Identifying One's Priorities and Tells

[John Kim]

I think I'd like to emphasize that in role-playing, unlike poker, one's tells are often expressed about someone else's play rather than about (or in addition to) one's own.

He wasn't saying only other people can read your tells.  
He's saying that your tells are often about other peoples play.

The smile and the fist in the air are more commonly scene as a players evaluation of what he thinks about another player's play, rather than being used in reference to his own play.

That may be a very interesting "tell" in itself.  Namely:  how much of your enjoyment comes from your own play versus how much from other people's play?  Has this been discussed at all?  

It seems to me that this is something that distinctly differs.  Some people enjoy sitting back and watching someone else play as long as they get their turn in.  But other people only really enjoy themselves through active involvement.

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

Ralph, thanks for clarifying my post, because you really nailed a nuance that needed it.

John, my take is that enjoyment of one's own participation as well as the participation of others are both involved. How much of each sort for any given person? Who knows.

Some of your posts in the past have suggested a kind of self-play-only, contained-enjoyment approach. Others' posts, specifically Paul Czege's and Vincent Baker's (lumpley), have suggested an extremely others'-play, appreciative approach. Again, to me, it seems that "all kinds" are involved across the range of happy role-players, and just which dial is spun, and how high, can be left to each.

Best,
Ron

[RDU Neil]

It seems to me that this is something that distinctly differs.  Some people enjoy sitting back and watching someone else play as long as they get their turn in.  But other people only really enjoy themselves through active involvement.

I do think this is my "tell" that indicates more narrativist stance, at least as a GM.  I know I'm all about the players emotionally connecting with the game.  When a player sucks in their breath, or gets tense during combat... WHEEE!  I've succeeded.  When they walk out of discussion with the Yakuza Oyabun without having been shot, and the whole table sags in relief along with the character, YEAH!  When a player feels a similar disgust or passion or happiness or joy because of the situation or choice or event that took place in the game... then I know it was a good game.

Now, I may smile when they all cheer at an amazing damage roll... hey, I want my players to have fun... but that doesn't necessarily mean I thought that was an important moment UNLESS it was one of those rare moments that the dice perfectly match the dramatic scene, and things play out like a great story without any fudging of the rules.  Then I am most happy.  When the story that I want to have happen actually "just happens" and then all the emotions and joy are real, not contrived.

That, absolutely, is why I game... and why I GM more than play, because I rarely get as much satisfaction from playing.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

This is really interesting. If a person's tells are more about other people's play than their own, the their creative aggenda preference may have less to do with what a person does than what the rest of the group does.

[Andrew Cooper]

This is really interesting. If a person's tells are more about other people's play than their own, the their creative aggenda preference may have less to do with what a person does than what the rest of the group does.

I'm not certain that CA is more about the rest of the group as it is just easy to see your CA in reaction to what the rest of the group  is doing.  If your CA is all about premise and theme and the rest of the group is going all happy gamist on you, your reaction will probably be less than pleased.  If they are matching you by addressing theme and premise, then your reaction will reflect that.  It isn't that the group is determining your CA.  It's just that you will find yourself deriving more satisfaction from the game if the group is reflecting your CA back at you.

[pete_darby]

Or, in my benighted attempt to boil it down even further.... if we accept that role-playing is a social, co-operative creative endeavour, then the only expression of CA approval / disapproval is through social means.

I'm beginning to be of the persuasion that you don't so much express a CA as express your gratification that your CA has been supported... if that makes any sense.

[RDU Neil]

Or, in my benighted attempt to boil it down even further.... if we accept that role-playing is a social, co-operative creative endeavour, then the only expression of CA approval / disapproval is through social means.

I'm beginning to be of the persuasion that you don't so much express a CA as express your gratification that your CA has been supported... if that makes any sense.

This is one of the most sensical statements (as opposed to non-sensical... is that correct?) I've read here.  This really clicks with me.  You express your positive "tells" in response to seeing your CA reflected in other's play more than in your own play.

Yeah... that works for me, big time.

[Jonathan Walton]

Lately I've been thinking about how CA's don't come in unadulterated types.  You very rarely have someone who's demonstrated behaviors all indicate a Gamist (or Sim or Nar) Creative Agenda.  For a while now, I think there's been a tendecy to use GNS theory to design games that are supposed to support a single style of play, which grew out of a reaction to all the "disfuctional" Sim+drift games that dominate the market.

However, I don't think anyone wants to play completely Nar (or Sim or Gam) all the time.  I don't think it's arrogant or presumptuous to say that everyone is (or should be) capable of enjoying every one of the Creative Agendas, just like everyone should be able to enjoy classical music and rap, if they keep an open mind and aren't obstructed by other factors (say, put off by the lyrical content or culture of rap, as opposed to the music itself).  People can lean in particular directions based on preference, but it really annoys me when people insist that they really only enjoy Nar (or Sim or Gam) play.

I honestly feel like I demonstrate a complicated mixture of CAs every time I play, and that it's based on how I'm feeling and what I want to get out of something.  This happens for the same reasons as other artistic preferences: sometimes I want to write poetry, sometimes I want to write power metal; sometimes I want to see a romantic comedy, sometimes I want to see an indie art film.  This, in my opinion, makes it very, very difficult to assess my CAs at any given moment.  Sure, I might demonstrate overall tendencies over the course of a game, but focusing on those might still leave confusion about why I made certain other decisions.

When you put this into a group context, it gets even more complicated.  People start making decisions based on the CAs they see exhibited by other players, not what they really want out of the game.  I do this all the time, especially when GMing.  You make compromises.  If the group doesn't want to play in the manner you'd like, you usually have to bend instead of forcing your way, just to keep things from being even more disfuctional.  Drift, in these kinds of situations, is just adapting the game to meet the evolving preferences and day-to-day changes in the playing styles of the entire group.

So, players may end up demonstrating not only unintentional CAs, but CAs that are intentionally not indicative of the kind of play they want, based on how they see themselves in relation to the rest of the group.  Over time, this can lead to immense dissatisfaction, especially if a few players are repeatedly force to compromise their own interests and preferences for the rest of the group.  It'd be like having to listen to rap all the time, when you really prefer classical.  You can enjoy it, but it gets old after a while.

Just to throw something else out there.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

I'm not certain that CA is more about the rest of the group as it is just easy to see your CA in reaction to what the rest of the group  is doing.  

I don't think so.

Sure, the individual has their own priority, but they may not always follow it themselves.

It is an old observation that the best writers sometimes disregard the rules of rhetoric

I think that when we sit down to play with our creative agendas, for ourselves the agenda is more flexible. We can do things outside of the agenda as strikes our fancy so long as we are "doing well" whatever that may mean. But for others, it may be more strict in a mote in your brother's eye way. Sometimes we may recognize when others are "doing well" but other times we may notice the infraction more. (This may be especially true of the stereotypical nitpicky geeky gamers)

[pete_darby]

I think something's getting lost here: the fact that creative agenda are arrived at, adopted & adapted in a social context.

What I mean is, most folks are sufficiently socially aware to realise when they can compromise on what they want by modifying their agenda. It's an odd player whose agenda is set in stone.

And, contrariwise, sometimes underlying agenda are incompatible, and the players are inflexible for whatever reason, and that's when we get dysfunction.

I'm racking what little brains I have after clerich's excellent thread... what's the term in the theory for the opposite of drift (which is changing system to accomodate agenda)... What do we call it when we modify agenda to accomodate other players? We've gotta have a word for it, I tells ya!

[Walt Freitag]

What do we call it when we modify agenda to accomodate other players? We've gotta have a word for it, I tells ya!

How 'bout 'adaptation'?

- Walt

[Jack Spencer Jr]

What do we call it when we modify agenda to accomodate other players? We've gotta have a word for it, I tells ya!

Transition
Theoretically, shifting from one GNS mode to another (in the large sense, in terms of the overall goals of play for everyone) without Drifting the rules. Scattershot, in development, is designed with Transition in mind.

[M. J. Young]

I honestly feel like I demonstrate a complicated mixture of CAs every time I play, and that it's based on how I'm feeling and what I want to get out of something.

Jonathan, I'm right there with you. I shift CA all the time when I play, even in the same game. Multiverser lets me do that pretty easily, if the referee isn't fighting me.

But: one CA at a time.

That's all the theory demands, and I've never seen proof that this is not the case.

--M. J. Young