Creative Agenda and behavioral disconnects

[Silmenume]

I think one of the reasons the people have a hard time grappling with the idea of a creative agenda is that CA is the expression of desire unexamined.

What I mean is thus.  Humankind has a tremendous capacity for self-delusion.  Many people truly and fiercely believe that their stated objects are their true motives for action.  Yet how many times have we heard people say they want to lose weight while they pop open a soda?  If their desire was to truly go on a diet then there would be no problem.  However, there is a disconnect between what they say, and truly believe is their desire, and the expression of said desire (their pattern of behavior).  The difficulty in getting individuals to see this disconnect can be seen in the immensity of efforts expended during psychotherapy in trying to make people aware of these disconnects between their self-perception and their behavior.  It is no easy task to accomplish for many reasons, not the least of which is that these disconnects serve an important purpose, whatever that purpose may be.

I think creative agenda falls into a similar area.  Players may say they like X agenda, or describe a "style of play" they say they enjoy and be very adamant about it, but their behavior (the expression of their true though unexamined desire) belies their convictions.  The fact that their (true) behavior stems from an unexamined desire (by unexamined I mean the individual is unaware that it exists thus have not overtly tended to it) makes it especially frustrating when the desire is unfulfilled.  The person becomes frustrated because not only is their desire being unmet, they are unaware of the reasons why.  They cannot articulate what it is they are seeking so they become angry.

This is the reason why I think that disparate creative agendas at a game can be sooooo rancorous and divisive.   It is the id, unnoticed, seeking satisfaction and finding its efforts being hamstrung.  It is a restless hunger that is not being ministered to.  Until one becomes aware of the nature of that hunger it will become impossible to consciously direct effects at either satisfying it or mitigating it.  Never the less it is a powerful drive once unleashed and I believe it is the driving energy behind such aggressive behaviors, overt or covert, that find expression when the game is dysfunctional.

This is not say that roleplayer need psychotherapy if they are unhappy at the game, rather I was using it as a yardstick by which we can get a measure of the difficulty it is to get someone to see something about themselves that is disconnected from their behaviors.  The fact is we are currently living in a culture, at least here in the US, which discourages self-examination.  Better to be expressive than reflective, as it were.  The act of discourse is much more important than the content of discourse.  This is brightly manifest in the old adage in Hollywood, "Bad press is better than no press."

I don't know if this says anything important, but I thought it was some sort of an epiphany.

Aure Entaluva,

Silmenume

[Harlequin]

I agree entirely - well said - and I think it does lead us to at least one new place:

How, then, do we tell what a gamer really wants?

If asking him questions about his desires is an inadequate technique, which is something with which I think we largely agree, then what techniques do we have to tell what someone really does want?  There's been a little bit of discussion here about this, but the exploration of this topic has been pretty shallow.  Can we improve on this?

We've seen a lot of back-and-forth on the idea of watching a few key decisions,, we've seen M.J.'s suggestion of Post Ludem analysis, and there are probably other threads I've missed.  Ron advocates, essentially, "Watch for where they're nodding during play," which seems equally powerful.  But right now it's scattered tricks and techniques - can we improve on that?

One option which comes fascinatingly to mind:  We design a diagnostic game.

This is based on a preceding idea which I know isn't new but for which I can't immediately find crossreferences.  That thought is that one could take a playgroup and run a short sequence of short but heavily GNS-biased games, and use their reactions or even their overt commentary on which games had been their favorites to gauge their real preferences (and to clarify them for the players themselves).

As a test run, for example, you might run Ninja Burger, My Life With Master, a one-session Millenium's End mission, Rune, an in media res The Questing Beast tale with pregens, and, say, Mongrel.  Each of which could be done in one solid session, I think, if one were trying.  I've suggested two of each mode in an effort to reduce bias based on non-GNS preferences, such as "I hate ninjas" or whatever; I'd add a quick Sim:Character game to the mix if I could think of one, to add to the Sim:Rules/Setting of M'sE and the Sim:HighColour/Setting of Mongrel.  But I couldn't think of one, and I suspect Sim:Character is one brand which could easily run through all the rest and hide amongst any of the others, more readily than any other preference.  

(If one were feeling sneaky, one could build into (for example) the Rune game a Sim:Character diagnostic for any player who you suspect of leaning strongly that way - the "favorite weapon" which isn't as effective as another one carried, that sort of thing.)

Thing is, I'm not sure if spending six or seven weeks diagnosing your group's GNS preferences is really worth it.  I wouldn't bother, other than that all the games on that list are ones I'd enjoy anyway; the exercise generally doesn't seem worth the candle.

But could we compress this?  If we had one game which were designed for this end, which was playably incoherent and could remain playable even as each player Drifted it in the direction of his preferences, then we might have a very valuable tool.  Due to incoherence, it might be less fun than others, but then again, if we could design it so that each player could Drift it independently, it might end up more fun than many games if your group is strongly disparate in preferences.

I can see a few ways to handle this.

1. Rules which can be customized per player, by the player.  This by itself would be something neat to design a game around.  Who says everyone at the table has to be using the same rules?  In weaker form, you might run three concurrent currencies, which can be spent to activate mechanics tailored to one GNS mode or the other; which currency someone reaches for would tell you a lot, if the currencies were otherwise balanced.  [I just realized that this is something I'm already doing, to a limited degree - see this thread about halfway down.]

In stronger form, you could actually let players 'tune' the mechanics in the direction of their choice, as they play, such that each player ended up using mechanics which supported their preferred mode of play.  This may be an impossible challenge, but it's at least theoretically feasible.  Basically, open up the knobs and dials that we would normally fix during game design, and make those serve instead as part of their character sheet.  

[Example: Make it a cinematic game.  There's a place on the character sheet for "Camera Position."  Choosing 'Close Focus' for this variable gets you some strongly Actor Stance, Sim:Char supportive, mechanics.  Choosing 'Swooping Focus' (think action movies) gets you some action-oriented mechanics which will please Gamists among others - this is not the only such dial, we don't need to pin it down with one choice.  Choosing 'Wide Focus' gets you strong Directorial power, lets you step into the shoes of NPCs in other peoples' scenes, and gives you access to strong tools for addressing Premise.]

2. Go one beyond Fang's efforts, and make a game which does what I'll call fast Transition.  This probably needs prewritten scenario(s) to make it work, at a guess.  Set it up so that it begins, say, with immersion in a whole new world, strange customs and new characters and a whole lot to learn about it, but very little plot content, moral content, or real challenge.  It's a Sim playground.  Then, perhaps in the next session, bring in the hidden conflicts, moral depths, and choosing of sides.  Build the conflict so that it's not necessary that all the PCs end up on one side or the other, and so that they bring much of the conflict to the table with them, initiating it through their own desires and through a good solid Author/Director-stance toolset.  Maybe the second session opens with an OOC discussion of possible Premises and runs from there, exploring those issues as the focus of this session.  Push those conflicts hard toward tension and player choices in how they'll act when the crunch comes - but don't bring on the crunch.  Third session, "open up" the character sheets in a way that just wasn't really done until now; stop ignoring stats that you'd been ignoring, and have character effectiveness be the primary tool with which they finalize the conflict that was generated in session two.

Then, when all is said and done, ask them which session was the best one.

Interestingly, the above sounds an awful lot like Multiverser play, if I'm not mistaken (not having read it).  A little more deliberate in its structure, maybe, especially with the day two - day three transition.  But awfully reminiscent.

Like the other tools, this would be far from perfect... but as an indicator, it strikes me as a good one.

Now once again, is GNS diagnosis worth running several sessions of a diagnostic game?  Certainly depends on your degree of current dysfunction.  Which, in turn, suggests something... write such a game/scenario combo, and "market" it as The Game to Run When Your Game Needs a Break.  With the GNS diagnosis tools, and some suggestions on what to do based on what this shows you, hidden under the surface of that tagline.

Hmmm...

- Eric

[M. J. Young]

How, then, do we tell what a gamer really wants?...

Interesting thoughts, Eric; I'd be interested to see whether anything on that order can be done that includes the diagnostic tools.

In reading your thoughts, I had some of my own. I once designed a GNS quiz; it's flawed, but not entirely dysfuntional. It would be interesting if there were a way to design one that was more functional, and something in what you've written triggered a thought.

I'm thinking of a "hooks" test. I think I would do something on this order.

Rate each of these statements as to how interested you would be in taking action based on what it says.

[*]There is a dragon terrorizing the northern prairie, and the king has offered a reward for whoever can stop it from preying on the livestock.
[*]The chancellor seems loyal to the king, but he spends a lot of time as guest of the king's half-brother, whose aspirations to the throne are strongly suspected.
[*]Beyond the mountains there is an ocean on which floating islands drift, made of interwoven roots so that a man can walk on them but they form to the surface of the water.
[*]The prophet of the state church has publicly announced that the king should pay tribute to the emperor of the distant empire whose armies are even now approaching, but the king insists that the people rally to fight against this and trust God to aid and defend them.[/list:u]

Anyway, that's a start. The idea would be to create maybe thirty to sixty hooks which would seem to pull toward gamist, narrativist, or simulationist future events, and let the players rate which of these most interest them; the outcome would hopefully be that they would show a preference toward hooks of a particular sort.

Personally I would hate such a quiz--all those hooks sound interesting to me, and it would depend much more on my mood of the moment than any basic preference I have in gaming; but that's always been my story.

--M. J. Young

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

M.J. and Eric, doesn't that all seem kind of backwards to you? It does to me.

I am less interested in using "what makes players happy" as a means to decide their GNS preferences, than in using GNS preferences/vocabulary to see whether "be more happy" can be achieved in practice.

But perhaps we're merely hitting the difference between "basic" and "applied" aspects of investigation.

Best,
Ron

[Harlequin]

Ron, I think the disconnect is that I have several players who don't know what they want, and I don't know what they want.  I'd use GNS to help clarify this, but since they don't know what they want or would enjoy, and I don't know either, it's a little tricky.

After that, absolutely; if I knew how GNS would help them out, then never mind the analysis, the point is to make them happier.

M.J., I'm with you on the "Where's (D), All of the Above?" protest.  But I'm not sure how common that is.  Getting someone to take the 'hooks' test once and then again a month later, however, might yield something interesting.

- Eric

[b_bankhead]

What I mean is thus.  Humankind has a tremendous capacity for self-delusion.  Many people truly and fiercely believe that their stated objects are their true motives for action.  Yet how many times have we heard people say they want to lose weight while they pop open a soda?  If their desire was to truly go on a diet then there would be no prolem.

This disconnect isn't just with players, it can happen to game designers too.  My upcoming essay "Hot Lead and Cold Tenctacles: The Big Lie of Call of Cthulhu" is founded on just such a disconnect.  Chaosium 'wants' Call of Cthulhu to be  a brainy,sophisticated, thinking man's game, and the text of the game book constantly runs down the violent solution, but then they create a game where packing bigger heat is by far the best option ,and publish scenarios filled with situations that are essentially unresolveable without violence, preferably, with a high caliber.  CoC 'wants' to be Frasier Crane, but deep down it's really Rambo....

[Silmenume]

You know, it just seems that I can't make a post without some important error to save my life!

Though everyone understands what I meant I am going to post the intended sentence anyway because my error keeps mocking me!  Here we go -

Many people truly and fiercely believe that their stated objectives are (represent) their true motives for action.

Failure to edit within the window strikes again!

[Mike Holmes]

Ron, I think the disconnect is that I have several players who don't know what they want, and I don't know what they want.  I'd use GNS to help clarify this, but since they don't know what they want or would enjoy, and I don't know either, it's a little tricky.

After that, absolutely; if I knew how GNS would help them out, then never mind the analysis, the point is to make them happier.

My general idea on this is that people focus too much on what the people want, when in reality, what they want is for their intent and play to line up. So don't diagnose. If you can't tell what the players want, it's because you aren't playing with a coherent CA. If you play a game with a coherent CA, and players like it, that's one CA that works for the group. If you play with a coherent CA, and players don't like it, you'll know soon into play.

That is, the "test" for what players like is presenting them with the clear CA and seeing what actually happens in play. The benefit of which is that, if you hit a CA that they like, you're already playing. And it's also my opinion that most players don't actually dislike most CAs. They only dislike ones that seem incoherent to them, for the most part. So there's little risk in presenting a game with a coherent CA.

Mike

[Harlequin]

I'd say that the above is true, but biased toward experienced gamers - because I have several players who are newish to the hobby and are easily made uncomfortable by unexpected elements, and in that instance I'd say that "build it and they will come" is a flawed proposition.

However, it is a very solid point, and pretty much argues against any building of diagnostic tools per se.  I think the idea of the Multiverser-esque "diagnostic scenario" is still an interesting one, though... because I don't agree that there's no validity in knowing what people prefer, even if they'll like any coherent nonobjectionable game - see the distinction?

- Eric

[Mike Holmes]

So, you're saying make the first game session, short, powerful and punchy so as to highlight the CA? So that you'll know right off if you've got something that works? I'd go with that.

What I'm saying is that "instance of play" is something that relates to something like a session-long period of play. So any test ought to be at least that long - anything shorter is likely to provide false analysis. So, if a shorter test isn't viable, then why not play to test? I mean, after all, playing is fun. Just don't get invested in the idea that the game is going to go before hand.

I'm not saying that it's useless to know a group's predilections. I'm saying that the best way to determine them is to observe play. Once you know that they like T&T, you might want to try Rune as another Gamist game. Seems obvious to me.

Mike

[M. J. Young]

M.J. and Eric, doesn't that all seem kind of backwards to you? It does to me.

Good point, overall; but then, there are a lot of people even here on these boards (and an incredible number who would never darken the forums here with their electronic ink) who wonder how to categorize themselves. Some, of course, start saying that all such categories are nonsense; others put forward competing categories to try to describe what they like about play. Yet there are people who think it's important to know into what category they fit.

Granted, this isn't a theory about categorizing people; yet in categorizing play preferences, it does tend to recognize that many people have one preference over others.

Also, there's been some suggestion over the years that sometimes the best solution to GNS dysfunction is to find a group whose playstyle is closer to yours. That means that it isn't enough to be conversant in playstyle vocabulary; we also need to have some idea of how our individual styles fit. Thus to find such a group we have to be able to say, "I like narrativist games".

Granted, we could get there by playing lots of games and discovering that there are some we just don't enjoy and others we find fascinating. But, as I think Eric's earlier suggestion mentioned, the fact that I don't enjoy 3E doesn't necessarily mean that I don't like gamist play--there are too many other variables involved. Maybe I don't like fantasy, or find the system clunky or unintuitive or too obvious, or am completely put off by the spells approach, or any of a number of things. If there were a way to isolate those aspects of preferences which are particularly gamist in a way that lets us identify gamist preferences, it would be easier for gamers to match themselves to groups that play in similar ways.

Anyway, one of the values of GNS is that it helps players find groups where they will be comfortable; but it only does that if the players know what they're seeking in GNS terms.

So that would be the value of a GNS test of some sort, as I see it.

--M. J. Young

[Mike Holmes]

My suggestion to people looking to find out what their preference is, is to realize that all three are fun. Once you do that, then you'll be satisfied playing in any coherent game.

That's kinda my point. I can't say that this will be true for everyone, but I think that there's no reason why players must have a preference. Given that, I think players are limiting themselves if they decide that they only like one or two modes. What I think most people are saying when they say they prefer one mode over others is that this is the mode in which they've had the most coherent play, and hence the most fun. If they experienced coherent play in other modes I think they'd learn to like all three.

In any case, your point about play is invalid. I'd reject a game based on any of those critera you mentioned, potentially. Playing a game tells you whether you like it in terms of GNS as well as anything else. I mean, if you can't tell GNS preferences from play then GNS doesn't make any sense to begin with. So play is a perfectly valid, if labor-intensive, way to determine preferences. The thing is that the labor is fun for the most part.  

Don't segregate yourself by finding a "preference", play all coherent games.

Mike

[Harlequin]

What M.J. said, in terms of a diagnostic having value.

Mike, your suggestion amounts to "learn to like the CA right here," which is both valid and useless, when faced with dysfunction.  If there's a disconnect about the CA and neither party can usefully articulate his vision, even if they might both be comfortable with a single CA if they could express it, then this advice is meaningless; it'll only help over the long, long term (years of gaming).  What if heavy Gamist play continues to make my fiancee uncomfortable after years of gaming together, even when the CA simultaneously supports the Nar play she desires?  "Get over it" lacks a little something, don't you think?  Luckily, she's articulate and has a good feel for her desires.  Map her onto a nervous, less articulate victim, and bang - dysfunction, and nobody knows why.

On a more subtle level with regards to your previous post, I'm not sure we're quite connecting.  The objection that a sub-session test is too short to reveal anything is correct but not relevant; the diagnostic proposals on the table (the tunable mechanics, the three-session S/N/G hat trick scenario, etc) do recognize this fact.  Yes, you'll have large error bars, but right now we're not even generating the data, we're just intuiting it long-term.  I would hope that with a well-built diagnostic tool we'd improve our accuracy, that being the point.  I also don't think that's an unrealistic goal.

And there's an interesting assumption here:

So, you're saying make the first game session, short, powerful and punchy so as to highlight the CA? So that you'll know right off if you've got something that works? I'd go with that.

This statement seems incompatible with the idea of the CA arising in play as well as pre-play, and with much player input into it.  You stop short of implying that the GM is simply "showing" the CA to his players to see if they like it, but there's still an element of that present, which I'm not sure I buy.  I'm not arguing with the thought - I'd just like to revise the phrasing.  (To actually answer the question in that quote, BTW, no, it's not something I said, though it's a good idea - your credit, not mine.)

Perhaps this phrasing:
Make the first game session powerful and punchy, according to the CA as you see it.  Keep a close eye on your players to see who is really getting into this CA and who isn't "clicking" with it.  Adapt things where needed, right away.

This is quite distinct from the use of a general GNS-pref diagnostic, but closer to Silmenume's original intent, I think.  And it has several possible reactions, depending on one's read on why the latter class of players failed to click.
- Sometimes the game is too bizarre to grasp right off (Nobilis, Continuum) or the world too intricate for them to have absorbed yet (Talislanta, Harn)... they may yet click to the CA but one session didn't do it.
- Sometimes some ingredient of the CA actively bothers them.  See the example above with my fiancee.
- Sometimes they have different CA assumptions than were implemented, and got disconnected with the first session, but may come to like it once they get used to it.
- Sometimes they have actually come to understand the CA but find themselves ill-prepared to play to it - usually this is due to character choices, like a minmaxed fighter in an intrigue game that really is about intrigue, unlike anything they've ever played.  They can end up feeling disconnected due to those choices (they have no Charisma and no contacts) even if they really get into the spirit of things.  Many groups have an intrinsic resistance to changing those initial choices even if the result is disconnect.
- Sometimes it's the GM who finds himself disconnected from the CA, such as planning to do intrigue and then finding that he doesn't know how.  Some CA will emerge, but some players may click and some not and the GM may not even be sure what they were clicking to.

So, let me instead thread this into the discussion: How do we distinguish between the above classes of disconnect?  Given that (as the thread premise states) players are seldom able to articulate what they want or what's truly bothering them, how do we sort between the "whys" of a disconnect?

- Eric

Edited for clarity, shortly after posting.

[Mike Holmes]

When I say "Coherent CA" that denies that dysfunction can occur at that level. That is, if you have dysfunction, stop playing the game you're playing and play someting in which you can forge a coherent CA. That won't garuntee that they'll like it (though I think it's likely), but it will garuntee that you'll know then what they like.

What you're model seems to be is
1. Dysfuncitonal play
2. Diagnostic tool
3. Functional play

What I'm saying is:
1. Dysfunctional play
2. Functional play

In either case the functional game might be rejected on other grounds, but you skip the diagnostic part which sounds like a chore.

Make the first game session powerful and punchy, according to the CA as you see it.

That's very much what I meant. By punchy, I meant gets to establishing the CA powerfully and obviously. This should be the goal of an Intro scenario for any RPG. In any case, if this sort of experiment were to lead directly to more play - that is, it wouln't be ancillary to other play - then I'd be all for it.

I'm lost on the whole disconnect thing. I feel that with clear CAs you don't get disconnects. I think that disconnects are caused by game texts that tend to produce incoherence. That is, the text says that play is about one thing, and the mechanics about another. And then the player ends up following the mechanics and wonders why play isn't like the text said it would be. Once presented with a coherent system these things come together subconsciously.

Mike

[Harlequin]

I would define a disconnect as a player's misunderstanding of the CA, inability to play to the current CA, or being confronted with an obstacle which hinders or prevents him from playing to the CA.

Incoherent text is one source, but it's not the only one.  A perfectly coherent text can nonetheless support the different CAs of two different play groups.  If a player went from one to the other, carrying his expectations with him, then he'd be in a disconnect state from the second group's CA.  

Or the coherent CA may be difficult to connect to.  I'd say that Continuum, to pick one, is reasonably coherent - there's a slight incoherency at the mechanical level but it's readily Drifted into a coherent state, and has little to do with the occurrence of disconnects.  But it's also a very difficult game to adapt to, because it skews so many of your fundamental assumptions about the world.  I'd say that a large part of the appeal of Continuum's CA, as we played it, involves the frequent joyous cries of "Ow, my brain hurts, give me more!".  But until a player really gets into this aesthetic, there's a disconnect with the CA.  In this case, hopefully, it's temporary - but it might not be.

Similarly, when you assert,

... and play someting in which you can forge a coherent CA. That won't garuntee that they'll like it (though I think it's likely), but it will garuntee that you'll know then what they like.

...I have to disagree with you.  That's the point of this thread.  I present new player Pam with a coherent game and a clear CA.  Something about it gets under her skin.  She's unable to articulate why, or incorrectly identifies why, the game bothers her.  The GM is similarly unable to pin down what was troubling her; no amount of post-game "What could we do to make the game more fun?" discussion seems to eliminate the disconnect.

Silmenume's point was that this is not only possible, it's very common.  Gamers like Pam who can't accurately put their finger on what's wrong, or what expectation isn't being met, are in the vast majority.

You seem to suggest that, in that case, we just go play something else, equally coherent but different.  And hope the disconnect isn't present there.  This may work - but surely we can do better than blind jumps in the hopes of improving things.

This is exactly where GNS, among other tools, should be applied, to try and figure out what makes Pam happy.  But again we come to the point of the thread - how can we tell what Pam wants, other than just trying something different and seeing whether that works?  Do we have to just keep switching games and CAs until we find a "hit," or can we not - despite Pam's inarticulacy - use the failures to home in on something that will please?  And if so, how do we overcome the barrier posed by that inarticulacy?

- Eric