Obstructionists in games - is it a creative agenda?

[MatrixGamer]

I have a bad reaction to this for two reasons:  your phrase "what the story was supposed to be about" and "other social agenda".  The former implies that unexpected actions which radically change the story are bad.  The latter implies that the game is supposed to have a particular social agenda.  

The first term "other social agendas" was coined by Ron Edwards a week or so ago to answer how involuntary players in paychotherapy role plays would fit into the Big Model. I'm using it here to try and explore its meaning. The idea Ron put forward was that players could come to the social contract stage of gaming with "other social agendas" that might make them balk at play all together. If they did play they would then fall into one of the GNS agendas. I accept this logic.

"What the game is suppose to be" is a poor choise of words on my part. What I think (and didn't clearly say) is that the passive aggressive player obstructed the players from following the story the GM planned for. Certainly in role playing players can go and do what they like, but GMs usually work very hard getting a game ready. If someone insists on not going there they don't have to but this is opting to do a completely made up on the spot adventure. I'm fine with this idea myself - Matrix Games are built on that assumption - other games aren't.

In the example, Terri putting Willow in great danger to hijack the game, the GM could just let Willow die or be captured. It would be a natural consequence and would get Terri out of the game quickly but at the cost of destroying an important character in the Buffyverse. If Terri made Willow start killing innocents or other PCs the natural consequeces would be completely world wrecking.

Chris Engle
Hamster Press

[MatrixGamer]

Has anyone here disagreed with you about its existence?  I think the disagreement is about whether or not it is a Creative Agenda.

I wouldn't say disagreed that such play exists, we all know it does from first hand observation. Exploring what this type of play is, maybe. Any answer that say "This is X" with no logical proof attached just doesn't explore. It would be like the ancient Greek philosophers who said things like "Everything it water!" This doesn't explore the patterns and relationships of observed behavior.

When people describe their thinking, put outtheir line of logic like a geometric proof, it illuminates more. Another way would be be experimental to test how different play worked in actual games. Logic after all only takes us so far - example: Aristotle's mistakes.

Chris Engle
Hamster Press

[MatrixGamer]

"obstructionist" might come from different causes-

- CA Incoherence amongst the group- the group is "talking past each other"

-Passive Aggressive action- ("Hey, I'm going to play D&D with this guy, and treat him like crap though play!")

-Griefers-  ruining whatever fun others are having- regardless of what kind of fun that may be.  [/qoute]


Now these all seem like logical points that can be compaired to the big model to see how it addresses them. I'm certain talking past one another and confusion over what agenda a game will follow are well covered. I would see that as being in the social contract where peoplle can have open honest discussions about what the agenda is. The second two approaches to play are inherently dishonest positions. If the person was asked what they were doing I can easily see them lie. They might say "I'm here to play." Their actions say otherwise.


[quote+"Bankuei] the point is that obstructionism goes completely against the very basic Social Contract of "We're here to play" with "I'm here to stop you FROM playing, in ANY fashion that you might find fun."

Obstructionist would go against the basic social contract. This set of behaviors would lead to highly dysfunctional play. (Dysfunction here meaning play that does not meet other players creative agendas and which could wreck the whole social contract.)

Example: A person who says "I want to run the next game." The group agrees to this and the prospective GM then doesn't run for months on end. When asked if they are going to run they say something like "Next week." This is a real example and it lead to the disintegration of that gaming group. Now in this case the person never actually ran the game so I can see it never passing the boundry into actual play. But sometimes it does.

In my work in psychotherapy I frequently deal with people whose behavior patterns are dysfunctional - personality dysorders. Anit social - there are rules but they don't apply to me. Borderline - Love me, I hate you! and more. If a person brought those psychological games into play I could see it being destructive. Poor play alienates - extreme behavior destroys (which is why most families of schizophrenics eventually cut them off.)

Obstructionism may not be a creative agenda - given that it destorys - so how does it fit in? I mean once the game passes into actual play.

Chris Engle
Hamster Press

[Alan]

I just had an idea.  Obstructionism, it seems to me, is an agenda at the highest social contract level -- ie to be contrary or annoy one or more other players.  The normal social contract says "We're all here to have individual fun and support each other's fun using a set of rules."  The obstructionist rejects the fun part.  

Creative Agenda comes in when the group agrees what environment they want to create in which to have their fun.  This is subsidiary to the basic "we're here to play the game."

It seems to me that obstructionism would operate independant of CA - they can mess up any CA the group chooses.

[Bankuei]

Hi Alan,

Right, I mean, we could put this social agenda right up there with, "I show up at the LARP cause I'm trying to hook up with this cute girl" or any other social agenda which could conceivably be in play- some of which will support a given Creative Agenda, and others which wouldn't.

Chris,

Right, the dysfunction comes first from the fact that the person is directly counter to the goals of the group, and the purpose of the group activity altogether.  You can't put two different people with the agenda to bake a cake and another with the agenda to stop any cakes from being baked together and expect things to run smoothly.

It might be worthwhile to take a close examination of the social dynamics that allow this stuff to keep cropping up.  Although all activities have their share of dysfunction, roleplaying is one of the few where the majority of people continually have a hard time removing people from the activity who are counter to it.  

I mean, if you tried to sabotage a baseball team, you'd get kicked off the team real quick.  If you showed up at a Jazz club and played techno, you'd get thrown off stage real quick.  If you showed up at Poker night and ripped up the cards, you'd be removed as well.

With roleplaying, I think a few different things allow obstructionists to hang around and keep causing trouble:

-Geek Fallacy "Because we have the same interests we're automatically friends."
-Loser Fallacy "I can't NOT play with this person.  Then they'll stop being my friend(and I can't make new ones...)"
-Campaign as Marriage "We need to play for 15 years, and we have to stick it through, for the love of the the game."
-Rules as Bible "The Rules will tell us how to deal with this person's misbehaving"
-Abusive Friendship "It doesn't matter that he makes me angry, cry and says hurtful things all the time- he's my friend."(also, bad gaming is better than no gaming fallacy).
-GM as God "I have to be perfect, I HAVE to make sure everyone's having fun, including the guy who ruins everyone's fun.  Otherwise I failed, and it's my fault."

Half of these are obviously the same problems you get in many social situations, the other half are encouraged/supported by certain styles of play and text.

Chris

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

Chris (Matrixgamer), I'm getting a sense of going around in circles. "Its basic purpose is destructive, so how does it fit in?" The only possible answer is, "It doesn't."

I think Alan and Chris (Bankuei) have nailed down the basic answers very clearly.

Q: Is obstructionist play a Creative Agenda?

A: No, it is not.

Q: How does it fit into the Big Model?

A: It is an agenda in the informal sense of the word ("social goal"), operating at the level of Social Contract. As you have defined it, it interferes with Creative Agenda(s).

I think you might be interested in the extensive discussions we've already had at the Forge about this and related issues. Have you seen the Site Discussion sticky thread about the Infamous Five? I recommend taking some time to check out those links and see what happened in those discussions.

Best,
Ron

[MatrixGamer]

The normal social contract says "We're all here to have individual fun and support each other's fun using a set of rules."  The obstructionist rejects the fun part.  

This would be a fair statement. Obstruction is bad play but it is play. If we were to look at the verbatim/ephemera of actual play they look like play.

Chris Engle
Hamster Press

[MatrixGamer]

It might be worthwhile to take a close examination of the social dynamics that allow this stuff to keep cropping up.  Although all activities have their share of dysfunction, roleplaying is one of the few where the majority of people continually have a hard time removing people from the activity who are counter to it.  

I will put my thinking to this.

Chris Engle
Hamster Press

[MatrixGamer]

I think you might be interested in the extensive discussions we've already had at the Forge about this and related issues. Have you seen the Site Discussion sticky thread about the Infamous Five?

Can you provide me a link to this thread? The trouble with four years of collective threads is that a new person will have a hard time assemilating all that has happened before.

Has this observation been made and thrashed out? I certainly don't want to be obstructionist myself - or boring.

Sincerely Chris Engle
Hamster Press

[komradebob]

Here's the link Chris:
Infamous Five in the Site Discussion Forum

[MatrixGamer]

Thanks!

Chris Engle
Hamster Press

[MatrixGamer]

Okay, I've read through the threads. First I boiled them down to seven pages of notes and then to the four I'm posting here. Please note that the actual threads are not this precise and that no complete agreement was reached in them. People did state their positions. The ones that seemed to reach a consensus are what I've put here.

THE INFAMOUS FIVE SHORT FORM SYNOPSIS

#1 PUBLISHING

MAINSTREAM: A REVISION
TSR fantasy/superheroes are not the mainstream, science fiction, fantasy/surrealism, sex, biography, humor, horror and drama/soap opera are. Stores should feature these in nicely made books to attract a wider game audience.

PRODUCTION VALUE
Game products need to be "high class"

PROMOTION
Build web communities. Target the disgruntled role player.

ACTIVE VS PASSIVE ENTERTAINMENT FROM MAINSTREAM: A REVISION
Games are active - comics/video/etc. are passive

THE STORE
Distribution and sales are important but until a big picture is established discussion leads in circles.

WHAT WOULD MAKE A NON-ROLEPLAYER BUY YOUR GAME?
Roleplayers being proud open and inviting will bring new people to the hobby.

THE GAME THAT WOULD SELL TO NON-ROLEPLAYERS
•Simple rules, deep strategy- Chess, Dominoes, Backgammon, Go, Othello
•Social games-Uno, Charades, Balderdash, Scruples, etc.
•Physical tokens to occupy the hands/fiddle with-Barrel of Monkeys, Pick up Stix, Tiddlywinks, Mousetrap
•Clear goals/Winning Conditions/End conditions
•Clear time commitment, ranging from 10 minutes to 2 hours.

THE IMPORTANCE OF PLAY
"In order to sell well people have to be able to play." "Actual play doesn't track the booming sales of a fad in a huge spike."

ACCESSIBLE? TO WHOM?
Complicated detailed rules work for some not others. "Vanilla" rules work for some not others.

#2 ACTUAL PLAY

ACTUAL PLAY IN STORES
Ron sets down rules for running games at stores - which sound fine.. Stores have problems - they push the next big thing.

#3 RPG THEORY

SOCIAL CONTEXT
Social Contract. It's the sum and the internal interactions of how the members of the role-playing group interact as human beings. Social Context of play concerns how one's role-playing relates to all the other socializing in one's life.

GAY CULTURE/GAMER CULTURE [SOCIAL CONTEXT]
Be a gamer and be proud! Gamers are a subculture much like unto Fetishists. When it is more open public acceptance goes up, in theory.

SELF-IMAGE (SPLIT FROM GAY/GAMER)
More gamer pride and self loathing, sort of a self help meeting on line.

CHRISTIAN GAMERS AND SELF ESTEEM
The same discussion this time directed at theological conflicts (Christian vs Anti Religious).

WHAT DOES ROLE PLAYING GAMING ACCOMPLISH?
Nothing, entertainment, education, socialization, etc,

SEXISM AND GAMING (SPLIT)
How to get women to play games. The great untapped market. Are games sexist - some oh yeah! All? No.

#4 GNS MODEL DISCUSSION

VANILLA AND PERVY [THREAD #4 OF THE FIVE]
Vanilla = placing low emphasis on Exploration of System. Few "points of contact" with the rules during play. Vanilla play and design is more accessible to the non-role-player than Pervy play and design.
Pervy = upping the Exploration of System. Many points of contact with the rules during play. Perviness is "normal" within the gaming hobby, "normal" play requires...a developed pre-existing commitment to the hobby
The discussion is influencing people to make their systems more simple.

PERVY IN MY HEAD
"high Exploration of System would be kinky. A pervy gamer would a. only like kinky games or b. like every kinky game, just cuz it's kinky. A pervy game would be one that appeals mostly to pervs. " Strong sexual metaphors.

COMBAT SYSTEMS [PERVY AND VANILLA]
"Combat systems are Pervy!" A combat system is rules that differ from the default system to specifically address combat. Single systems are Vanilla, and therefore more accessible."

CANNOT STAND CUTESIPOO TERMS LIKE "VANILLA" AND ET AL
" The whole "mixing sex with violence" vocabulary does not sit well with me"
"Oh, pish posh poo."

PERVY SIM, POINTS OF CONTACT, ACCESSIBILITY: AN EXAMPLE GAME
Is a game in which the players have to agree to what happens pervy? More points of contact = more pervyness.
[As an aside, the game described here is very similar to "Wargame Developments Mugger Game"  which have been played in England since the mid 60's. Google it.]

THE FORGE AS A COMMUNITY (THREAD #5 OF 5)
1) Much of role-playing content mirrors the content of books, movies
2) The current economic structure of "the industry" is, in the main, incapable of providing the social play-experience and promotion that matches people who like role-playing
3) Role-playing is most consistently enjoyable when it is carried out by people who like one another
4) Most role-playing rules content has acquired so many Points of Contact, distributed in incoherent ways, through imitation and habit, that "rules" have come to be a barrier to enjoyment in many cases.
D&D fantasy + tons of irrelevant Points of Contact + store-driven commerce and non-play + inside-out social boxes = way no fun.
The cumulative effect encourages a "loser culture,"
The Forge is a "discourse community." That discusses RPG design and publishing and the principles underlying those activities. Which will hopefully counteract the above stated problems.

THE FIVE PERCENT
"Five percent" of the Forge's userbase that has a serious problem with it. It's all about agenda. The Forge agenda is the creation and promotion of independent RPGs. These 5%ers put their goals ahead of the group goal.

THE FORGE AND CULTURAL BIAS (SPLIT FROM "FORGE AS COMMUNITY")
People have trouble getting along. Always remember "The Forge" is a privilege. At virtually any time, Clinton can withdraw service or turn off the server and "The Forge" will be no more. So be polite.

OFF THE CUFF FORGE CULTURAL ANALYSIS
The Forge underserves women, African Americans, and Hispanics. If does serve English speakers around the world who have a wide range of interests.

RELATIONSHIPS AT THE FORGE
People on the Forge forums have created relationships.

[MatrixGamer]

I just had an idea.  Obstructionism, it seems to me, is an agenda at the highest social contract level -- ie to be contrary or annoy one or more other players.  The normal social contract says "We're all here to have individual fun and support each other's fun using a set of rules."  The obstructionist rejects the fun part.  

Alright, this sounds like a proof for why obstructionist fall in the social contract box of the model. They are playing (we can see that in the ephemera/verbaim accounts of the game, but they are not there to create fun but instead to destroy. And I do think this play could be done to short circit any creative agenda.

Can we go a little further though and figure out how this play can be worked with by creative agendas so that it's destructive potential is lessened?

From the point of view of game design all rules can be used for ill. What rules allow players to come and go from a game without disrupting play. RPGs have historically been very weak in this regard. If a key player leaves or comes late it is like in the movie "The Gamers" when the one player pops in for a few minutes and then leaves again.

I suspect Universalis, and I know Matrix Games are not disrupted by this kind of player substitution. I have players jump in and out of Matrix Games all the time. Their contribution adds to the game when they are there but when absent it is as if they made failing arguments.

Chris Engle
Hamster Press

[MatrixGamer]

The closest thing I found in the "Infamous Five" threads to obstructionism was the post on the 5% of Forge participants who place their goals ahead of those of the group. Their destructive potential on group play was noted. The thread after that carried the warning "Play nice or it all can end." Which would be when the play got so dysfunctional that the group dies.

The 5%ers are "playing" the game of Forge discussion. They might be seen as grumpy spammers, if they write too many posts.

The thread did not bring that idea back into the Big Model.

I didn't read anything in the Imf 5 threads that addressed my question (How does obstructioinism fit in?) so the question remains.

We can say - it's just social contract - which it is - but why stop the exploration there? It is a part of game play that rules can have some effect on.

Pervy games (BTW I don't care much for this term - the sexual baggage it brings gets in the way of communicating the concept) for instance might lead to obstructionist play, especially amongst new players, because they get bored. I used to judge game rules with the suicide test. Which is - "If it takes longer to commit suicide in the game than it does in real life, there is a problem with the rules!" Which touches on the points of contact idea of the Pervy Vanilla thread.

An obstructionist can disrupt at any one of these points of contact.

[Alan]

Can we go a little further though and figure out how this play can be worked with by creative agendas so that it's destructive potential is lessened?

Because obstructionism exists at a higher level of abstraction than Creative Agenda it cannot be addressed with Creative Agenda.  To address a problem, one actually has to go to the level of abstraction _above_ where the problem appears.  You have to address obstructionism outside the social contract of the game.