Aesthetics and Conveying Reality

[Matt Snyder]

Fang, I don't think either side is being sarcastic. I think we're asking the same question, but for different reasons. Mike and I are asking because we can't (yet) see the practicality in this idea. Eric and others see possibility, but no specific use as yet.

I have read your post regarding your Sim. Iron Chef design. Is the game posted in that thread on Indie Design? I'm missing something in your explanation, but I can infer some points.

Here's one of my big hurdles in dealing with this whole idea: Tension. I just don't see how it's relevant. Or, maybe more appropriately, I don't see how it's relevant in a new way.

For example, Fang, you say you've set your game deliberately in "our world," but you've included a Vision-element in having extra-dimensional duels. I'm with you so far, I think.

You then describe the 'high-contrast' between these two concepts (real world meets extradimensions), saying this is the key to design.

My response (in all seriousness, and no insult intended) is: So what?  So these things contrast. How is that relevant? What is the effect on the game?

This thread and elsewhere keep highlighting such contrasts (and reduced contrasts) as somehow illuminating. I'm missing how these are meaningful.  I'm waiting for another shoe to drop. What about the fact that extra-dimensional warriors clashing with the fact that this takes place in a "real-life" modern day makes the game more "YOURS." More meaningful?

In other words, I see this contrast, and I think, "Ok, it's a choice of setting and situation, one that could have gone another way, I guess (the game could have been totally set in the extradimensions, for example)."

So, in this instance, I see you getting excited about having made this choice based on Tension, but I'm seeing a not-terribly-exciting design choice based on situation and setting.

How does this make the game more interesting to me? In and of itself, this contrast doesn't do enough for me. I wanna know more about the game's Creative Agenda. What's the point? Maybe then the situation and setting stuff will matter to me more. Otherwise, it's just a sub-set of Creative Agenda, and I can't say much about it.

This is where our two "camps" keep having disconnect, I think. You are eager to see the model help you shape games. I am trying to distinquish the same, but also how it's different from models already presented.

Here's the kicker: The end result is the same, correct? That is, when finished you'll have designed a game that we could analyze using the baseline/vision/tension approach, or we could analyze it using GNS and Creative Agenda issues. Both would be valid, I think.

However, I'm seeing some disagreement because there's been at least some claims that this stuff is somehow removed from GNS and Creative Agenda. No, it's not. It's two sides of the very same coin. This is why I insist on knowing how it's sufficiently distinct. I don't think it is something NEW entirely, but it may be a new "vector" one might use to approach design. It's one that I can't see yet how it's useful, but if it is, more power to you. I'm at the point now that Ron and Mike have already reached: I don't think this is anything new, but if it helps your particular creative process, great.

That doesn't mean I wouldn't ask questions, or hold one's feet to the fire. All models deserve serious criticism, and I think this one's going to get a lot more before all's said and done.

[Le Joueur]

Hey Matt,

I'm glad you have the time to consider my points.  The problem is you don't seem to have heeded the intention.  I find it hard to understand the point you are making because your response is both reactive and yet doesn't 'go anywhere.'

I mean, it doesn't really matter whether you think anyone is being sarcastic; if you see both sides asking the same questions, why don't you attempt answering some of them?

The main reason I pointed out that both sides are asking the same questions is because this constant challenge to "show the practical use" of the idea just appears like arguing technique to say 'I don't believe you.'

Eric has basically said, 'so what?'  This thread, and the others like it aren't about 'converting people to some new idea.'  There more like flags being sent up saying, 'has anyone else seen this?'

This 'broken-record' repetition of 'so?' will not get us anywhere.  It doesn't have an answer.  If it did, don't you think we'd have given it by now?  I don't know if you intended on sounding challenging with your post, but despite evidence to the contrary, I'm trying to assume you didn't.

I think the most constructive thing you or Mike could do at this point would be to set aside the 'what practical use it has' chip-on-the-shoulder responses and go hypothetical.  Just for a sec, assume that Tension has a practical use; now try to explain what that might be.

See, this might be related to my prior concept that the relationships between any identifiable game elements and any other identifiable game concepts might be a realm for intentional design alignment, but it goes a little more specific talking about the 'Tension' between that which is 'Baseline' and that which is not.

I just can't commit to this use of "Vision," it's almost as misleading as calling the 'what you do' of a game the 'creative agenda.'  That was part of my IYEOW example; my literal "creative agenda" was to try to do something using "Elegance and Deliberateness."  That was the 'agenda' I approached the 'creation' of the game with.  Mike's and other's use of 'creative agenda' confounds the confusing nature of using "Exploration" the way Ron does.  (I just can't connect "showing imaginative commitment" to the in-game material as "Exploration.")[/list:u]I'm right there with you as far as the question about Tension.  As far as I can tell, it sounds like it might be alternatively one of two things, either how much suspension of disbelief is needed (the likelihood of having your 'belief suspenders' snapped) or the amount that 'the fantastic' must influence play.  I'm also having trouble seeing how that isn't implicit in the designer's intent for play; I mean sure, few games will have you play nothing but Baseline, but just as few would have you avoid that completely.

So it's a mix; we already knew that.  It's all fine and good to choose the mix intentionally, but if this thread is entirely about 'picking a Tension level,' I imagine that's pretty much clear now; can we move on?

I know what I was getting at over in "Elegance and Deliberateness" was that 'picking the Tension level' was one of many creative choices to be made in designing a game.  I went further to try and draw into the spotlight

how these types of creative choices could be orchestrated.  That means you pick this Tension, you do that sparseness of layout, you offer this other kind of 'what you do in the game' (or rather which of that you focus the most player-thinking on), and you leave out that kind of mechanics; now consider the potential of doing all of these following a set of ideals for the game to bring them together in a relative fashion.  I can't describe any extant games that do this, or as if they do this, because I don't think I've seen any that appear to do so deliberately.  And that's the catch; how many people would even consider taking deliberateness to that level?

For example, Fang, you say you've set your game deliberately in "our world," but you've included a Vision-element in having extra-dimensional duels.

You then describe the 'high-contrast' between these two concepts (real world meets extra dimensions), saying this is the key to design.

My response (in all seriousness, and no insult intended) is: So what?  So these things contrast. How is that relevant? What is the effect on the game?

That's what I mean.  It doesn't affect the game play directly in the least.  It was an ideal that affected other design choices.  Anything put in the game had to either be terribly familiar or completely unreal, more importantly all of these had to be placed in juxtaposition.  The numerous contrasts was one of the major design challenges and I'm not that satisfied that I brought that off in so short of presentation.

Basically, all the while when I was picking 'what to include' and 'what to leave out,' I was constantly chanting 'does it contrast, does it contrast' to myself.  This forms the backbone of my design criteria, not 'what gets played.'  This is very much a 'deliberate designer' technique, one of the most deliberate.

I didn't choose this set of deliberate design criteria because the contrasts illuminate anything.  That I chose any design criteria is what is supposed to be illuminated.  You can see how much my Baseline (the most familiar and real of realities) and the 'unreal estate,' the fantastic elements, of the 'not Baseline' appears in the basic sense when you play, but do you see how it figures into the other features?  Does it become obvious that I eschewed mechanics for Baseline elements and ground all 'not Baseline' things down to really specific mechanics; does that appear in play?  Not likely, but it should generate a sense of the overall 'contrast dynamic' I wanted the game to be saturated with.

You can see that it was a choice of Setting and Situation, but do you see how the concentration of mechanics also highlights the contrast?  Certainly that was also 'just a System choice,' but it was chosen to follow a deliberately narrow set of design criteria that are supposed to reinforce a subtle sensation.

Another problem that seems to cropping up here is that my attempts to 'not argue' apparently are being read as 'being excited.'  I'm not; I'm curious.  I think I've stumbled over something that does something, but I'm not sure what.  I'm not waving a big banner that says, 'I solved it!'  I'm going, 'come over here and look at this, does it do something?'

Help me out here, Matt.  Am I seeing something?  What do you think I'm seeing?  I can't describe it very well, because I've never seen it from this perspective before.  If you want me to help you understand, tell me what you think I see.  If you can't meet me halfway, there's no point in me trying to convince you of something I'm still searching for.

The question then becomes, 'should I keep looking?' not 'what have I found?'  I can't answer the latter, but the former looks like 'yes.'

If you can't get past "how is this in the creative agenda," all I can say is, "it isn't."  It's in 'how I choose my presentation' of the 'creative agenda.'  It's not about the 'slap you in the face' part of the 'creative agenda,' it only emerges through continued play.  I know a lot of indie punk designers seem baffled by games that can't be played effectively as a one-shot, but it's one of the things that concerns me.  I don't consider one of my 'deliberate' designs successful if it only makes a good first impression, I want it to 'get legs' and keep performing intriguingly.  I consider 'first impression' material only one part of a design.

I guess I'm kinda surprised that your concern seems limited to the 'creative agenda' (meaning the 'what you do in the game'); I'm talking about 'design criteria' above, beyond, and outside of just 'facilitating the creative agenda.'

I'm quite curious that you've seen this "already presented."  Can you name some examples?  If you were to respond to no other question I've raised, I'd be really interested to see previous work in this area; it might really help me figure out what I'm looking at.  (Like I said, I don't even know what it is; I'm soliciting help determining that.)

I'm disappointed that you resurrect the "the end result is the same" argument, because that is clear cut "do it my way" talk.  I'd like to think that we're above that kind of bullying on this playground.  You make games your way; I make mine with a high degree of deliberation.  Sure the result is the same, but all that would happen if I ignored these issues is I'd only be able to create crap.

As far as I've been able to determine "Baseline/Tension" isn't an alternative to GNS or 'creative agenda' analyses, it's supposed to be 'above it.'  This kind of design criteria is supposed to be about helping the designer choose which GNS or 'creative agenda' incarnation to use or that suits their overall intention for the game.  I don't see how 'here is what to choose' out of GNS or 'creative agenda' choices is 'the other side of the same coin.'  It's like saying that 'where you get your ingredients' has no bearing on the taste alternatives for a meal.  That's like saying that you can just as easily use 'all fresh ingredients' and 'made from scratch pasta' to deliver the same chemical zing of prepackaged mac-and-cheese (okay, it's an acquired taste, but I know the difference instantly).

I'm really somewhat upset that this discussion is going the same "more power to you" direction as before.  That has to be the most dismissive things I've heard in polite conversation.  We're not talking about reinventing the wheel here, but it's seems discouraging that you, Ron, and Mike feel this need to keep claiming that this has already been said (without substantiating any of it) or isn't worth your time.  If that was the case, couldn't you simply not post?  These 'parting shots' aren't terribly useful to any discussion; if what you see is of no use to you, what use is that information to us?

A lot of people reading this don't really see a point to it, but do they chime in?  No, they go find something they're interested in.  If you can't take the time to understand and respond to the points being discussed, to answer any of the questions Eric raised, what do you add by just saying "So?"

The only agenda I'm seeing espoused by this is "everybody stay away" or "stick to the party line."  Well, nothing new is ever discovered that way.  Now, I'm not saying there is anything new here, but if I don't investigate it, how will I know?  If you aren't interested in 'trying it out,' what value are you adding to the discussion of it?  (Hey, at least some citation of previous, related work would be of immense value, but has there been any?)

If I had to sum all of this up, I'd ask, "What discussion has covered the approaches to GNS or 'creative agenda' choice?"  Can anyone point me to the discussion of these kinds of 'higher' design criteria?

Fang Langford

p. s. Being a creature of unlimited curiosity, can you tell me what you were asking here:

What about the fact that extra-dimensional warriors clashing with the fact that this takes place in a "real-life" modern day makes the game more "YOURS." More meaningful?

I really wanna know.

[Emily Care]

Can we try to define some of these terms more clearly?  

Baseline has several possible definitions:
a) "realism" in a game setting as might be understood by anyone walking off the street.
b) reality as a referent, and of which it is an aspired to but unattainable goal to emulate by use of mechanics & system.
c) "realism" in a given instance of a game as understood by the group of individuals who are playing it.
d)  whatever a group of game participants agree to be true in the setting of a game (including laws of physics etc.)

Vision:
a) genre expectations or the source material inspiration for a game.  (in this definition, vision is unattainable to truly emulate, mechanics suggest it and the game itself reflects but does not every wholly embody the Vision)
b)the creative agenda of a game designer, gm or game group for a game or campaign
c) the fantastic or realism-breaking elements of a game world or setting
d) what a gm or individual members of a game group envision for the game world or narrative that the rest of the group has not yet come to know about or agreed to be true.

And perhaps some that I've missed.

Now I can see why some of these definitions are duplicative of GNS (ie vision=creative agenda) but not all.  Baseline/vision specifically arose out of discussion of realism in setting (and the tensions between assumptions about this and the way mechanics are  chosen and implemented in games that may disrupt the creative agenda of a game).  But, I believe that a concensus has yet to be come to about exactly what b/v mean, and how they will be applied.  Yes, Mike, why should we have more terms if we've got perfectly good ones that describe the same info.  But if the new terms are intuitive, meaningful and help both design and clarify confusion about a sticky topic (ie realism), why the heck not embrace them? And if we think they do that, let's be clear about the def's and give concrete examples of how it does so.

I lean toward using baseline and vision specifically about setting and realism.  And I can see good arguments for just using creative agenda instead of vision.

My response (in all seriousness, and no insult intended) is: So what? So these things contrast. How is that relevant? What is the effect on the game?

The effects of several of the examples have been that when the players/gm used the system as it was written the results contradicted the feel of the game as would be expected based on the (fairly explicit) creative agenda, or that the players had to make allowances or contrive play in order to support what the game brought into being.

two examples:
superhero damage and death rules in a supers game where the script immunity was clearly such that no hero would actually ever die. (was this an example from a certain system, Fang?)

ars magica mages having to keep themselves secret while being numerous and prosperous enough that a reasonable enactment of the scenario described would almost always bring mages and mundanes into conflict.  (that's my personal experience.  I am open to the idea that this was not such a major conflict for others who have played the game.)

But these have already been stated, so perhaps they are not so useful. And we really need to come to more precise definition before it can be usefully applied. I'll work on some examples of how it may be useful in designing a game.

--EC

[Matt Snyder]

Fang, how can I provide the specific answers you desire when I've said repeatedly I can't understand the foundation of the idea, and especially when those who DO seem to understand the idea have yet to provide the same?

Your concerns that I'm propogating the broken record by not providing the answers are absurd. It's like asking a blind man to pick out a matching suit and tie for you.

You've asked me to let it go, assume the theory is useful, and wait for some point at which specific examples of design are put forth. Will do! Let 'er rip. Surely, folks behind this line of thinking are working on games -- I'd love to see how some of those games fall in line with this design approach. How does it apply to Scattershot, for example?

Basically, all the while when I was picking 'what to include' and 'what to leave out,' I was constantly chanting 'does it contrast, does it contrast' to myself. This forms the backbone of my design criteria, not 'what gets played.' This is very much a 'deliberate designer' technique, one of the most deliberate.

This passage is very illuminating to me in our fundamental differences as designers. At every turn, I make game design decisions based on how they will affect play or the player. You have consciously said you make decisions that, in effect, ignore play at the most basic level. I find this very, very hard to understand.

You can see that it was a choice of Setting and Situation, but do you see how the concentration of mechanics also highlights the contrast? Certainly that was also 'just a System choice,' but it was chosen to follow a deliberately narrow set of design criteria that are supposed to reinforce a subtle sensation.

I suppose I can see that, but I achieve the same result without this approach. For example, my current game-in-progress Nine Worlds went through several phases and re-writes as I dealt with "modeling" the player character's "real world" abilities. In the end, the contrast was at its fullest. I eschewed any model of "real world" ablilities whatsoever (skills, attributes in the traditional sense), after having them very much specified in prior versions of the game. The result is characters with metaphysical attributes such as Virtues and Urges. In sum, I'm saying that the technique may be useful to you, but does not produce unique results. Hence, all our clamoring for "What's new?" and "So what?"

If you can't get past "how is this in the creative agenda," all I can say is, "it isn't."

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm not asking HOW is this in the creative agenda? I'm stating that it IS in the creative agenda. That thing we used to call (small-p) premise. "What do you do in a game and how do you do it?" I see your approach in seeking contrasts as little nuggets that taken as a whole comprise a game's premise, or at the very least shape the way the game is played.

All these claims that they are 'outside' the premise baffle me. If they are outside the game's premise -- outside the point and purpose of the game, then what the heck use are they? If these things, these contrasts, do not serve, even as a whole if not individually, to strengthen or even define the whole of a game's premise (sorry, creative agenda), then they're not doing any good. Seeing them as "outside" the creative agenda, and therefore something new, is bluntly something I do not agree with. I do not see it as either outside creative agenda or new. (By the way, equating "nothing new here" in this approach "so do it my way" is obviously bogus -- Ron, Mike and I have already said if the technique's helping you, knock yourself out. Just don't claim it's new. It isn't; it's producing the same results as you've said. Our saying so has little to do with whether the statement offends you. It shouldn't.)

I suspect the problem is that you do not agree with the definition or purpose of creative agenda or the "old" premise. There, we'll have a logjam, as I see it as the fundamental issue in designing a game. How can a game be anything but what the players do with it? You seem to claim that a game can do or be something outside that realm. I plainly do not agree.

Finally, Fang, please spend a little more time coming up with the evidence that shows how this is useful (just as you've asked me to do) and far less time aruging about arguing. I have learned the hard way that you're easily offended and read much emotion into passages with no spiteful intent. You're an intelligent, thougtful adult, and I don't need kid gloves to enter an online discussion with oyu. Please stop wearing your heart on your sleeve (getting disappointed, upset and so on). It's just not worth it, and you're seeing insults and malice where there is none. This is not helpful to the conversation. Ron, Mike, and I really can't do more in discussing this with you if you see many of our points (or rather don't see some of the points) and view them instead as dismissive or offensive. Stop beating around the bush. If you don't like somebody's "tone," then take it to Private Message. I don't want to see this thread closed again because it gets one-sidedly acrimonious

I, like you, am curious. I'm trying earnestly to understand what you're getting at here, and I've yet to see ways that it is useful. That you and Eric have both asked "dissenters" to leave you alone is not going to help you find this idea. These so-called dissenters are the crucible by which you will know whether you've found something.

On your P.S. query:

What about the fact that extra-dimensional warriors clashing with the fact that this takes place in a "real-life" modern day makes the game more "YOURS." More meaningful?

This was me merely asking with your specific game how contrast was useful to you. That is, how did it make the game unique and how it made the game worthwhile, worth playing, etc. How does that choice affect the way the game is perceived by players and played by them?

[Mark D. Eddy]

(jumping back in with both feet...)

Here is what I see as the central difference between Creative Agenda (ne premise) and the Baseline/Vision Tension model:

Creative Agenda is where you're going. The model is a method to get there. I'm going to use Credo RPG, my still-in-progress game (not yet more than an annoying Word document, I'm afraid) as a guinea pig to see whether I can articulate this.

In Credo, everyone plays a normal human who has a very limited ability to create miracles on demand. The Creative Agenda is to build plots around the beliefs of the characters, as expressed by their miracle abilities. Now, this is a type of game that has a fairly standard Baseline: the real world, Twenty-first  Century, informed by the medium of television drama (prime-time or daytime or both). The Vision is one where belief can affect the world by making the miraculous real. So, the tension point is the point at which my game design must focus: How do these miracles actually work? How will they impact society? Do I really need other stats to cover day-to-day activities?


And at this point, I'm going to wander off happily, and write another few hundred words into my WIP – that's how useful this model is for me.

[Matt Snyder]

Emily, first off, I agree that the terms need some explicit definition and concensus on those. So, thanks for that.

In response to my "So what?" you explained, in effect, that contrasts from tension are helpful (meaningful?) because they illuminate the potential shortcomings between what a game says it is and what it actually does. That makes sense (assumimg, of course, that I'm reading you right!).

Now, in terms of game design, can we say that high contrasts as you've defined them are part of a dysfunctional game? Or maybe just certain high contrasts (or tensions)? That is, if Magi weren't a secret society in Ars Magica, then the game falls apart? And with deadly realism mechanics in a supers game, the game fails because it doesn't emulate the supers genre with such harsh deaths?

Your explanation makes sense to me, but I'm trying to have that make sense with Fang's approach. You're saying here that tension can be indicative of dysfunctional rules coping with some game-reality. That, in this sense at least, contrast is bad. But, Fang is saying that contrast like this is highly desirable, and in fact his mantra when designing a recent game.

So, when is such contrast desirable? Is it not at all desirable? Is this Baseline/Vision stuff a sort of diagnostic tool, one that might be used to error-correct a game as it's being designed? Or, is it useful in a more proactive (rather than reactive) way, as Fang seems to indicate?

[clehrich]

Eric: hang on a minute; I'll get back to your questions (i.e. the actual topic at hand) in just a sec.

-- replies to discussion --

Therefore your example, which as far as I can tell gives us only "gunfights" and "killed easily," concerns only a tad of Exploration and one consequence of System, and not much of either, and nothing about Social Contract at all. No wonder you can't see the Baseline/Vision stuff

You're missing the point, I'm afraid.  I can see the Vision/Baseline stuff in this example.  What I can't see in it is GNS.  That's why the two are different.

But I just think that we don't need it (and we all know why term proliferation is dangerous; some people refuse to come here as it is). Can't it suffice to say that the Creative Agenda for Ars Magica is in part playing wizards in historical Europe? And that, to get that, one ought to emphasize parts of the rules that inform the player that this is what it's about?

Yes, that can suffice.  But remember that nothing actually needs to be analyzed theoretically; it's just potentially interesting and instructive to do so.  Eric and I, and I think a few others, find it interesting to consider the ways in which "historical Europe" is disconnected from Ars Magica Europe, and to consider how this affects game design more broadly.

I think you're "atomizing" Creative Agenda into discrete aspects that miss the forest for the trees. That is, I think you're improperly dismantling the creative agenda as a whole to look at components of the whole. This may be useful in analyzing games that exist, but I find it unhelpful in shaping games that don't yet exist

In other words, I cannot fathom how a designer who creates a game like Ars Magica starts with "Medieval europe" and then subsequently, consciously decides (after thinking about tension) that "Magic" should be emphasized. ... I keep seeing, perhaps wrongly, the examples presented thus far as starting at Baseline working the analysis toward making that Baseline jive with Vision. If anything, for me as a designer, Vision is the starting point.

Let's take the AM example, since lots of people seem interested by it.  First of all, forget what order this went in -- it's a circular process, so this is going to turn into chicken-and-egg.  I have no interest in origins per se.

Okay, so we've set up Baseline = medieval Europe, and Vision = magicians in a secret order.  Let's even go on, so we're talking about the same thing: let's just take all of Ars Magica (ignoring supplements, perhaps) as a nice instance of Baseline and Vision.

Now let's talk design.

As it happens, the world of Ars Magica is extremely unlike medieval Europe.  The magic of Ars Magica is extremely unlike anything prior to fantasy novels.  The political tensions of Ars Magica-world, notably the whole handling of the church and its theology, have essentially no parallels in actual history.

Now I like the game anyway, but suppose I'm interested in a revised AM, a version which will attempt to be faithful to historical reality wherever possible.  At the same time, I want to keep as much of the system as I can, because it seems to work pretty well for fun gaming.  This is going to be a hard slog, for lots of reasons.  For one thing, most players aren't going to want to do a lot of research, and if I present a huge tractate on medieval historical magic, I'm going to lose my audience instantly.

So what I do is consider Baseline = medieval Europe as my readers expect it to be, i.e. more or less as Ars Magica presents it; and Vision = a combination of how I consider it actually to have been (historical research) and how I think it could work as a game.

Now I start considering the ways in which these elements differ, where they pull in opposed directions, and I try to decide which things are important: you can't fight every battle.

Myself, I'm going to start with alchemy, and I'm going to build it systematically such that it looks like classic AM magic.  I'm going to tinker with the list of verbs and objects (creo, imagonem, etc.) so as to avoid certain impossibilities; for example, Rego Mentem is not natural magic, because it involves an intelligent object, and in fact Mentem itself should be cut from the list to keep it natural.  Similarly, Vim needs to be cut.  And so forth -- the point here is an example.

My sense here is that with a starting-point, I turn on the Baseline/Vision thing and start seeing not only what sorts of choices I need to make, but also where my real priorities lie, and I start thinking seriously about incorporating these issues into design.

[briefly into rant mode]
And finally,

If this is "art" (or perhaps "craft"), then at what point do discrete choices about game design become something you can't analyze -- that is, where's the mystery that is "creation?" Is there no such mystery?  If these discrete processes are not "art", then what are they?

I intend this to stand in for similar comments from a number of posters; it's not a personal thing.

I agree entirely with Eric.  If you believe that art is something that "just happens," that it's all a magic spark of mystery, and that it's unanlyzable, then we have very little to discuss.  I have on numerous occasions used the example of Michelangelo, who I think you have to accept as a pretty decent artist.  He was a master of technique.  That is, his skill -- note this word, skill -- as a draftsman, stonecutter, paint-mixer, perspectivist, and so forth were extraordinary in a day of high craftsmanship.  Not one of these skills made his work great art.  At the same time, he did not discard these skills because he was an artist.  Serious art requires more than vision and mystery: it requires skill and analysis.  Another great example here would be musical composition.  If you are under the impression that (pick your favorite "classical music" composer) just sort of knocked it all out by feel, you are incorrect.  Composition was and is something that one studies, that one practices, and it involves an amazing amount of precision and skill -- all of which is necessary to make one's artistic vision come to life in a composition.  Music theory is highly analytical.  You break down Bach's fugues note by note, line by line, until you understand the process cold.  Then you write fugues, slavishly imitating Bach, until you can do it in your sleep.

The point being, of course, that rigorous analysis of prior works is essential to constructing new ones.  If you think analysis kills "mystery," then why bother with the RPG Theory forum at all?  That's what theory is, folks: a way of analyzing prior works and of thinking about the process of creating new ones.  If you want to believe that artistic creation just sort of happens because some people get hit by lightning, IMO, you are deeply deluded.

[End rant]

-- new directions --

I'd like to propose the following.  Let's divide this thread.  Those who want to discuss whether Baseline/Vision is or is not GNS, Creative Agenda, Social Contract, or some other already-defined element can do so in thread 1.  Those who want to discuss Baseline/Vision on its own terms, analyzing actual games and thinking about its implications, can do so in thread 2.  As it stands now, the thread 1 discussion is drowning out the thread 2 discussion, which is a pity since Eric has on numerous occasions pointed out that he, as thread-starter, wants this to be thread 2.

My next post will assume that this thread is now thread 2.  When the split happens, this post should go in thread 1.  Moderators take notice.

Chris

[clehrich]

Emily, you've proposed that we use B/V to talk about realism and setting; I like that, but I'dd add the caveat mostly.

Now let's see if we can't get a little more precise and specific about the effects of tension and vision in actual games.

I'm going to continue the example from my last post, the Ars Magica thing, because it appears most people are reasonably familiar with the game.  I'm imagining that I, the game designer of Ars Magica 18 or whatever, have decided I want to greatly increase historical realism in the game, but I don't want to lose all the fun value.

Okay, so first we need to think about Baseline.  It's "historical medieval Europe," but I'm going to make a distinction within that.  There's medieval Europe as players are likely to imagine it, and the're medieval Europe as my research tells me it actually was.

So at one level of the process, I'm going to set it up like this:

Baseline = Imagined Medieval Europe

Vision = Real Medieval Europe[/list:u]Now the trick is going to be to figure out the tensions, because that's where play interest will tend to focus.

This suggests to me that an important example to set up early is going to be Mages and the Church.  I'm going to lean on the presuppositions of AM players about how the Church behaves about magic, but then I'm going to have the Church act much more historically plausibly, creating tension and dynamism.  So I'm going to send an Inquisitor to discuss some things with the Covenant.  How will they react?  Chances are, they're going to assume that the guy is a monster who'll burn them at the drop of a hat.  But this is real Europe, so actually the guy will be very urbane and mostly concerned about keeping the peasants from getting all riled up.  He's not in any way concerned about the magicians, because he knows they only do natural magic: which is legal, as Augustine and Aquinas agree.  In fact, he's hoping one of them could help with his bad knees.

-------------

Okay, now we've got another twist to throw in.  That bit of Baseline/Vision was pure social dynamics used as adventure design.  Let's try one that's more mechanical.

Baseline = Ordinary mundane reality

Vision = Historical magic actually works[/list:u]
Hmm.  This is going to be tricky, because you could also think about Baseline being player expectations about fantasy magic, where Vision is historical realism about magic, but that's getting unnecessarily weird.

Okay, so the first thing I need to think about is how historical magic conflicts with Baseline reality.  And that's pretty subtle, actually, since you don't have fireballs and stuff like that.  So I need to pinpoint a tension in order to attract player focus and attention.

Here's one: Natural Magic, as a category.  Okay, the basic point is that "Art is Nature's ape," as Giambattista della Porta later put it.  So when I manipulate natural forces, it's got to be something that could happen naturally without me getting involved.  For example, I can make a tree grow faster, or I can make it wither and die, but I can't simply blast it out of existence.  Similarly I can heal people's illnesses because people do get better, a lot of the time, but what I'm doing magically is simply making the natural process of humoral balance happen really rapidly and/or reliably.

Okay, now I'm going to push the tension: I'm going to start throwing in actual medieval notions about how nature works, and start leaning on things happening this way.  So when you Creo Animalem, you can of course generate mice and insects out of straw, since that's where they come from anyway.  And I can make my ship go faster by whistling at the sails, because if I blow really hard on the sails of my ship it goes faster.  And I can make someone's thrown knife miss me, if we're on the deck of the ship, by tricking him into throwing at

me rather than leading several feet ahead of me, since everybody knows that if the ship is going fast, the knife will fly backwards with respect to the ship.

When I start leaning on expectations about demons, having them be impersonal but intelligent forces that keep things like gravity working, the players are going to feel this tension pretty strongly.  Things just aren't working quite the way they expect them to.  At the same time, the fact that their sense of reality is pulling back, as it were, will keep them in line as far as not simply trying to justify why throwing fireballs is "really in the medieval paradigm," which it isn't.

----------

So I think this way of looking at things does encourage certain interesting things to happen in terms of figuring out and giving a sense of realism, even when one is dealing with a pretty radically fantastic setting.

[Matt Snyder]

The point being, of course, that rigorous analysis of prior works is essential to constructing new ones.  If you think analysis kills "mystery," then why bother with the RPG Theory forum at all?  That's what theory is, folks: a way of analyzing prior works and of thinking about the process of creating new ones.  If you want to believe that artistic creation just sort of happens because some people get hit by lightning, IMO, you are deeply deluded.

Strange comparisons between Renaissance & Baroque masters and geeks creating games like InSpectres and kill puppies for satan aside, what on earth at any point suggests that I'm asking that art never be examined and that theory is all bunk? I'll I've ever been saying all along is "Yeah, we already have a theory that produces the same results THIS theory produces. So, why are some people calling it 'new'? I don't see it that way, it's just a different approach."

The very idea that I sat down, closed my eyes and churned out a game like Dust Devils is ridiculous. It's even more ridiculous to suggest that this process -- whether mine or someone else's -- is some kind of unconscious talent or skill-less inspiration. It was work. It was craft. I created a game, using existing theories (as they existed last spring and summer), and the result was a very successful Indie game. It required the culmination of many skills I possess. Editing, writing, game design, graphic design, marketing, and more. Michelangelo I am not, but an accomplished, if relatively new, game designer I am.

But there are several distinct, "atomic" moments of inspiration I cannot explain to you. I can't explain how in the world I chose to have Traits in the game described in what we imagine as colloquial Western language terms ("Mean as a bobcat," for example). This could easily be seen as reality vs. vision -- did folks really talk like that after all? Is it all just what we think after watching movies? Since the game's based on film, then shouldn't THAT reality be the basline?

None of this happend. I used these Western-style similes for traits becuase it was intuitively the way to go. Intuition, inspiration, whatever. I did not employ any theory or skill in creating that aspect of the game. There was some skill later in editing and analyzing whether that approach worked for the game. Obviously, I did not appraoch it with the Baseline / Vision model in mind.

This kind of creative spark moment is what I was asking about at that point you quoted, not the whole craft of piecing together a game. This is not an all-or-nothing proposition. I am saying that all the theory in the world wouldn't have helped me at THIS POINT, and that's why I'm trying to figure out how it will help you and others when creating games.

I am at a loss 1) where I have conveyed otherwise and 2) how the hell you got the notion that I'm "deluded."

[End rant]

Indeed!

[Emily Care]

Emily, you've proposed that we use B/V to talk about realism and setting; I like that, but I'dd add the caveat mostly.

Certainly. I'd should also have added that b/v addresses the interactions between mechanics and setting.

Now the trick is going to be to figure out the tensions, because that's where play interest will tend to focus.

This suggests to me that an important example to set up early is going to be Mages and the Church.  I'm going to lean on the presuppositions of AM players about how the Church behaves about magic, but then I'm going to have the Church act much more historically plausibly, creating tension and dynamism.  

Aha! This is the part you were talking about, Matt. It sounds to me like what Fang might allude to when he emphasizes the "contrast" between baseline and vision in his designs. What Chris, at least, is looking at here is exploiting the difference between the player's expectations and the designer's vision to "creat[e] tension and dynamism." (Good examples, by the way.)

I've been focusing on contrast in the negative sense. When mechanics (esp. realism oriented ones) contradict creative agenda.
--EC

after reading Matt's post: my my. Are we just going in circles here?

[Matt Snyder]

Now the trick is going to be to figure out the tensions, because that's where play interest will tend to focus.

This suggests to me that an important example to set up early is going to be Mages and the Church.  I'm going to lean on the presuppositions of AM players about how the Church behaves about magic, but then I'm going to have the Church act much more historically plausibly, creating tension and dynamism.  

Aha! This is the part you were talking about, Matt. It sounds to me like what Fang might allude to when he emphasizes the "contrast" between baseline and vision in his designs. What Chris, at least, is looking at here is exploiting the difference between the player's expectations and the designer's vision to "creat[e] tension and dynamism." (Good examples, by the way.)

Emily, I think we are going in circles, and this example is one key reason why. This is, for you and Chris, a "Eureka!" moment. For me, it's a head-scratcher. First, it's all still so vauge "sounds like" Fang's doing this. Chris might be saying that. This is what I'm trying to discern. Saying what, specifically? I just need more -- Chris needs to take it one step, maybe two steps, further for me to "get it."

You say Chris is looking at exploiting the difference between the players' expetations and the designer's vision to "create tension and dynamism."

Ok, and so what then? I plainly don't understand what that means. What do those terms signify what one will do in the game? What will this mean in a very real and practical sense? Players will do what differently at this point from how the game exists now? I just don't get it. Nobody's wrong, I'm just not seeing what you're seeing. I'm waiting to understand what "tension and dynamism" are, what they do. I think stopping there is stopping short without putting that into perspective of WHAT THIS GAME DOES. I have no idea what "tension and dynamism" mean as they relate to this specific example or in a general sense. It's too vague for me, I think.

This also reminds me why I keep saying, "Yeah, so this is all part and parcel of the creative agenda. All these contrasts and tensions are one component of the whole" I _think_ some people keep insisting that no, it's not related to creative agenda at all. At that point, I can't figure out what the point is for what they're saying. If you're creating a game, but do so in a way that somehow doesn't address how folks will actually play that game, then what are you doing? I don't think this IS what this theory does (that is, create something "outside" creative agenda), but IF it somehow were doing this, then it's creating something pointless. The game is what the game does. No more, no less. This is, to me, all that creative agenda is saying and has said all along.

I've been focusing on contrast in the negative sense. When mechanics (esp. realism oriented ones) contradict creative agenda.

You have focused on contrast in the negative sense, I guess, and frankly it's the only viewpoint that has thus far made sense to me. I get what you, specifically, have said, though I haven't yet seen how it's a creative tool. Maybe it's an editing tool, but I don't see it (yet) as a tool that helps you make choices about design from square one. THIS IS WHAT I DON'T GET. I don't know how to make it any clearer, folks, and nearly every post I've made in this thread has said this. How does this theory help you make "square-one" decisions about game design (RATHER than an analytical tool for examining existing designs, even those currently-in-progress -- if this is an "editing tool" for the creative process, then great!). I so far only understand this theory as a model for examining existing tools, but can't wrap my brain about how it sparks the creative process, how it helps you make new decisions about a new game.  This is why I keep calling it Wag-the-Dog design, tongue planted firmly in cheek. I just see it working backwards in analysis, not forwards in creation.

[Valamir]

Alright.  I've been reading this thread for a few days now and apparently have critically failed my reading comprehension roll.  Now I like to think of myself as a pretty literate guy, but we're talking about games here.  If a concept about a game cannot be explained at a junior high school level of reading comprehension than there's something wrong with the presentation.

Let me sum up the entirety of what I understand from this thread so far.

Players sit down to the table to play.  They are going to have their characters do things and they are going to have certain expectations of how those things may turn out and what sort of things are appropriate.  They are going to base these expectations on their own experiences; the most foundational experiences being with reality itself and their understanding of it (with an acknowledgement that the typical 13 year old's understanding of reality differs greatly from that of the typical astro physicist).  This is being called "the base line".

Ok, then the game designer throws the players a curve ball.  Something about this world, this setting, this reality that violates, contradicts, or exaggerates our understanding of the "the base line".  This curve ball is being called "the vision".

Ok...I have a feeling I'm missing something here because I'm having trouble figuring why it would take 3 pages to get to that point.  It seems pretty straight forward.  You have a world...and here's the twist.  So far I'm not seeing anything which challenges my paradigm here.  But sometimes there is great profundity in reexamining the simple things, so lets continue.


1)  Armed with this knowledge of Base Line vs Vision and the ability to identify and distinguish between them...what do you DO with it?

Obviously you all have something more in mind than just slapping labels on things, especially when those things seem to be nothing more than the formalization of the difference between Simulation of Reality (Baseline) vs Verisimilitude (vision that departs from baseline) which is about as hoary a topic as you get when discussing RPGs.

aside:  I certainly don't mean to side track things by mentioning verisimiltude, but that is, in fact, what's being highlighted by these examples.  You have Ars Magica with the base line of historical medieval Europe.  Then you have the Vision which makes it medieval Europe + magic.  Then you have examples of design choices which focus on emphasising the Baseline vs emphasising the Vision.  Which is nothing more than the choice between realism vs verisimilitude that designers have been making since the 70s.


2) Ok great.  So we have a simple model with some basic terms and easy to grasp format to discuss....what?

The GNS model starts with the Social Contract, then you drill down to Exploration, then you drill down to GNS modes.  

Exploration includes:  Character, Setting, Situation, System, and Color.

Baseline then seems to be nothing more complicated than the fundamental assumptions about Character, Setting, Situation, System and Color that players begin with.

Vision then is the unique twist on Character, Setting, Situation, System, and Color that the game offers.  The areas where the game world deviates in these areas from that Baseline.

The tension that exists between the two is then simply the reason why Exploring these elements is interesting.  There isn't much point in deviating from the Baseline if the Vision isn't offering something more.  That something is the tension that the players experience in attempting to adjust their expectations to the reality of the game world.  


So is this not really what we're talking about?  A way of digging a little deeper into the nature of Exploration and the 5 elements that define it?  In the literature of the GNS model today "Exploration" and the 5 elements exists as sort of a black box to be acknowledged and referred to on the way from Social Contract to GNS.

Baseline vs Vision seems to me to be the beginning efforts of a way to break open that black box and look around inside.


Am I way off here?   I hope not because if you're reading this and thinking "no that's not it at all" than I'd have to say you've failed completely to convey the purpose and meaning behind this idea and would be best served by ending this thread and coming back to the idea when you've determined how better to articulate it.

If I am on track, than I say fantastic!  Sounds like an interesting avenue to examine, although I'd recommend dropping some of the more esoteric philosophizing and getting down to brass tacks a bit with it.

[Le Joueur]

Moderators: this is a C. Lehrich Thread topic #1

Okay Matt,

Obviously we're having serious miscommunication on at least two levels.  Let's try an deal with the 'theory level' first.

First a Rough Analogy

Let's build a car (a role-playing game).

Cars are used in three different ways (GNS): for working - cargo vans, trucks, and et cetera (Narrativism); for recreation - dune buggies, sports cars, and so on (Gamism); and for 'getting around' - 'just cars' (Simulationism).

Each car is designed for a specific purpose ('creative agenda'), giant ore-hauling trucks, Ferrari sports cars, family wagon, and the like.

Cars have certain laws they must obey in construction, minimum ground clearance, 15 MPH bumper standard, four wheels (less is legally a motorcycle), license plates, and et cetera (Baseline).

Many cars do some amazing things; rail dragsters go really fast, ore-hauling trucks carry tons of taconite, and so on.  These require things that take them to the border of being cars, many aren't even 'street legal' (the questionably named 'Vision').

People are forever using cars for things other than 'how they're used' or what their 'specific purpose' is (Drift).  Going four-wheelin' in the swamps with a truck uses a work car for recreation; it also creates a need for alterative equipment (gun racks, cup holders, and...you get the idea).

Since the energy crunch of the seventies hit, some cars are designed to be fuel efficient (Elegance).  Now, I realize that 'stylists' design cars just superficially; they decide all of the above issues in only the most general terms.  These 'styles' go to the engineers who 'make it happen' (Deliberateness).[/list:u]

What I'm Talking About

Take a look at modern fuel efficient cars.  They're all sleek and kinda bubble shaped.  It doesn't stop there; the insides are sleek and rounded too.  There's nothing that says you couldn't do an interior that's all blocky and functional, but do they?  No, the 'design theme' calls for all curves and rounded surfaces; it has gone to the point now where even the stereo system's face plate, one of the longest holdouts of rectangular design, has even turned into an ellipse.

Does this affect 'what you use the car for?'  No and yes.  No, it doesn't clearly add to 'how the car is used,' but it does make using it 'nicer' in the long run.  And yes it does affect the use; think of how the 'design theme' makes the car's design seem 'polished' and is yet a product of paralleling the 'aerodynamic' needs of fuel-efficiency.

Does this affect the 'specific purpose' of the car?  Again, no and yes.  No, it doesn't obviously effect what the design was dedicated for.  But yes it does add to the specific purpose; think all that padding in the pickup truck is for show?  You obvious haven't taken it over really rough terrain; those pads prevent bruises at times and yet are 'slipped in' as just decorating elements.

Now you'd be really naïve if you think that cars are designed first for their 'use' or 'special purpose.'  First comes the choice of 'what to design;' let's say it's one of those 'fun, sporty, beach cars.'  This forms the foundation of the 'design theme.'  Choosing to start with a pickup-style chassis and modify isn't because it's supposed to be a work car, but because the secondary connotation of how some people use trucks for four-wheelin' fun (Drift) this serves the 'design theme.'  Next, they make it some obnoxious color like 'utility yellow;' why?  To deliver the message, 'this is for fun!' another example of the 'design theme' at work.  The bumpers are covered with the same neoprene padding as the interior; this puts forth the idea they you'll be playing

on the car as much as in the car.  And it just keeps on going; every choice made right down to 'use' and 'special purpose' are guided by an overall 'design theme.'

And the reason this isn't "System Does Matter" is because it covers game design elements that cannot be called system.[/list:u]What You Seem to be Telling Me

I'm going to try and state your point so we can see if I'm getting

that.  Don't hesitate to jump in and correct me here, or else I'll never understand.  Don't harbor the illusion that I am trying to mangle your opinion or make it out to be unacceptable, far from it.  I value your input because, as I've said, I don't even know what I'm talking about precisely and am trying to gain that understanding.  (You would do well to try this same technique, because we certainly aren't getting anywhere otherwise.)

A lot of what I'm getting out of your opinion is that 'the proof of the pudding is in the eating.'  I can handle that.  You've asked for an example; I've provided one and to aid in this discussion I've put up a critique about it.  (I don't know why you keep speaking as though no examples have been made; go read 'em, post about 'em, let's discuss them.  These challenges of "let's see some" are hollow with them right in front of you.¹)

You also tell me that you method of 'designing cars' is only to make the 'things you put in them' that directly impact their 'use' and 'specific purpose' and only.  I can understand that, I once attempted to put together a Popular Science kit car (well it was a motorcycle, because it only have three wheels).  The final product lacked anything that could be called polish because it was too busy being a sleek, three-wheeled car built on a Volkswagen/motorcycle chassis (with one wheel in back).

What I don't understand is why you think that because I see play as only one ingredient of a role-playing game, that I must somehow be ignoring it.  Can you explain?  Just because I think it important to make the passenger compartment of an electric car not resemble the one on a long-haul diesel rig means I don't care how the person will be driving them?

You also are saying that you make good cars without putting so much thought into it.  Okay, so what does that tell me about this nebulous set of ideas I'm trying to understand?  I've very happy that you feel you've got this problem licked without these ideas, but to borrow the tone you are projecting by repeating this over and over, 'I hope you're happy with it, now go away.'

You are likewise saying, 'this ain't new.'  You know what?  You could be right.  Just saying, 'this ain't new' is a disservice to the discussion.  Unless you present where you've seen it before, I can't know because I ain't seen it.  I'm getting really disappointed in this kind of casual dismissal; 'everyone knows that' is little more than a polite insult.  You want to prove it ain't new?  Show me the old stuff.  If I could but see this previous work, I'd gladly shut the hell up.

You state rather emphatically that what I'm discussing is clearly (to you) one component of 'creative agenda' ("What do you do in a game and how do you do it").  I just can't see that.  When you decide to make that Tolkeinesque fantasy game, that tells you what kinds of 'creative agenda' to use, but is not a part of it ("What do you do in a game and how do you do it").

Next you say that the game's (little 'p') premise is "the point and purpose of the game."  That's a little confusing since you just said that it was "What do you do in a game and how do you do it."  I see those as two different things.  A games purpose could be to highlight how you deal with dysfunctional relationships; it might deliver those as the metaphor of summoning demons.  In such a game "What do you do in a game and how do you do it" is making the demons respond to the need of the characters and vice versa.  Further I suppose it might have the players do this with an eye upon a higher Edwardsian Premise.  But addressing this and doing it with demon summoning and tribute is not what might be "the point and purpose of the game" if the designer wants you do ponder dysfunctional relationships (via the metaphor).  I'm okay with the idea that the many various choice in such a game design could be unconscious in comparison to my technique, but I doubt a designer who does so habitually will have anything to add to this discussion.[/list:u]The Other Miscommunication

I guess it all boils down to the old cliché, 'if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all.'  The following even if it isn't mean-spirited, certainly isn't nice.

...If the technique's helping you, knock yourself out. Just don't claim it's new. It isn't; [I haven't, but you choose to ignore that.]

...Spend a little more time coming up with the evidence that shows how this is useful

...Please stop wearing your heart on your sleeve (getting disappointed, upset and so on). It's just not worth it,

...I've yet to see ways that it is useful. That you and Eric have both asked "dissenters" to leave you alone is not going to help you find this idea.

I'm not simply asking dissenters to 'buzz off;' that would be like telling them to spend more time coming up with more valuable critical commentary than "So?"  (The implication is "spend more time" somewhere else.)  I'm sorry if I am insulted by being told that my hobby, game design, isn't valuable enough to care about; do you think it fair to tell others their interests don't matter and they shouldn't care?

The reason I can't just 'take it to PM' is because these words are affecting more than me and don't add any value whatsoever to the discussion.  That you're response is hard to characterize as nothing more than this denial without substantiation makes it hard to carry the public discussion forward at all.  Were I to take 'my problem' with this to PM, it would have exactly the same effect as shutting down the thread (which you've said you don't want).

Basically, please substantiate the claim 'this isn't new' or provide feedback on 'what you think it is' or else you seem to saying nothing I can respond to (publicly according to your request).[/list:u]Ultimately, I'm asking you to actually follow the links I've provided as examples and read them instead of insisting none exist.  I'm asking 'where is it' if these ideas 'are not new.'  And I'm asking for less tone and more discussion.

How about this?  Instead of saying anything about 'newness,' try to illustrate the age of the ideas as you read them.  Instead of telling people what to do or how to feel, ask yourself if there are questions you could ask the help you understand.  Instead of insisting you don't need these ideas (in print), examine the metaphors for something you don't do.

Question specifically, don't state.  Ask, don't tell.  Compare, don't insist.  Otherwise seems like empty rhetoric and empty rhetoric obscures any point the originator of the thread could be making.  Isn't hiding someone's work with meaningless words disrespectful?

Fang Langford

p. s. Before you decide to respond to my discussion of discussing, can we just drop that part and focus on the examples and metaphors?

¹ And for the record, it doesn't apply to Scattershot, not yet.  As far as I'm concerned, that's one of the major failings of the game.  If I come to understand what I'm talking about (even if it is as old as time; I haven't heard it), maybe I can finish the game properly.

[Emily Care]

So is this not really what we're talking about?  A way of digging a little deeper into the nature of Exploration and the 5 elements that define it?  In the literature of the GNS model today "Exploration" and the 5 elements exists as sort of a black box to be acknowledged and referred to on the way from Social Contract to GNS.

Baseline vs Vision seems to me to be the beginning efforts of a way to break open that black box and look around inside.

Thanks, Ralph. That's how I see it, too.

[Matt Snyder]

And the reason this isn't "System Does Matter" is because it covers game design elements that cannot be called system.

Finally, a Eureka moment! You're seeing these design elements as NOT System. You're right. To me, they're COLOR and SETTING and SITUATION. Therefore, they fall under the Creative Agenda, which is what I've been saying all along. (In effect, Creative Agenda Matters, if you will.) I see this as the foundation of much disconnect, and likely why I am talking at cross purposes with you and others.

Are you seeing these elements you're talking about as not "Rules" and therefore also not within premise/creative agenda? That's what I'm reading here. Is that correct?

It leads me to something I'm going to post in the GNS forum: I think the presentation of a game (which some of the Baseline/Vision folks have touched on briefly in other threads) is color (VERY rarely something else -- perhaps setting in some unusual cases like maybe maps) and it therefore matters just as System matters. I'm talking about published format. I'm talking about graphic design. These things absolutely fall under Creative Agenda, as I see it and interpret it. These elements are almost always exploration of color.

So, where you're (perhaps?) seeing something new and outside creative agenda to talk about, I'm seeing something within the creative agenda that doesn't get talked about often (sometimes it does), but still remains nothing new. In one example, Graphic design. In others, choices about setting and situation (to use my interpretation of your own examples with your Iron Chef game).

What I don't understand is why you think that because I see play as only one ingredient of a role-playing game, that I must somehow be ignoring it. Can you explain? Just because I think it important to make the passenger compartment of an electric car not resemble the one on a long-haul diesel rig means I don't care how the person will be driving them?

I think my reply just above explains it, but I think you're mistaking my intent. I'm not saying that "things inside the car" are all that matters. I'm saying that the people who use the car IN EVERY WAY matters (and most importanatly it matters to playing the game), and ALL of it still falls under creative agenda.

You also are saying that you make good cars without putting so much thought into it. Okay, so what does that tell me about this nebulous set of ideas I'm trying to understand? I've very happy that you feel you've got this problem licked without these ideas, but to borrow the tone you are projecting by repeating this over and over, 'I hope you're happy with it, now go away.'

Again, you're mistaking my position. I have not said that you just up and design without thought or grave consideration. I HAVE said that there are moments of inspiration that theories I've seen to date (including GNS and others) haven't yet nailed the "how to" those moments of art or creation. This does not mean my design is not an elaborately, careful, and skillfull process. I have already explained that my creating games is all of these things in my reply to Clehrich above.

[/quote]You are likewise saying, 'this ain't new.' You know what? You could be right. Just saying, 'this ain't new' is a disservice to the discussion. Unless you present where you've seen it before, I can't know because I ain't seen it.[/quote]

I have said where I've seen it repeatedly. I've said over and over again all of this stuff falls under Creative Agenda. In this post I've specified that some of the things being discussed are exploration of Color. Valamir has posed think along very much the same lines, and Emily Care has agreed with him. Do you or do you not see these "elements" as within the box of: Setting, Color, Situation, Character, and System?

I'm getting really disappointed in this kind of casual dismissal; 'everyone knows that' is little more than a polite insult. You want to prove it ain't new? Show me the old stuff. If I could but see this previous work, I'd gladly shut the hell up.

Fang, I did provide an example of how something "old" I designed and published could easily fall under the processes you're reaching for and still have the same result. See my Dust Devils traits example above. So far, no one has remarked on that example.

I'm won't duck out of the conversation entirely, but I'll do my damnedest not to prevent you folks from filling out and precisely defining this whole idea. I'm going to call a spade a spade when I see it, and I'll be more than happy to have yet another more positive "Eureka!" moment when I see one.