A long time ago... anecdote one [Fudge]

[Paul T]

Sydney,

As I said in the above post, thank you for sticking with me.

Sydney: You, on the other hand, seem to be saying that this discussion is unlikely to be productive outside the scope of a specific game.

Right. My experience -- not just in RPGs, now, but as a professional journalist for the last eight years, writing an average of 3,000 words of heavy-duty analysis every month, is that it is self-defeating to try to discuss general principles or abstract theory outside a specific context, or at least without abundant examples.

This has been my experience as well. This is why I posted in the Actual Play forum instead of anywhere else on the Forge.

It's just that Ron's comment in his D&D thread got me intrigued. It sounded like he had a simple, brief conversation before his game and it was enough for him to suggest a CA for his game, get his players' approval, and go ahead and do it.

I want to be able to do that, too! This play experience, that I related here, showed me that I couldn't, really. So I'm looking at what to do differently.

For instance, there has been some great advice along the lines of "ask Mary's player about how she feels about being stranded in a different century." But I'm not sure I see how that question would be any easier for her to answer. It seems that her problem was figuring out how to go about answering that sort of question--what kind of answer is best? What kind is bad?

I'll give an example of how a GM might introduce a more Sim-type game....Does this give a player enough to work with? Too much?

Too much and not enough, I'd say -- and Sim is the hardest of these agendas to present, I think. Your description begs the question, "Why?" [...]

I personally would take that throwaway word in your example, "explore," and punch it in up in big, bold letters right at the front: You're going to be explorers. You're gonna find cool stuff. You're gonna meet interesting people. And, yeah, you're going to have to make moral and tactical choices along the way, but that's secondary to the sheer delight of brave new worlds.

Now, here's the bottom line "specifics vs. generalities" issue: If the whole point is to explore and experience a strange world, it really matters what that world is like. Likewise, you can't sell people on "celebration" in the abstract; you have to have something to celebrate. "Simulationism" does not describe a kind of gaming any more than "fruits and vegetables" describes a style of cooking.

Right. This is right on. I can't expect to present a game about exploring without at least giving people a hint of what they're exploring.
Thanks.

But I would totally, utterly not be expecting "okay, you wake up in the Middle Ages." That'd feel like a bait-and-switch -- even if the idea of a Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court or Timeline game where I played a fish out of temporal water was intriguing to me. The things we're exploring are totally different now: Dealing with people of profoundly different cultural and moral outlooks, learning how to survive in a new society, applying modern attitudes and knowledge to medieval problems, etc.

I personally find "exploring being lost in time" less interesting than "exploring being lost in the woods," but that's just me. Here's the thing: You really, really want to figure out whether that's my preference before you recruit me for a good that I think is "woods" and you think is "time."

That's also a good point. Now, my example paragraph wasn't supposed to be an introduction for *that* particular game (which is probably not very smart, given the nature of this forum), but your point is still taken.

And you've provided an example of how the goal of the game might be presented:

"Dealing with people of profoundly different cultural and moral outlooks, learning how to survive in a new society, applying modern attitudes and knowledge to medieval problems, etc"

...i.e. Exploration, and what is being explored.

Thanks, that was really helpful.

Now, what if I wanted to run this same game as a heavily Narrativist endeavour? Is it sufficient to say that "creating a cool story" is the goal of play, when Narrativism is defined here as being about addressing premise?

Using your last explanation as a model, I would say that you might suggest such a game be to be introduced as dealing with difficult choices in character, with examples given: "Will you condemn people for engaging in behaviour you consider immoral, even though it is considered legal and customary in that time period? etc..."

Is that on the right track?

While I realize that no one is going to just throw out a laundry list of terms and phrases to use, it is still incredibly helpful, I feel, for someone (perhaps someone who is "brain damaged" by traditional RPG play) to see the types of keywords or questions that can help in communicating a Creative Agenda.

For instance, things like "using your ingenuity to overcome obstacles", "challenges", "beating the [trap/dungeon/opponent/other player]" are useful terms of turns of phrase to be able to recognize. Someone who talks about such things when describing their game just might be looking to engage in some elements of Gamist play.

I'm looking for language that will communicate the Creative Agenda I want to aim for in my games in simple, plain English terms. Is this a pointless pursuit?

All the best,


Paul

[Sydney Freedberg]

I know you and Sydney may be going into "why doesn't he get it?" mode by now....[/url]

I'm cool. You're really engaging with our answers and asking good questions right back. I'm tempted to bookmark this thread as an example to link to later, actually.

And I'll engage with what you just posted after I've read and pondered a bit more, but first the thing that leapt out at me from earlier:

my favourite moment was when Vinnie's player said that Vinnie was in love with Francois. Her face just lit up! But I can't really see how I can get any sort of "recipe" or "reward structure" from that.

Oh yes, you can!

First, mechanics: If your game has any kind of "cool points," toss some to Vinnie's player right then, right there. (And remind Francois' player to toss some too). "Fan mail" in Prime Time Adventures is the best known example of this mechanic, but even in traditional systems you can say, "Dude, that was cool, here's some XP."

Second, story: If you're the GM, or playing a game where everyone has GM-like story power, and someone else around the table surprises you with something cool like that, play it up. Make sure it comes up again, that it helps solve some problems in the future and becomes a source of other problems, that other things of the same kind come up as well (e.g. if it's cool that Vinnie loves Francois, maybe your NPCs should start falling in love with Francois, too, or with other characters). Conversely, if you spend lots of time and energy prepping something, throw it out with great fanfare, and everyone else blinks silently while it sits there inert -- don't try to bring it up again, however disguised and repackaged.
Some games have explicit "flagging" systems where players can put mechanical weight (e.g. points) into things they're interested in seeing in the story and things they aren't; but almost all systems have implicit flags -- e.g. if one guy makes an ex-sailor character and puts 42 of his 50 skill points into sailing, you probably need to get some boats into the adventure, pronto -- and any socially functional human being will have (reasonably polite, but entirely clear) ways of expressing interest and boredom with various subjects.

Third, simple human emotion: If you think something's cool, and you want to encourage more of it, show your enthusiasm! Smile, laugh, gasp, shake your head in shock and disbelief, whatever's appropriate -- including breaking character and "immersion" to say, "Man, that was brilliant!" Anyone who plays RPGs is going to care, intensely, what other people think, and to desire, intensely, approval, validation, and reinforcement: Otherwise they'd just sit in their room playing XBox or writing their novel, instead of sitting around the table with you.

[Paul T]

Sydney,

You're absolutely right, but one of us misunderstanding what Callan was saying, I think.

But I'm also certain that if you try, you can trace what was more than garnish and prompted a player to emotionally buy in. That's the type of step your looking for.

I thought he was talking about identifying what it was that worked in the game.

I'm aware of other mechanics and methods (like Fan Mail) that can encourage this sort of thing, and have recently started using them in my games, with wonderful results.

But I'm not entirely understanding what Callan means. I'm hoping an example can clear it up.

I feel that this has been a very productive thread as well. Lots of great advice all around! I've reread it a couple of times and learned something new each time.

All the best,


Paul

[Sydney Freedberg]

Apologies for my FUBAR'd quote formatting above, first of all. I thought I'd Previewed.

there has been some great advice along the lines of "ask Mary's player about how she feels about being stranded in a different century." But I'm not sure I see how that question would be any easier for her to answer. It seems that her problem was figuring out how to go about answering that sort of question....

The value of asking the question before starting play, though, is you get a chance to see whether player's eyes light up or glaze over. And if the player goes, "Oh! That'd be cool -- but -- but I dunno, I can't think how I'd do it, I might 'roleplay wrong'" -- then you go into Personal Creativity Coach mode and say, "If you're excited about it, you'll do fine, we'll all help each other be cool."

Now, what if I wanted to run this same game as a heavily Narrativist endeavour? Is it sufficient to say that "creating a cool story" is the goal of play, when Narrativism is defined here as being about addressing premise? Using your last explanation as a model, I would say that you might suggest such a game be to be introduced as dealing with difficult choices in character, with examples given: "Will you condemn people for engaging in behaviour you consider immoral, even though it is considered legal and customary in that time period? etc..." Is that on the right track?

I think so. "Creating a cool story" is too vague and means too many things to too many people: You'll get one of those "here's a blank sheet of paper, do something creative, go!" But your "will you condemn" etc. is getting pretty good. I'd go even more detailed and emphatic, like:

"Will you discard the values of the 21st century to survive in the 12th? What happens the first time you see a man being hanged for hunting a deer on his lord's land? When you see a woman being beaten by her husband for talking back? When a nobleman cuffs you out of his way because your kind of people doesn't matter? When the Inquisition asks you what you really believe? In a world where power and justice rarely go together, will you sacrifice yourself for what is right, sacrifice what you know is right to save yourself, or try to walk the razor's edge between the two?"

[Paul T]

I'd go even more detailed and emphatic, like:

"Will you discard the values of the 21st century to survive in the 12th? What happens the first time you see a man being hanged for hunting a deer on his lord's land? When you see a woman being beaten by her husband for talking back? When a nobleman cuffs you out of his way because your kind of people doesn't matter? When the Inquisition asks you what you really believe? In a world where power and justice rarely go together, will you sacrifice yourself for what is right, sacrifice what you know is right to save yourself, or try to walk the razor's edge between the two?"

I cool. I dig that. That gets me excited to get into the game.

Thanks,


Paul