Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by Paganini, July 27, 2005, 04:22:44 PM
Quote from: Nar EssayCreative Agenda is the blanket term for people's demonstrated goals and desired feedback during play. In the past, I called it "GNS." Since all of this is enclosed in Social Contract, GNS-stuff is not only "what I want" but also "what I want from role-playing with this group of people." Since Exploration necessarily includes System, that means, as soon as we start talking about Creative Agenda, real play has begun.
Quote from: GlossaryThe aesthetic priorities and any matters of imaginative interest regarding role-playing.
Quote from: RonI think that the concept of aesthetics is straightforward, unless one is hopelessly mired in PoMo babble in which anything is aesthetics and everything is economics and so forth. Now, I'm willing to meet you halfway and say that the Glossary definition doesn't work for some percent of readers. It works a hell of a lot better than anything we had before, which was the sole purpose of the Glossary anyway. But yeah, I'm going to help people who want to talk about it, just as in this thread.But "I don't get it" isn't going to fly. People have to try to get it, as written, and then ask specific questions. Like, "what's imaginative interest," and so on, like you just did. Those are good questions. Maybe you could have tried asking them a long time ago.
QuoteWhat I'm saying is that we each have an individual drive toward seeing a CA realized socially. A wholly individualized CA is nonsensical in applied terms. If you analogize it to a sporting activity, I think that might help. In a fully functional event of this kind, we all bring the desire to play ... but that desire only makes sense (gets raised, gets satisfied) when it's expanded into an across-individuals social construct.Now for the "clustering" thing – since RPGs are not like sports in that different CAs are not only possible but likely, we have a lot of diversity out there. So we have to deal with two kinds of "clustering" – one, the social one, which is to say how we communicate and agree upon (possibly compromise) upon the CA. As people here know, I suggest that maintaining the social connection but failing explicitly to support a group CA is by and large less satisfying – even though it seems to be something of a subcultural ideal for gamers. I call this Incoherent play, and my claim is that it is more vulnerable to failure ("un-fun" dysfunctional play). Not doomed to such failure, but more vulnerable to it.
Quote from: Ron Edwards on July 27, 2005, 11:25:52 PMA bunch of planets must have lined up or something, because unless I'm way off, I think I can answer this with no sweat, no suffering, no nothing ... and then maybe we can hug or something.
QuoteIs that a good answer? 'Cause I think it's a really good answer. It acknowledges why you see things the way you do and are puzzled about how it's changed, whereas I don't think it's changed, I think it's moved into the fruitful direction I always wanted it to, but was bogged down by individual diversity and the plaintive cries that always emerged from that. But I'm not saying that you're wrong, you see.
QuoteHow can a Creative Agenda apply to an instance of play (an entire reward cycle), without also applying to instants of play (specific during-play moments)?Are we just talking about statistics now? There were more instants where the production of theme was emphasized than there were instants where causality was demonstrated or friends were outdone?
Quote from: Ron Edwards on July 28, 2005, 09:51:16 AMIn other words, a one-line "OK, cool" isn't enough. I'm not looking for praise, but I am looking for a good, solid, paraphrase-based acknowledgment that my answer did in fact work for you.There are a couple of reasons for this. (1) is simply my own human satisfaction with the whole thing, which means I'll be willing to keep doing it. (2) is to kick the widespread misperception that "GNS makes no sense" in the nuts. (Side note: I'm damn tired of having someone PM me "Oh, hey, that's perfect, it's making perfect sense now," when the public dialogue with someone else is clearly frustrating and inconclusive for them. I have hundreds of such PMs. They serve no community purpose at all. Fuckin' speak up in public, people.)In this case, your phrasing of "moved from GNS conflict Bad to GNS-focus Good" is a perfect and wonderful example. I'm requesting that you keep up that kind of acknowledgment, when it applies, and perhaps consider saying something like, "Yes, that answers my question, thank you." And then, deep breath, "New question."
QuoteI am assuming that your first question in this thread, about "what is GNS, teach me," has been satisfied. Yes?
QuoteAnd that your second question about individual/social has been satisfied. Yes?
Quote from: Paganini on July 28, 2005, 12:57:20 PMOK. Long instance vs. short instant. Let's say that every game has moments when theme is intentionally produced, when causality is mindfully preserved, when the other players are crowed-over. (This may not be true, but it's at least possible that any game could have multiple moments of all three.) Some of these moments may involve sacrificing one or two of the others in order to get the one you want. Like, you may have to accept something that doesn't make sense, in order get the theme-producing scene you want. This is all part of the... um... OId Theory, and it's still good, right?...The Sim CA does depend on those causal moments being there (you can't have the Sim CA without a bunch of causal moments), but you can *also* have a bunch of causal moments *without* having the Sim CA. This is quite a bit different from the Old Theory, right? We used to look long and hard for moments where one of the three issues was serviced at the expense of the other two. Only once we'd found such a moment could we say we'd found a CA-indicative data-point.