'm saying is, yeah, your right... but I don't like the term CREATIVE... just drop it and call it AGENDA.

Because Creation is before the Social Contract (someone wrote the rules, the world, even in the barest of frames).  Creation of something has to exist before there is Exploration.  My point is that Creativity is at every single step of what you laid out.... Social Contract, Exploration, AGENDA,  Techniques and Epherma.

So by labeling it CREATIVE agenda... i think a lot of confusion arises because people poiint to this "level" as the CREATIVE part.  That is where the Imagination is brought to bear.  This is the "fun" part.  
I don't think that is so... my feeling is that there is Imagination and Creation at EVERY level, every step, every Gamist, Narrativist and Simulationist stance.

So when I put out this list:
Create a Game
Create a Simulation
Create a Narrative...

... I'm starting to see GNS as a whole, not three seperate parts.  Then I can turn to my fellow players and say;

'For this campaign, how do you want to create this game, this simulation, this narrative?"

That's an Agenda... an outline of a whole campaign.  

Then you can break down players into tendencies at the same time acknowledging that during play, a player might exhibit all three behaviors.  A campaign might exist on all three behavioral modes.  And we have the vocabulary to discuss that.

Hey, I might be wrong... but that is the way I've seen many of the arguements swirling around Sim as a not-as-creative mode of play.  Many of hte arguements of CA being not important to the understanding of GNS (rather having importance to the social contract itself).

just my take.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Storn,

"Creative Agenda" doesn't imply that creation only occurs at that point. I think you are still processing the role of this term/process as an arrow in the model, rather than as a box/level of its own. That arrow is a very very big deal.

Why? Because it accounts for exactly your concern. Exploration is the "creative" part, because Exploration is defined as verbal, shared, imaginative content. (Exploration and "Shared Imagined Space" are practically the same thing.)

Techniques are what the people actually do to establish events into the Shared Imagined Space; they are the manifestations of how System interactions with the rest of the Explorative components.

So ... an arrow extends from Creation (as you call it; I say Exploration or SIS) to Doing Stuff (Techniques), and that arrow is all about how and why those particular Techniques are chosen (well or badly).

Hence that arrow is the Creative Agenda. I think the term is accurate, precise, distinct, and descriptive.

Best,
Ron

[Storn]

"Creative Agenda" doesn't imply that creation only occurs at that point.

I know it doesn't... I understand what you are saying.

What I'm saying is that I think the term is contributing to confusion.  That's all.



[/quote]

[Walt Freitag]

Storn, when you say:

Hey, I might be wrong... but that is the way I've seen many of the arguements swirling around Sim as a not-as-creative mode of play.

...are you referring to the discussion in the Clarifying Simulationism thread (which unfortunately did not live up to its title, though it did examine some interesting and important issues) about dividing between "Sim1 and Sim2" or "inventive vs. non-inventive" Simulationism?

If so, I was one of the correspondents arguing that notion. Let me point out that the issue was distinguishing between different styles within Simulationism, one seen as involving more creative invention (by the players during play as a priority of play) than the other. At no point was there any consideration of whether Simulationist play as a whole was any more or less creative than Gamist or Narrativist play. And if there had been, I expect the idea would have been quickly rejected. Nor was creativity outside of moment-to-moment play (such as in scenario preparation, character creation, or the invention of game systems or settings) ever being addressed or compared in that discussion.

The idea of splitting Simulationism in that particular way had nothing to do with the term "creative agenda."

In fact, I can't recall any discussion at the Forge at all, in which anyone made a serious argument that Simulationism is a not-as-creative mode of play.

- Walt

[Alan]

"Creative Agenda" doesn't imply that creation only occurs at that point.

I know it doesn't... I understand what you are saying.

What I'm saying is that I think the term is contributing to confusion.  That's all.

Hi Storn,

The "creative" in creative agenda is an adjective.  Agenda is the noun.  Generally in English grammar, the noun takes precidence.  

Hence another way to say this is Agenda of Creation, which is exactly what it's about: a player's agenda when they're creating.  I don't see any confusion of meaning.

[M. J. Young]

Ron has addressed most of this quite well; I just wanted to focus on one point I think has been overlooked.

Because Creation is before the Social Contract (someone wrote the rules, the world, even in the barest of frames).  Creation of something has to exist before there is Exploration.

Exploration is the word we use for the concept of placing ideas in the shared imaginative space and considering them collectively. It includes creation as part of it.

However, your suggestion that the fact that the rules exist prior to play means that something was "created" prior to the establishment of the social contract itself is mistaken.

There is one sense in which nearly everything in the shared imaginative space "exists" outside it and prior to it. There are swords; thus we know what swords are. Trees and people and animals exist, and we have these ideas about them. Many of the creatures in our games are drawn from mythology, and while they never materially existed, they did exist as concepts. Even with alien creatures and landscapes, we construct these out of pieces that are known, modifying them to something not previously known but still constructed of known things.

None of them are within the shared imaginary space that we are going to create/explore until someone speaks them into that space.

The same is true of the rules. There is a game book published, but it is not the game, nor is it part of the game prior to play. It becomes part of the game when we begin to create the shared imaginary space, and someone says, "Let's use these rules."

To look at it another way, in my Friendly Local Gaming Store you can buy D&D3E, used copies of previous incarnations of D&D, GURPS books, Rifts, even Multiverser. If I walk into that store, there is no game happening, no shared imaginary space, no creation occurring. However, if I go around back to their game room and get together with several of the people there and say, "Let's play Little Fears; someone go get the rules from the store", at that point we have established a social contract--an agreement to play a game--and we have started to create the shared imaginary space by deciding what game we're going to play. No game exists until we have agreed to play it, in that sense; therefore nothing exists prior to the creation of the social contract and the decision to play a game--which is the first part of exploration, the decision to play this game.

Any help?

--M. J. Young