Narrativism: Not a Creative Agenda...

[M. J. Young]

Excellent post, MJ--one thing: I don't think that the presence of Illusionism implies the players have no power--just that they don't always have as much as they might think.

The GM might generally play it straight but not allow the major enemy to be killed in the 'first act' (although if they manage to get him in the 'second act,' instead of the prefered 'third,' that's okay--or if they screw up and he gets them, well, that's the way the dice fell).

So I think there *is* a gradient and, thus, as a player, when I discover Illusionism I might not leave; not sign on to "watch the movie"; but rather: voice my expectation that there hopefully won't be too much of that.

O.K., this may be more of a terminological dispute.

I played in a game once in which nothing the players did ever really impacted outcomes of anything. Some of the examples from that game might be enlightening.

[*]On one occasion, our party encountered a group of orcs on the road. A fight broke out. The referee had no papers, no records, nothing in front of him; I was keeping track of the damage taken by all the player characters. Periodically the referee would walk over and check how much damage we had taken. At the point where I was thinking we weren't going to make it, about half the orcs died and the other half fled.[*]One of the player characters had stumbled into a rather complicated situation in which he had the power to set himself up as the heir to the inheritance of a very wealthy elderly man. He took careful steps to do this. Between sessions, he overheard the referee explaining to some of the other players what was going to happen, why the plan was going to fail, and how things would work out from there. That player left the game. He was the first person to realize that little or nothing that he did ever really impacted his character's fate.[*]The referee had created "resurrection insurance"--essentially a popular plan by which characters would make regular payments to a religious organization, and if they were killed they were guaranteed to be brought back to life. A group of player characters decided to go on a rather dangerous mission that went terribly badly for them. Four of seven characters were killed. The four who were killed all had resurrection insurance, and the three who survived with serious injuries did not.[*]My character was placed in a position in which his honor demanded that he undertake an extremely dangerous mission, and his character asserted that he had no fear. This combination made him, in my estimation, extremely vulnerable. I was fortunate in that he had what I called my "trump card"--a magic item that had fallen into his lap which was extremely powerful. Thus my character could go forward in his own courage, and I could know that I had this trump card if things went particularly badly, so I didn't have to fear losing the character. (I did not see resurrection insurance as the sort of thing a brave and noble character carries.) On the first day of this venture we were pursued by a small force of very deadly enemies. It took every bit of strategy I could muster, and we fought to within an inch of our lives, killing all but one, who escaped (I am tempted to say by fiat, but it was not unreasonable). Before we could as much as regroup and assess our injuries, reinforcements appeared at least ten times as strong as the group we had just withstood. I didn't hesitate; I spent my trump card. Just as soon as it was played, the invading force began to retreat, leaving us to continue on our journey--and I realized that the entire battle had been staged to strip me, personally, of that security blanket, so that the referee could make me worry. I had been manipulated into making that choice.[/list:u]I see what you're describing as heavy use of illusionist techniques--and I have no problem with that as functional play. To me, Illusionism will always mean that the referee has full control over everything that "matters" in play. I've seen it. As long as you couldn't see the man behind the curtain, it was exhilarating, because you always felt like you had just managed to come through by the skin of your teeth once more; as soon as you understood what was happening, it no longer mattered. After I left that game, some of the players began pushing the envelope, trying to figure out just how crazy and stupid their characters could be without getting killed. The fact was, the only way a player character could be killed in that world (which gave the illusion of being gamist) was to tell the referee out of character that you wanted to retire the character by having him killed--and then there was no way the character could survive, unless you changed your mind and said so. At one time I'd felt good about what I'd accomplished and the characters I'd saved, but after I saw through the veil it didn't have much meaning anymore.

Illusionist techniques can be used to greater or lesser degrees, and can be used effectively, without becoming illusionism. Participationism uses illusionist techniques. All referee styles do to some degree, including bass playing.

Little Ariel is sitting on grandad's knee, and grandad says, "Once upon a time there was a princess." Ariel says, "And the princess's name was Ariel, right grandad?" "That's right, Ariel," Grandad says; "The princess' name was Ariel." It doesn't matter to the story what the name of the princess was, so Grandad lets Ariel give the princess her name. That's illusionism: you can only change things that don't really matter.

So if you can't kill the boss in the first act but you can in the second even though the third would be better, that's not illusionism--that's illusionist technique used to preserve an important villain temporarily. The players still have the power to kill him. If the villain will die at the hands of the player characters in the third act, even if they give up and stop looking for him, that's illusionism.

--M. J. Young

[Christoph Boeckle]

There seem to be different discussions going along, but from what I gather, no one really challenges the idea to separate destination and road anymore.

Ideas that I found interesting were that there could be a big number of skewers under your model, some of which would describe what GNS or other models describe, and some could represent play styles (that's what I understand the union of one (two?) CA and a set of Techniques describes) that seem to generate a lot of discussion, making them styles in their own right. One could even want to experiment an untried combination of techniques under the guidance of this model. (It's certain that some combinations won't work though).

The fact that CA is not necessarily the priority is also important to underline IMHO.

So, Valamir, when do you treat us with a nice and clean write up? :-)

[Valamir]

Ideas that I found interesting were that there could be a big number of skewers under your model, some of which would describe what GNS or other models describe, and some could represent play styles (that's what I understand the union of one (two?) CA and a set of Techniques describes) that seem to generate a lot of discussion, making them styles in their own right. One could even want to experiment an untried combination of techniques under the guidance of this model. (It's certain that some combinations won't work though).

That's the benefit I see, Cristoph

But it should be noted that the skewers have been a part of the Big Model since it was first outlined, I'm just drawing attention to them.

This shouldn't be thought of as "Valamir's model"; most of the changes I'm proposing are just in presentation and organization.  All but a few of the concepts here are already part of the Big Model.

Most of the new-ish conclusions I'm coming to is nothing more than what falls out of the Big Model naturally when you clarify it enough to see where all of the individual parts are.

[Marco]

So if you can't kill the boss in the first act but you can in the second even though the third would be better, that's not illusionism--that's illusionist technique used to preserve an important villain temporarily. The players still have the power to kill him. If the villain will die at the hands of the player characters in the third act, even if they give up and stop looking for him, that's illusionism.

--M. J. Young

Okay--so "Illusionism" is complete control and Illusionist Technique is limited control? I can dig that (if we get a glossary for it so everyone else agrees). I still would want to distinguish between what the GM is doing with that control (creating a structured story? Faking tough challenges? Faking a real-world in which dramatic things "happen by chance" but doesn't really conform to a specific story-structure ...)

But, yeah, I could buy that.

-Marco

[contracycle]

I saw your previous answer. It indicates to me that you did understand the question as phrased originally and you stood by your original answer.

I went bacvk and re-read Valamirs remark and saw that my initial answer may have missed his intended question, and so I re-approached the problem.  It is not invalid to see a mistake in ones own thought process.

My initial response was not mistaken in principle, but did not apply strictly to this example.

[Silmenume]

Hey Ralph!

Lots of ideas going on here, but there are a number of issues here that I would like to clarify before going further.

What is meant by Player Empowerment exactly?  It is a very nebulous term that seems to have several assumed meanings in this thread.  I have an idea, but I want to get to Illusionism first.

The next issue is that of Illusionism and what it means.  Again it seems to have several assumed meanings working in this thread making fruitful discussion difficult.  I also have an idea, (lucky you!) which actually dovetails nicely with your notion on the cycle of conflict.

As near as I can tell, with reference to Creative Agenda, and this thread is about CA, is that Illusionism is - Force applied to CA conflict decisions (the whole cycle of conflict) without player knowledge and thus approval.  

This is a profoundly important idea.  

What it amounts to is the unauthorized diluting or vacating of the players CA "statements".  IOW the player, if he knew, could not claim to have effectively Stepped on Up, or sweated out Theme, or paid the "true" price for navigating conflicts while staying true to social conventions within the Dream.  (Note by statement I don't mean making a speech – but the communication of an idea/concept through action{s})

Illusionism is a form of covert deprotagonism.  If the players are aware of this process, and go along with it, then you no longer have Illusionism, but participationism.  If not, then you have railroading.  Obvious.

This brings us back to Player Empowerment.  My feeling is that Player Empowerment is just a broader interpretation of protagonism – the player's ability to make important decisions (untainted by Force) regarding any CA expressing conflict.  IOW if scene framing does not impact disenfranchise the players CA expression then the DM making such an act is not deprotagonizing – no CA specific (conflict addressing) player decision has been vacated or diluted.

The problem then with the basic tenet of using Illusionism as demonstration of the faultiness of the definition of Narrativism as a CA lies in that definition of Illusionism is faulty, not that the definition of Narrativism is faulty.

ALL CA's require Player Empowerment – definitionally.

I believe that Ron, with Narrativism being so close to his heart, and claiming that any Force in Narrativism is verboten, is proclaiming one-true-wayism.  Logically following out from that position, one could claim that the only way to play Gamism is Hardcore.  Why?  Because any employment of Force vacates any victory.  The Crunch is the functional form of Gamist participationism.  The ultimate failure of any one-on-one combat is death.  In The Crunch that particular outcome is not really permitted to come into being, but how can one who is engaged in combat – the act trying to kill your opponent who is attempting to use deadly force on you in return – not reasonably expect death as a viable outcome?  Because all those present agree that despite the inherent deadliness of the act of combat, death will not be allowed to fall upon the player characters.  How is this held up?  Force.  If it is possible for there to be functional Gamism with the acknowledged use of Force, why can't their be functional Narrativism with the acknowledged use of Force?

Ron's dismissal of the employment of Force in Narrativism as a shift to Sim only demonstrates a lack of understanding of Sim and an idealistic effort to protect the purity of the turf of Narrativism.  His assertion that Force is pure poison to Narrativism is to discount the Crunch style of Gamist play.

Also I believe that Ron misapplies the term Illusionism in Narrativism precisely because he does say it is perfectly allowable in Sim.  To whit – Illusionist play, by definition, is unknown to the players!  As unknown as it is to the Simulationist it is equally unknown to the Narrativist!  Ron conflated Illusionism with Force.  Illusionism is a type of Force, one that is unknown to the players.  How can Illusionism, successfully applied, poison Narrativism if the players never learn of it?  Conversely why can't participationism function in Narrativism?  My main argument is that the other CA's are as crushed under railroading as is Narrativism.  The key to understanding this is realizing that which is being created is what is being created is altered or watered down.  In Nar it is Story, in Gam it is Step on Up, in Sim it is the player test.

The argument "Get just one Story Now player into an Illusionist group, and the game becomes a battlefield for control and story creation" is problematic.  By definition a group cannot be functionally Illusionistic.  Either the players are aware of the Force and thus are engaging in participationism as a group, or the GM (or whoever is in that role) alone successfully expands the illusion to cover the actions of the new player as well and thus continues to maintain the Illusion.  Illusionism, but definition is functional as long as no one knows that it is in operation.  One can make the above phrase relate to Gamism as well – "Get just one Hard Core player into an Crunch group, and the game becomes a battlefield over challenge level and Step on Up".

Narrativism is no more (accurately) defined by Player Empowerment than Gamism or Simulationism.

You have a destination (your priority) and you have the road you will take to get there (your techniques).  There are many different roads that may get you to your destination...some work better than others and some boil down to preference.  There are other roads that will almost surely not get you to your destination.
...
Yhis essay is about recognizing that there are destinations and roads, that they are seperate things, and that mixing them together is a big reason for alot of the confusion in the model.  I'm not really changing anything about the model or Narrativism in particular.  I'm merely tidying up the organization and presentation.  In addition to simply being more clear how the parts fit together, I think it also will provide new avenues for investigation.

I agree with you whole-heartedly in the principle of your efforts, but there appear to be some errors in the execution.

It appears to me that you are conflating two processes while trying to sort out two different processes.

I like your dichotomy of road and destination, but here's where the presentation runs into problems.  Creative Agendas are not defined as a destination (Theme or Victory), but as a process, i.e., addressing Premise or Challenge.  You're assertion that the core of Narrativism is Theme is problematic.  As the model stands CA's are defined as exhibited behaviors, not products.  The core of the CA's is not the product (the thing) but the process (the making).  Just as roleplay is a dialogue process, so then is CA expression a process.  All processes do create something reliably or they wouldn't be a process.  Hence addressing premise will produce a Theme.  Addressing Challenge will produce a victor(y).  By describing a CA as a process it covers both those who are interested in the process or the product because one cannot create the produce without the process.  Given that description, it does not follow that why players engage in a CA is that they are trying to create a thing.  IOW players are not necessarily engaging in certain behaviors (addressing premise, challenge) beyond the act of engagement itself.  Both types of players, processors or producers, however, will produce the same product reliably.  Does this mean that other means of addressing conflict can't produce the product (addressing Challenge produce a theme)?  No.  Can it do so reliably?  No.

Does this mean that processors and producers will get along?  Probably not.  However their actions – their conflict cycles – will be very similar, if not indistinguishable.  This is also what confused me about this thread.  The notion of CA being product oriented as opposed to process oriented obviates the notion of the conflict cycle as defining CA expression.

Where is the conflation that I was asserting exist?  First, that within a CA, the addressing process (addressing Challenge, Premise – the conflict cycle) is itself a road to a destination (Victory, Theme).  There is another process that is also road and destination.  That is the employment of Techniques and Ephemera (road) for the purpose of reaching the destination of CA expression.  IOW we employ Techniques and Ephemera so that we can effectively express our Creative Agenda (whether that lie in the satisfying act of addressing the conflict or in the satisfying creation of the product).  As I read the main thesis these two processes have been conflated or perhaps they at least have not been realized or identified as distinct.

The reason for my worry?  The first case of roads and destination, within a CA, is irrelevant.  Both are expressions of the same CA.  There is no difference.  However the second is profoundly important, as you have indicated.

Techniques and Ephemera are the roads that lead to the destination of CA expression (not CA product only  – the destination can be CA product but the destination of the players can also just be CA process).  This is why, as I understand you, that you wish to so strongly differentiate the distinction between the two.  There is no direct CA communication, it is made manifest through the employment of T&E.

I would indicate the roles as the following –

Ephemera are the moments of direct communication.  (Either character statements, laughing, slapping a player on the back, transmission of information via book, music cues, etc.)

Techniques are mechanics and serve to govern ephemera.

CA is primarily conceptual and drives Techniques and Ephemera.  (A CA cannot be directly expressed.  It is the guiding interest behind the actions of the players.  It is not directly seen/heard but felt.  This is why the notion of a Creative Agenda was so long in the discovery.)

I agree that Premise is situation, or more precisely Premise is found in certain situations.  But I do think that addressing that situation requires techniques.

What are you the player doing in that particular situation that can be said to be addressing the premise, vs. what you may do in that situation that wouldn't address any premise?  Those things are techniques.

Actually you missed something very important.  Addressing the situation requires Techniques (system) and Ephemera (statements).  Techniques merely apportion credibility to the statements are made at the Ephemera level.  What the player is doing in that particular situation that can be said to be addressing the Premise is directly communicating his intentions (Ephemera) which are then apportioned credibility via Techniques (system).  That a player can be diagnosed to be "addressing" Premise can only be determined at the CA level as Premise is a concept level notion.  Techniques (system – the Lumpley Principle) are entirely concept neutral/blind and thus are CA blind.  It is the individual players who have their own yardsticks (my CA concepts – Alan's value standards) about which statements/actions (Ephemera) are effectively addressing Premise (a CA level concept) or not.  That the player invoke techniques

Finally I have several problems with Dramatism.  How is it defined?  If it is equated to CA then it needs to be defined with reference to conflict.  If it is not defined as a relationship to conflict thus defining it as a CA then what is it?  If it is a way of describing play from a product orientated view then it cannot be effectively compared to Narrativism for you will be then comparing apples and oranges.  (Just as aside, could not one then consider "Gentleman Gamism" as a style(?) of play also?)  

This is not imply that discussing product oriented play is without merit, but it does raise a whole can of worms which haven't been properly addressed.  Given that CA's are behavioral, what would these other forms of play be describing?  And how would they be identified?  And what would be gained about our understanding of t he players from this particular framing?  IOW what are the advantages of this particular method?  Or have I missed the whole point of your essay in that you are asserting that within Narrativism there are consistent styles of play, i.e., Dramatism that once identified can be catered to?

Really the only thing that I've changed is to define CA in terms of conflict

Hey!  I was arguing that back in March!!!!  I feel so used....

Oh well, here's another ode to my diarrhea of the key board...

[Valamir]

ALL CA's require Player Empowerment – definitionally.

If you change that to all CA's require players empowered to respond to Conflict as they desire; and you define functional Participationism as being roleplaying without a CA, yes.  I don't disagree at all.

The outline of my thought process above focused on Narrativism because that's where the discussion was leading me down the train of thought.  But while I didn't repeat the excersize for G and S above, I never said the same logic didn't apply.


I also don't disagree with your characterization of Agenda as a process.  In fact,

I agree that CA as I've framed it is really more appropriately called Conflict Approach, and the player's agenda is more properly defined by the skewer.

Conflict Approaches become simply Theme, Challenge, and Internal Causality. Players thus view conflicts as opportunities to illustrate thematic elements, opportunities for challenge or conflict, or opportunities to illustrate what "should" happen.

All of the various subsets of Gamism, Narrativism, and Simulationism thus become Skewers.

So yes, the processes you are seeing as being part of the Creative Agenda, I see also.  I see them as being the individual skewers, however, that encompass not only the Conflict Approach (or Conflict Response to avoid the CA abbreviation) but also all the other parts of the model right on down to the ephemera that you rightly point out.

All of those are part of what we've been discussing as Creative Agenda.  None of that changes (significantly).  I'm not throwing out years of discussions about what Creative Agenda are here.  I'm merely rearranging the structure to enhance understanding.


The biggest change to the model this makes is to note that there are not just three Creative Agendas.  If each Skewer is its own Creative Agenda, then there are lots and lots of Creative Agendas.  For practical purposes the ones that are most similar can be bundled together under a single CA label and thought of as minor variants of each other.

What there are three of is three conflict responses (borrowed from the 3D model and related discussions leading up to that).  Those conflict responses occupy the same layer of the model that Creative Agenda do today (and did in my earlier essay as well) but they are not Creative Agenda.  


So really just shift all of the stuff you were saying about Creative Agendas (and which I pretty much agree with you on) to the skewers passing through all of the boxes instead of the current CA box and see if you still have the same issues with it.

[Christoph Boeckle]

CA is primarily conceptual and drives Techniques and Ephemera.

Just to figure out if I'm getting this right:
If Techniques are part of System, does CA also drive the whole of System, and, continuing this thought, the rest of Exploration?

(A CA cannot be directly expressed. It is the guiding interest behind the actions of the players. It is not directly seen/heard but felt. This is why the notion of a Creative Agenda was so long in the discovery.)

So what Valamir would need to do is to, extract the "Guiding Interests" out of the GNS CAs to define what he has named Conflict Response just now?
But if it cannot be directly expressed, is Valamir's tentative doomed?


BTW, can anyone give me an example of play without any conflict at either the meta or the SIS level?
I tend to believe that the absence of conflict results in bland and boring play, but I might be wrong of course.
This in turn would imply that Conflict Response is not necessary for play, just for interesting play.
Or maybe the "fourth" CA would be precisely one with absence of conflict?


Would it be possible to split two skewers in half, assemble a new one with two different halves and start poking at the different elements of Exploration with that one?
Would it be too fragile a skewer, or could it be molten into one perfectly solid alloy? (I'm guessing that is what people call Hybrids)
What could be the elements that can tell if the skewer will hold or not? The choice of the "meat" you skewer?
In this case, and this would be consistent with Turku roleplaying, CR is not necessarily on a "superior" level in the Big Model compared to Exploration.

Sorry if this has already been discussed multiple times ;)

[M. J. Young]

I'm often picking on Jay's posts, so I wanted to point up something I thought was important in this one:

Illusionism is a form of covert deprotagonism.  If the players are aware of this process, and go along with it, then you no longer have Illusionism, but participationism.  If not, then you have railroading.

I think that's at least useful. The three categories then would be:

[*]Illusionism is when the referee is in complete control of everything that matters, but no one else knows it.[*]Participationism is when the referee is in complete control of everything that matters, but the players all knowingly acquiesce to this as part of play.[*]Railroading is when the referee is in complete control of everything that matters, and the players are trying to break that.[/list:u]Good distinctions, particularly of railroading.

Regarding Ron, Force, and Narrativism, he has elsewhere stated that the definition of "Force" in the provisional glossary is an error. He was looking for a phrase that meant something like "those decisions which mattered to the particular creative agendum" and rather than spend all day trying to think of how to say that he just stuck in "thematically-relevant" meaning to come back to change it, and never did. Thus it's accepted that the Provisional Glossary (which is, after all, a draft document) is mistaken on this entry, and that Force is inimical to any creative agendum, when it is understood to mean that the referee is using his credibility to prevent players from making decisions that would be meaningful to them.

Christophe, one of the big arguments at the moment is exactly this "play devoid of conflict" issue. I'm among those who support it--tourism, scientific play, and similar "explorations for the purpose of discovery" forms which I claim are simulationist and Ralph and Jay claim are not.

--M. J. Young

[Silmenume]

ALL CA's require Player Empowerment – definitionally.

If you change that to all CA's require players empowered to respond to Conflict as they desire; and you define functional Participationism as being roleplaying without a CA, yes.  I don't disagree at all.

Ralph I believe that we are in complete agreement.  My earlier definition for "Player Empowerment" is identical with your "players empowered to respond to Conflict as the desire".

I also agree with you regarding Participationism being effectively without a CA.  To shade the issue, does one act of Participationism totally derail CA or conversely does one "player empowered" CA decision change the game from Participationism to CA expressive?  My feeling is that CA expression (empowerment) and Participationism (deprotagonism) are on a sliding scale and that diagnosis between the two in actual play could be very difficult.  At what point is the aggregate of play considered Participationism and when is it considered to expressing CA?  (by aggregate I am speaking of many Instances of Play.)  IOW is Participationism indicative of a diagnostic Instance of Play or is it a complete style of play (Exploration with out CA)?

The outline of my thought process above focused on Narrativism because that's where the discussion was leading me down the train of thought.  But while I didn't repeat the excersize for G and S above, I never said the same logic didn't apply.

My apologies.  As long as I am apologizing I must also apologize for not recognizing that you had already asserted prior to my post that CA is a process.  Obviously I am a mallet head.  What is amazing is not that I am a mallet head, but that I provide so much evidence to support that notion!

All of the various subsets of Gamism, Narrativism, and Simulationism thus become Skewers.
...
The biggest change to the model this makes is to note that there are not just three Creative Agendas. If each Skewer is its own Creative Agenda, then there are lots and lots of Creative Agendas. For practical purposes the ones that are most similar can be bundled together under a single CA label and thought of as minor variants of each other.

I don't necessarily see the skewers as individual CAs as specific implementations of CA.  Let me argue by analogy!

Do you remember conic sections from algebra?  To me the act of addressing CA conflict is represented by the two cones (addressing Premise, Challenge, etc).  To me, the points of intersection between the plane and the cones represent the skewers you are talking about.  The various different shapes you get – point, circle, ellipse, parabola, line, etc., though they all look very distinct all have one thing in common – they are parts of the two cones.  So by analogy there are games that can look so distinct from one another at to appear to be totally unrelated, all have one thing in common – they all address the CA specific conflict.  These skewers are all instances of approach to conflict address.  Nevertheless they all do at one point or another cross that cone.  Would it not then be more profitable to define which cones are intersected than focus on the shapes of the intersections of the plane and the cones for diagnostic purposes?

So yes, the processes you are seeing as being part of the Creative Agenda, I see also. I see them as being the individual skewers, however, that encompass not only the Conflict Approach (or Conflict Response to avoid the CA abbreviation) but also all the other parts of the model right on down to the ephemera that you rightly point out.

I may be mistaken, but I thought the idea of addressing Premise or Challenge necessarily encompassed the whole of the model from Social Contract right on down to Ephemera.  IOW one cannot address CA specific conflict unless one was roleplaying in the first place which denotes all five levels are in operation.  Let me know if I am mistaken in this assumption, please.

I'm merely rearranging the structure to enhance understanding.

Aha!  Nobel effort!  However as I am thick in the skull, if you please, could you clarify what exactly you are trying to enhance understanding of?  The Model?  What constitutes a Creative Agenda?  How a Creative Agenda functions?  How an Instance of Play works?  How to diagnose play?  I'm really not trying to be provocative, I'm sincerely in the dark here.

On the other hand I think the idea of skewers is profoundly useful for game design!  By deciding on a line/skewer that penetrates all levels of the model I believe extremely novel approaches to game design can be discovered which might ordinarily be missed.

At least that is the frame of reference I am operating from.  If I am in total lala land maybe by stating where I am coming from you can better see where I am off target.  Let me know if I have derailed your thread and if I should move this elsewhere.

Hey Christoph,

Welcome to the Forge!

CA is primarily conceptual and drives Techniques and Ephemera.

Just to figure out if I'm getting this right:
If Techniques are part of System, does CA also drive the whole of System, and, continuing this thought, the rest of Exploration?

That is an argument that I have put forth in the past, but that does not mean by any stretch of the imagination that it is proven or held to be true yet.  I believe it to be so.

(A CA cannot be directly expressed. It is the guiding interest behind the actions of the players. It is not directly seen/heard but felt. This is why the notion of a Creative Agenda was so long in the discovery.)

So what Valamir would need to do is to, extract the "Guiding Interests" out of the GNS CAs to define what he has named Conflict Response just now?
But if it cannot be directly expressed, is Valamir's tentative doomed?

Unless I am mistaken, I think CA and Conflict Response are the same thing.  Better to ask Ralph.

I don't think that Ralph is saying that a CA is directly expressed either.  However, I will defer to Ralph again.

As M. J. Young has wisely indicated, the idea of a fourth Agenda, and the idea a conflict avoidant/indifferent mode of play belonging to or being separate from Sim is still under active debate.  Alas no firm answer can be offered yet.  Stay tuned and jump into the debates!

Hey M. J.,

I appreciate your kind words!

Hey this is a very short post for me!  Woo hoo!!!

[Gordon C. Landis]

Maybe I should hold off until Ron posts his restrictions and clarifications for this forum, but I have time free at the moment, so . . . I'l try and make this short:

I agree with Jay that thinking of the skewers as specific implementations of CA is not particularly accurate within the theory, and I think it seriously muddies the whole point of what a CA is.  On the other hand, I do think the skewers are important.  Hell, they're capital-I, bolded, really, really Important.  But that doesn't mean anything about the current G, N, or S has to change.

Simply and directly, I see a lot of value in the ideas in this (and other related) threads, but I have no understanding of why there seems to be a need to change the GNS mode definitions in order to pursue them.  I would love to talk more about particular preferences within a skewer, and how Techniques cluster together to support particular play styles.  But to my mind, "play style" is already a superset that includes under it (when applied to actual play) one of the three CA's.  I do not see in Virtualism or Dramatisim anything that prevents me from asking "what is prioritized - Story Now or The Dream?"  In fact, best as I can tell I need to have that answer, because it possible to prioritize either CA within the bounds of both Virtualism and Dramatisim.

That people care strongly about the play style issues involved in, say, Virtualism seems obviously true to me, and an important issue when playing/preparing for/designing a particular game.  But the GNS CA's - the priorities of play - are not the three things that people care most strongly about, they are the three things that are ultimately distinct and mutually exclusive.  Not of neccessity distinct and mutually exclusive at every instant of play - only neccessarily so when considered as the ultimate point of play (in a particular "instance").

CA's are certainly not the only things that are important about play styles.  But we don't have to alter anything about those three agendas in order to talk about the other important stuff involved in play styles.  At the moment, I don't see that we gain anything in attempting alterations at that basic, fundamental level.  There are three CA's.  There are many, many play style issues that people feel strongly about.  Those two points are not antagonistic, and we don't have to invalidate/alter the first in order to constructively and meaningfully discuss the second.

Hope that makes sense,

Gordon

[Christoph Boeckle]

Hey Christoph,
Welcome to the Forge!

Thank you ;)

I'm merely rearranging the structure to enhance understanding.

Aha!  Nobel effort!  However as I am thick in the skull, if you please, could you clarify what exactly you are trying to enhance understanding of?  The Model?  What constitutes a Creative Agenda?  How a Creative Agenda functions?  How an Instance of Play works?  How to diagnose play?  I'm really not trying to be provocative, I'm sincerely in the dark here.

If I may, as a relative beginner in the highly arcane spheres of rpg analysis, I will express the points which I see positive in Valamir's expansion of the Big Model.
- Creative Agendas get stripped off by the Lumpley Principle to become pure entities of one property only (which one it should be exactly I have personaly no idea, I'll gladly let the experts discuss this point).
- Techniques being now better seperated, I guess confusions can be reduced (from what I've seen on the discussions on Illusionism for example, I believe there could be a better consensus as to it's applications).

On the other hand I think the idea of skewers is profoundly useful for game design!  By deciding on a line/skewer that penetrates all levels of the model I believe extremely novel approaches to game design can be discovered which might ordinarily be missed.

This is precisely why I got interested in the Forge in the first place. And as you say it, by clarifying the CAs, it will be easier to imagine new combinations of Elements of Exploration (Techniques included) with CAs.
I sometimes wonder if the G, N and S categories don't make make some people stiff ("this is most definetly Sim!" "just Sim-Illusionism!"). Even though Ron indicates that each category can encompass vast numbers of sub-styles, I believe that building this allowance to diversity directly into the model with the modular "skewer" approach could help people to visualize differences more quickly and with less preconceptions, if the particular "atoms" are correctly described.
With Valamir's approach, each of Ron's three essays on G, N and S could probably be split up into two or more articles (also making an easier read at a time for beginners like me!)
The big problem is that it would take quite a lot of work...

If Techniques are part of System, does CA also drive the whole of System, and, continuing this thought, the rest of Exploration?

That is an argument that I have put forth in the past, but that does not mean by any stretch of the imagination that it is proven or held to be true yet. I believe it to be so.

Hum... anyways, what one must keep in mind is that even if this was true, it wouldn't mean that, f.ex., one Setting is exclusively suited to one CA. I believe that most Settings could allow for variable approaches by CAs, but each one would illuminate sligthly different aspects. Same kind of idea for the rest.


One thing I've not quite understood yet is if skewers represent CAs with their set of Elements of Exploration, or if they represent Styles of Play with their set of Elements of Exploration and a CA of some sort, which would not be necessarily be morte important than the EoE.

Even more fundamentally, I'm still unsure if the Big Model is used to describe Styles of Play or RPGs or even Instances of Play. I believe it's more SoP.
But then, how could this be used to develop RPGs?
Or is the aim of the Big Model precisely to produce RPGs that reflect one precise SoP and thus lead to Instances of Play that are more uniformised (and probably shorter)?
The idea being that if you want to change Style, you change for another RPG (this is obviously becoming extremely feasible with the vast amount of free RPGs on the net).

Any thoughts (either here or on my previous questions)?

[clehrich]

Hi, gang.

Is there really a hierarchical arrangement between the different blocks? (two being clearly defined, others could probably be added)
Is CA definetly more "fundamental" than Technique, ie. does CA define/allow for Techniques or is the other way round also possible?

Recently,

On the other hand I think the idea of skewers is profoundly useful for game design!  By deciding on a line/skewer that penetrates all levels of the model I believe extremely novel approaches to game design can be discovered which might ordinarily be missed.

This is precisely why I got interested in the Forge in the first place. And as you say it, by clarifying the CAs, it will be easier to imagine new combinations of Elements of Exploration (Techniques included) with CAs.
I sometimes wonder if the G, N and S categories don't make make some people stiff ("this is most definetly Sim!" "just Sim-Illusionism!"). Even though Ron indicates that each category can encompass vast numbers of sub-styles, I believe that building this allowance to diversity directly into the model with the modular "skewer" approach could help people to visualize differences more quickly and with less preconceptions, if the particular "atoms" are correctly described.

Ralph, can you clarify something for me?  What Christoph is saying, I think, is that if we take the "nesting" part of the "nested boxes" structure, and set it aside as its own thing (skewering), then what we have is a set of discrete boxes (CA, Technique, Exploration, Situation, Ephemera, etc.) with no preestablished relationship or priority with respect to one another.  In game design, play, etc., you pick up a metaphorical skewer and makes a shish-kabob: you take some from each box, in whatever order seems appropriate to you, and you slide them onto the skewer and grill it up.  Some combinations or orderings are unbalanced, unworkable, or just plain nasty.  Some are wonderful.  The ordering that the Big Model currently takes as normal is an established and highly successful structure, but there is nothing necessary about it.

Is that what you're saying?  That would, as I read it, completely solve the problem you began with.  The logical bind you started the thread with requires both that the definitions be sufficiently precise and that the hierarchical relations among categories be established.

As I read it, you were suggesting changing some of the definitions and shifting some categories from one "tier" to another, leaving the hierarchical "nesting" order intact.  Christoph reads you otherwise, and I'm stuck.

To my mind, removing the fixed nature of hierarchical nesting is the easy, simple solution to this and several other significant problems in the Big Model.  But I'm a little confused on where you stand.

[Alan]

In regards the narrativist creative agenda, I recently realized that Premise is a situation involving fantasy elements and a value standard.  Such situations my occur more often with one set of techniques than with another.

I think techniques work together to create an environment.  Different environments are more friendly to some creative agendas than others.  I suppose that players might also develop a taste for the flavor of a particular environment itself.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Alan's nailed it.

For what it's worth, in the diagram and explanations of the Big Model, Creative Agenda is depicted not as a layer but as an arrow which connects layers.

In reality, it is composed of socially focused and reinforced imaginative input - i.e. "role-playing."

As far as I can tell, therefore, I have already presented the point and content that Ralph (Valamir) has outlined so carefully.

As for Narrativism as a term, it astounds me that anyone thinks that it is defined by Techniques. The entire Narrativism essay disavows this idea, in detail. It is the name I've given to one of these arrows. It is not a layer. What Ralph is calling "theme play" is Narrativism.

Best,
Ron