Exploration Is *REALLY* King - or - System Doesn't Matter As

[Judd]

I may be alone in this, but I don't like just making stuff up in the presence of my friends.  I like making stuff up and having that accepted, contemplated and reinforced by my friends.  I like my work to be noticed.

Rock on, Tony.

Accepted, contemplated, reinforced, noticed and finally, hopefully, mutated, made into something greater, stranger and better through the other players' filters and the filter of the game.[/b]

[Gordon C. Landis]

Paganini,

Take out that "everyone" and change "does not depend" into "does not always and/or only depend" in your last post and I've got much less difficulty with what you're saying.  Does it happen that people say "I dislike Gamism" when it would be more accurate to say "I identify x bad experience with Gamism"?  Yup, it sure does, way too often.

But what some people mean by "I dislike Gamism" is "I don't like RPG play that prioritizes the competition/challenge."  And you know what?  They don't.  Really, REALLY don't, sometimes.  And that's useful, meaningful information.  For example, I'm entirely comfortable telling people (in various non-Forgeworded ways, usually) "If you're going for Gamist play, I'm only up for a one/two-shot game."  My "dislike" of Gamism in RPGs for more than a brief while is real, and important to communicate to others.  Does that mean the slightest wiff of competition possibility or typically Gamist-style Techniques is going to turn me off?  No - but trully prioritized competition eventually will.  Gamism is not "just" a broad label on a many-varied set of play styles, it is also a very specific behavior profile that it is quite possible - likely, probably - for people to have preferences about.

I'm not sure how much of that is refutation of your claim and how much is simply refinement, but if it is refinement, I find it very, VERY important refinement.  

groundhog,

I'm not sure I follow exactly where you agree and disagree in your post.  If the point is that there are things (details/techniques/what have you) that aren't strictly G, N or S-related that have an effect on our enjoyment of play - hell yes!  No one (especially Ron) has ever said differently.  Often those things (distribution of power between players/GM, style of Exploration, etc) are far more obvious and important than GNS stuff.

That does NOT, however, translate into Creative Agenda having no importance to our enjoyment of play.  Some folks make errors about in what way or to what degree they impact our enjoyment, but the impact can be real.

Some people can enjoy lots of kinds of play.  Others are more picky.  This is true across Techniques, across Creative Agenda, across Setting, System . . . all of it.  I'm at a lost as to why that should be hard to accept.

Gordon

[Andrew Cooper]

"Because it's Sim" is not an acceptable reason for disliking a game.

Sez who?  I've sat down with friends who play Simulationist games and knowing full well what kind of game it is, put on my Simulationist hat.  It was a completely functional game and everyone at the table was having fun... except me.  It bored me to tears.  Why?  Because I don't like just "making stuff up".  How it gets made up matters to me.  Why it gets made up matters to me.  I don't like the vast majority Simulationist games.  The ones I do like, have Gamist elements to it.  I recognize this.  Does this mean that I won't sit down and give a Sim game a shot.  Hell no!  I'll give any game a fair shake and try to play it as it was meant to be played (as defined by whomever the designer is).  But at the end of most Sim sessions my response has been historically, "I didn't have much fun.  Mostly because it was a game that emphasized a Sim agenda."

[Ben Lehman]

Nate --

Have you considered that this might be what you, yourself enjoy in gaming, but not what everyone else enjoys in gaming?

yrs--
--Ben

[Paganini]

Let me see if I can put this a different way.

Imagine the Big Model. It looks like this:

[Social Contract [Exploration (the 5 elements) [Creative Agenda --> [Techniques [Ephemera]]]]]

Take out Creative Agenda. That gives us some people interacting and communicating (Social Contract) in such a way where each person imagines something and tells it to the other people so that they imagine it too (Exploration). Exploration includes Setting, Character, Situation, Color, and System. The first 4 are "what we imagine" the last one, System, is the nitty-gritty details of how the group imagination process works.

And we stop here. (We can include Techniques and Ephemera as specifications for Social Contract and Exploration protocols if we want, but we don't really need them for me to make this point.)

What we have here is a base-line description of role-playing. This is real role-playing. We can play right now using this construct as a model, and it will be functional. The way it works at this point is that each participant contributes based on what seems cool to him right at this moment. This evaluation of coolness takes place on the "5 Elements of Exploration" level. It's an aesthetic evaluation that has nothing to do with long-term play goals. I guess we could call it "Impulse Play." (Has anyone ever used that term before?)

A lot of Universalis play looks like this. Mike made a post a while back about what happens in a Universalis game when no player takes on a leadership role. That's what this "Impulse Play" is - moment-by-moment improvisation.

Before everyone chimes in with "Bad! Evil! I gotta have my Story! (Or Dream, or Step On Up)" think about this very carefully. This is what role-playing is. Creative Agenda is the icing. The cake is good without it. If you don't like the cake, you'd better look for something else to put the icing on.

Without the cute analogy, what I'm saying is this:

You: "I gotta have my Theme. Exploration by itself doesn't do it for me!"
Me: "Then why don't you go read a novel or watch a movie?"

Exploration *is* where it's at. It's the only thing that makes Narrativist Theme different from Novel Theme or Movie Theme. The same goes for Gamism. You can Step On Up in a boardgame (heck, you can do it in frisbee).

Have I made a point yet? Not really. So far this is all just reinforcing relevant points from the Big Model. Here comes the point:

I see a lot of people saying: "I don't give a crap about the cake, I just eat it for the icing." And: "If you put the wrong icing on, I will flee to the toilet and hurl violently for the next two hours."

The Big Model is like a course in Icing Appreciation. It assumes, with a brief review, that you already like cake. It then explains how icing can enhance or detract from the experience. People read the Big Model and go icing crazy. "Yeah! Icing, I gotta get me some of that!"

Here's me jumping up and down screaming "Cake! Cake! Cake!"

If the icing is so cool, eat it with a spoon.

If you've read "The Model According to Valamir" you may remember that Ralph claims that nearly all of actual play is "Impulse Play." Creative Agenda only activates when there's a conflict that a participant has to deal with. That is, an imagined conflict between imagined elements that correlates with a real conflict between real participants: one participant represents one side of the fictional conflict, another participant represents the other side of the fictional conflict.

I didn't buy this at first, but the more I think about it the more sense it makes.

On the one hand, it simplifies design. In order to facilitate a Creative Agenda, all you have to do is write mechanics for setting up these types of conflicts.

On the other hand, if you're an icing only guy, you're going to spend a lot of boring time pushing cake crumbs around on your plate waiting for the icing to show up.

[Andrew Cooper]

Okay, I don't think I'm totally disagreeing with you then but I think your analogy is off.  If we're going to equate role-playing with cake then CA isn't the icing, it's the type of cake.  CA's simply classify the types of conflicts and decisions that different RPGs emphasize so that I can make a better informed opinion about what I do or do not like and they give me the ability to articulate what it is I do and do not like in my games.

Do I like role-playing games?  Yes.  Do I tend to like games that enable Gamist play?  Yes.  Do I tend to like games that enable Simulationist play? No.

Do I like cake?  Yes.  Do I like Cheesecake?  Yes.  Do I like Fruit Cake.  No.

[Andrew Cooper]

The Big Model = Cake... heh...

[Paganini]

:) Yeah, I had fun with that analogy. However, I don't think you've got what I'm driving at yet, Gaerik. You suggest that Creative Agenda is the type of cake.

One of the things in the Big Model that tends to get swept under the rug is that you don't have to have a Creative Agenda to play an RPG. Agenda-less play exists. In fact, Agenda-less play is standard. It's the 90% of play that doesn't have those Agenda-weighted conflicts. That is why I'm calling Creative Agenda "icing." You don't have to have it, ever, to play a functional RPG. When you do have it, most of the time it's not "activated."

The functionality of actual play is not determined by the presense or absense of a Creative Agenda. It's determined by the members of the group having a shared understanding about how everyone will behave.

I'm saying that I enjoy Exploration for it's own sake - I like making stuff up with a group of friends. I'm saying that this is a prerequisite (a synonim even) for liking RPGs. I'm saying that the addition of a Creative Agenda can make this Exploration more interesting, but that if Exploration itself is not something that you enjoy, you should be looking for your Creative Agenda in some other medium. I'm saying that, if you enjoy Exploration, having a working knowledge of GNS will allow you to be a functional member of any group. I'm saying that your enjoyment of such play will depend not on Creative Agenda, but on specific factors of personal preference (frex, whether or not you think Werewolves are cool).

[Ben Lehman]

I'm saying that this is a prerequisite (a synonym even) for liking RPGs.

You're wrong.

Allow me to analogize:

"The basics of reading a book are looking at words on a page, and translating them into meaning.  If you don't like translating words into meaning, you don't like reading a book!  Therefore, you should be able to have fun reading any book!"

You may like that.

Other people have different tastes.

yrs--
--Ben

[Andrew Cooper]

One of the things in the Big Model that tends to get swept under the rug is that you don't have to have a Creative Agenda to play an RPG. Agenda-less play exists. In fact, Agenda-less play is standard. It's the 90% of play that doesn't have those Agenda-weighted conflicts.

This I disagree with completely and utterly.  Everyone has an agenda when they sit down to play.  Everyone.  They might not be able to articulate it, which is what theory gives you the language to do coherently.  What you are calling agenda-less play, I call incoherent play.  It's an attempt to appeal to all agenda equally (generally without even knowing that's what is happening) and thus to take on the appearance of no agenda.  I've played with these groups before too and playing in a game like this REALLY sucks wind.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

I think it might be useful to distinguish between ...

Zilchplay
in which no Creative Agenda is discernible, and quite likely never enters any "capital letter" status (using Gordon's favored notation). Zilchplay is not well documented, to say the least.

Incoherent play
in which no mutually-compatible presence or combination of Creative Agenda receives group reinforcement, characterized by a "switchy" or "confused" aesthetic feel at best, and a "pushy bully" or even "ignore stuff half the time" one at worst.

Nathan, I think Incoherent play is very common, and Zilchplay remains largely hypothetical. Yet it seems to me that you're describing Zilchplay as "root role-playing" as well as very common.

Am I reading you correctly?

Best,
Ron

[Gordon C. Landis]

Nathan,

Here's the thing about Creative Agenda.  Like shit, It Happens.  It springs from being human and Exploring, whether you "pay attention" to it or not.  Given that Sim is prioritized Exploration, play without a CA is very, very rare.  

In the cake analogy, CA is a basic ingredient - flour, or eggs, or something.  It's really hard to make a cake without it (note I'm not saying impossible, just very uncommon).  People like their cake with all kinds of different proportions of ingredients, and the number of potentially "good" possibilities in RPGs greatly outnumbers those in baked goods (which is pretty big).  But I think seeing it as just icing misses the point.

That said - I think you've got an important charge in there: that "people" (presumeably here at the Forge, and elsewhere) can get all obssesive about particular detailed/peripheral aspects of CA rather than look at the meaty heart that is Exploration.  I think that's a valid charge.  Here's the thing, though - it's often (again, not always, I'm avoiding absolutes here quite intentionally) somewhere between useless and impossible to talk about Exploration without a CA, because people with different CA's will NOT AGREE about what's important/useful/fun in Exploration.  I think we're seeing some of that here in this thread.  For Sim purposes, just about everything you said is, well, totally correct.  Sim is all about the Exploration, and nothing else.

But Game and Nar aren't.  Does that mean that Exploration is unimportant to them?  Hell no.  As you say, it ain't roleplaying without the Exploration.  I'm fine with saying we should talk about that more, but I think CA's will help with that, rather than hurt.  At least they should.

Gordon

[Paganini]

Ron, I believe so yes.

One possible problem is that I've seen the term Zilchplay used with certain undesireable connotations of laziness on the part of the player. What I was calling "Impulse Play" earlier on does not have that. If we agree to discount apathy as a factor in Zilchplay, then yes, definitely. I think that Zilchplay is exactly what's happening in all those "Agenda-less" spaces between the weighted conflicts that Ralph described.

Gaerik,

Well, dude, there's not much I can say to that. I'm coming from a standpoint of the Big Model here. My comments are based on the assumption that it is more or less correct. Like, maybe I don't agree with (or understand) every complete nuance of it. But it's the foundation that this thread is built on. Your statement: "Everyone has an agenda when they sit down to play" is a contradiction to the Big Model. The Big Model includes agendaless play. Agendas do not, in spite of what Gordon said, "just happen," as a result of human interaction.

Gordon,

See, I really do think that what I said *does* apply equally well to Nar and Gam as it does to Sim. I'm not talking about Techniques. I'm not describing a play method or anything. And the whole "Sim is all about Exploration" idea just doesn't wash. That *is* one of the places where I have a problem wiht the Big Model. I get the idea that you've been reading my posts, and plugging "Sim" in every time I say "Exploration." This is wrong. I'm talking about play without Sim, play without Nar, play without Gam.

[Gordon C. Landis]

Nathan,

OK, this is tricky - sorry to steer us down the unproductive path of Sim as Exploration sqaured.  The thing for me is NOT that I initially read Sim where ever you said Exploration, it's that I can only make sense of it in Big Model terms if I go back and add Sim to it.  I read the majority of what you say as fundamentally applicable to all roleplay, but it can only be seen as a mostly-full description if we say "Sim" and then look at it like that wasn't a CA (which some people seem to really want to do).  For Nar and Game, certainly (and Sim, unless you look at it funny), Exploration is a neccessary and NOT sufficient component of play.  Agendaless play, IMO, is a mostly theoretic construct that must sometimes happen, but that is seen very, very rarely.  I went out and looked at lot of play over the last few years, and I gotta say - lots of CA, some Incoherence, and no Zilchplay (of either positive or negative connotation).  Now, I can't discount observer bias, obviously, but . . . I'd like to think I'm capable of at least some self-correction of that.  Most of the time, the CA is your sterotypical Huge Elephant in the room that everyone deals with whether they admit to it or not.

Maybe we're in the old "instance of play" problem - you're pointing at those Agenda-less spaces and saying "see, no CA!"  But all I have to do is wait, and those weighted conflicts WILL happen, and I'll see a CA.  That it was not obvious in those Agenda-less spaces doesn't mean that it wasn't still there, real, and important.

Now, I'll admit to a possibly-new bias here:  I find the statement "I roleplay because I enjoy roleplaying" to be as equally empty as "I roleplay because it's fun."  True statements, but lacking in useful meaning.  So the degree to which I see your claim "Exploration is king" to be similar to "roleplay is king", I'm biased to not find that very useful.  As soon as I start talking the details of how to Explore, how to roleplay, CA is (in my experience) all over the process like a demon after its' Need.

Yet that doesn't trivialize Exploration - hell no.  And sometimes people think it does.  They're wrong.  Because while Exploration might be neccessary but not sufficient, CA is nothing (in terms of RPG play) without successful Exploration.

You can't really take either out of the model, IMO.  Zilchplay is recognition that in theory you can take out CA, but not Exploration.  But I seriously dobut any group of actual humans does, for any significant length of time.

That said - it would be interesting to see a design that optimized for Zilchplay.  I have no idea what it would look like, but it would be interesting.

Gordon

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

I'd also like to clarify that the "instance of play" issue is now, in my view, fully resolved. As I now see it, an instance of play is defined by the presence of one or more reward cycles.

A familiar reward cycle might be, encounter creatures, kill creatures and avoid/weather associated dangers, take stuff, level up; go and encounter more dangerous creatures, etc. There are lots and lots of others with very different metrics or procedures.

See how "big" such a cycle might be? In many cases, it requires at least one session of play, and possibly several.

In other words, I've taken the old atomic hassles and just tossed'em out. I don't know why I didn't figure this out earlier; would've saved us lots of hassles. It also solves the circularity problem neatly, because I'm not defining of the unit of the recognition of CA as the presence of the CA.

[I have posted about this before, but usually embedded in other discussions, like this one, or buried in the Glossary, so maybe people haven't processed it well.]

What I'm suggesting for purposes of this thread is that perhaps people are not in tune with the unit of observation and experience which will serve best, or at least not in tune with each other about it. And no, I'm not hinting about you, Nathan - this is more about talking with one another here than anything else.

Finally, a question: Nathan, looking over the last year as of this date, how much of your role-playing has been IRC or otherwise computer/tech mediated, and how much has been face to face? Percentages, please. This is an important question.

Best,
Ron