The Forge Archives

Hey guys,

Need a clarification for this paper on aesthetic theory in roleplaying.

Creative Agenda is something that can only be retrospectively said to exist, correct?  Isn't that part of Ron's focus on the formal, exhibited properties of roleplaying?  Actual play and not intent (that slippery beast)?

For example, I might start off a game thinking that the Theme is really cool and I want to help support it (i.e. play in a Narrativist fashion), but, before I know it, I'm caught up in the "Step On Up!" aspect and never get around to "Story Now!"  Therefore, for all intents and purposes, I never had a Narrativist Creative Agenda because I never exhibited Narrativist characteristics in my style of play.

Basically, the model only applies to exhibited Creative Agendas (since they're a subset of Exploration) and not intent at all.  Creative Agendas that aren't exhibited aren't really Creative Agendas at all.

Is that correct?

The problem with the term Creative Agenda is that the "agenda" portion of the term implies intent.  As far as I can guess intent is totally incidental to all portions of GNS except as it is actually manifested or in terms with one's own satisfaction.

I cannot readily come up with better terminology.  I am sure there is one out there.

To the best of me ability to understand, which is fairly limited, creative agenda in the model refers to the agenda manifested through actions.

Perhaps one might make better sense of the CA if one thought of it as Personal Agenda, for that is really what it is (most of the time).  The CA is really an expression of desire, usually unexamined, but not always the case.  What matters is what happens, not stated intent.
The model is really about practice (what happens), not theory (what should be).

Aure Entaluve,

Silmenume

Ron has a strong respect for scientific method, hence he emphasizes the importance of observable behavior for analysis.  

I believe his model hypothesizes that players DO have a Creative Agenda in the instant they are playing.  However, an _observer_ can only infer what that is retrospectively.  This is an important distinction when trying to build a useful theory.

I think one can have "intent" by the way.  If we all agree we want to explore themes of "faith, or the lack thereof, inspiring action" (just saw the extended version of Lord of the Rings at the Cinerama dome yesterday, it's on my mind), we can walk into character creation and world set up with that as our creative agenda.

That doesn't mean that's what we're going to pull off in play.  Hence, the observation part is vital to know what's actually happening.

Also, all the ephemera will also, move "backward" through the model to reinforce agendas and decisions, it seems to me.  "This felt good," might well get the player to do more of X, even if it wasn't what was planned.

I might be wrong about all of this.

But if I am right, it seems to me that the model, though it has arrows, influences all its elements in both directions.  But, again, that might be a misunderstanding on my part.

Christopher

Hello,

Jonathan and Mark, perhaps an analogy will help.

A fellow has a wonderful dream of playing great trumpet solos in front of crowds. He buys a trumpet and tootles on it, he takes lessons, he buys all the trumpet jazz albums. Perhaps he gets involved with a local group.

... but he never really plays. His time at rehearsals consists of objections or debates. His practice doesn't improve his playing. He doesn't practice assigned lessons. He describes and judges others' trumpet solos elaborately and at length, but not especially insightfully. He never makes it to a gig.

Does he have a Creative Agenda? You can ask him, and boy, will he tell you. In detail. With circles and arrows, with a paragraph on the back.

Now you go over to this trumpet guy who plays gigs all the time. What's your Creative Agenda, you ask him. "I dunno, man," he says. "I just like to play, doesn't matter what." But this seems a little off to you, because this guy is well-known for his personal, idiomatic take on the current jazz scene and also for his ability to choose reliable group members.

I consider the first guy to have no Creative Agenda, but rather an ego-dream. I consider the second guy to have a highly developed Creative Agenda. I also think the verbal interview is a piss-poor method of getting at this issue.

Does that help at all?

Best,
Ron

Totally.  That's close to what I was assuming to be the case, but your metaphor makes the distinction clearer.

The paper is going to discuss your theory as a Formalist model for roleplaying, as opposed to an Intentionalist model, where the intent of the artist (or player, in this case) is vital for understanding what's going on.  The thing about your model, Ron, which makes it so dern useful, is you can begin analyzing games based on observations, without having to know the Intent of the players involved.  This is one of the main differences between it and Threefold Theory, from what I understand, since the latter is all about player/designer motivations, not exhibited behaviors.

Creative Agenda was the only place in the model where people could possibly think you're talking about intent (and most people make this mistake; I know I did, initially), but you avoid that by focusing on a "show me the money" approach.  Once again, the Forge's upholding of Actual Play over abstract theory (which is pretty funny, considering our reputation) wins out.

Quote from: Jonathan WaltonThe thing about your model, Ron, which makes it so dern useful, is you can begin analyzing games based on observations, without having to know the Intent of the players involved.  This is one of the main differences between it and Threefold Theory, from what I understand, since the latter is all about player/designer motivations, not exhibited behaviors.

Creative Agenda was the only place in the model where people could possibly think you're talking about intent (and most people make this mistake; I know I did, initially), but you avoid that by focusing on a "show me the money" approach.  Once again, the Forge's upholding of Actual Play over abstract theory (which is pretty funny, considering our reputation) wins out.  

Well, I think this is a matter of perspective.  I think the difference between GNS and Threefold reflects the purpose of the forums.  The Forge is a forum about designing new, independent games; while rgfa was about discussion between players of different preferences / styles of play (generally using existing systems).  To a game designer, the intent of players who will use the game is external and unknowable.  Thus, it seems eminently useful to have a theory centered on exhibited behaviors.  

On the other hand, if you are already playing a game, your own intent is not just visible -- it is the only thing that you can change!!  You can't automatically make exhibited behaviors different.  The best you can do is to try to play differently -- i.e. alter your intent.  From this perspective, intent is 100% about Actual Play.

Totally, John.  I agree 100%.  Very nicely stated.

In analyzing other people's behavior, all you have is their exhibited behavior, but in analyzing your own behavior, what you've got to work with is your own intent.  That's why the Formalist/Intentionalist split in aesthetics will never get worked out, because artists deal with their own intentions while audiences deal with the work that results.

Quote from: Jonathan WaltonCreative Agenda was the only place in the model where people could possibly think you're talking about intent (and most people make this mistake; I know I did, initially), but you avoid that by focusing on a "show me the money" approach.  Once again, the Forge's upholding of Actual Play over abstract theory (which is pretty funny, considering our reputation) wins out.

The intent problem isn't that creative agenda isn't about intent; it's that it's about real intent, real motive, and not about intellectualized or stated intent or motive.

That is, creative agenda is about what motivates you to play and what you are seeking to get from play, regardless of what you think you want from play or what you think you are going to do.

The word "intent" is problematic because (as in Ron's example) people often confuse an intellectual wish with an intent. I might say that I intended to take the trash to the dump yesterday, but in fact I did not take the trash to the dump yesterday. That might be because I was thwarted in my efforts; but it probably is really that I never had such an intent--I was not motivated to take the trash to the dump--but rather intended to do something else that I in fact did.

Ultimately, unless you are prevented by outside forces, you will do what you intend to do. You might say you intended to do something else--you might even believe that you intended to do something else--but your real intent will control your actions.

Thus what we do in creative agenda analysis is look at player actions and choices, and recognize that these fall into a pattern which suggests that they are truly motivated by the desire for X, where X is the core of one creative agenda. We reach intent from action. We conclude that this was always the intent of the players, that which they were actually trying to do in the game, because it's what they did.

The trumpeter who was successful always intended to play the music and do it well; his actions prove it. The trumpeter who never played never really intended to play, whatever his statements on the subject. It is not what people say they intend that matters, but what they show they intend. The intention is there throughout; it is recognized through the actions, and thus identified after the fact.

Does that make sense?

--M. J. Young

Quote from: M. J. YoungThe trumpeter who was successful always intended to play the music and do it well; his actions prove it. The trumpeter who never played never really intended to play, whatever his statements on the subject. It is not what people say they intend that matters, but what they show they intend. The intention is there throughout; it is recognized through the actions, and thus identified after the fact.

Your actions speak so loudly, I cannot hear what you say.

:)

Quote from: M. J. YoungUltimately, unless you are prevented by outside forces, you will do what you intend to do. You might say you intended to do something else--you might even believe that you intended to do something else--but your real intent will control your actions.  

I don't think this entirely applies to artistic/intellectual endeavors.  I mean, coming up with a creative work isn't like taking out the trash.  For example, I might really intend to finish a crossword puzzle without looking any words/facts up -- but I get stuck and can't do it.  Maybe I intend that my painting will be a photorealistic view of a horse, but it doesn't come out that way.  Is there some outside force stopping me?  No.  But that doesn't mean that I never intended those outcomes.  

Specifically in the case of RPGs, I feel there are a number of cases where things genuinely didn't come out as intended.  i.e. The participants are unsatisfied with the results and would like the game to be different, but they lack the techniques or skills to make it come out the way they want.  There is no magic step-by-step showing them how to get what they want, so they may make mistakes, try something, and then find that what they tried wasn't really what they wanted.  

The trumpeter example tries to make out that an unsuccessful trumpeter is just lazy.  There certainly are cases like that.  However, you should also consider a trumpeter who genuinely tries, but perhaps doesn't have much natural talent and moreover has bad teachers who give her harmful advice.

Quote from: John Kim

Quote from: M. J. YoungUltimately, unless you are prevented by outside forces, you will do what you intend to do. You might say you intended to do something else--you might even believe that you intended to do something else--but your real intent will control your actions.

I don't think this entirely applies to artistic/intellectual endeavors.  I mean, coming up with a creative work isn't like taking out the trash.  For example, I might really intend to finish a crossword puzzle without looking any words/facts up -- but I get stuck and can't do it.  Maybe I intend that my painting will be a photorealistic view of a horse, but it doesn't come out that way.  Is there some outside force stopping me?  No.  But that doesn't mean that I never intended those outcomes.

Perhaps in these cases, one can see that willpower is lacking, and then the intent was changed to suit the lack of will?

Quote from: John KimI might really intend to finish a crossword puzzle without looking any words/facts up -- but I get stuck and can't do it.

We can see that before the "I get stuck", the intent is "finish the crossword puzzle". Then a challenge comes up: "I get stuck". The person in the example then lets go of their intent: "finish the crossword puzzle" and makes up an excuse: "I ... can't do it". Now we see that the true intent isn't "finish the crossword", it's really: "complete the crossword until a challenge comes up, then give up."

If this person really has the intent "finish the crossword puzzle", then difficulties like: "I get stuck", will get surmounted, avoided, broken through and so on. Let's go back to the outside observer looking at the crossword solver's activity. The crossword solver gets to the point "I get stuck". If the crossword solvers doesn't give up, but continues to research ways to solve the crossword puzzle, asks people to help in solving the crossword puzzle, reads a dictionary, visits websites about crosswords and how to solve them, looks at and studies past crossword puzzles, and so on, then one can easily see that the person's intent is to: "finish the crossword puzzle". They just haven't done so yet. :)

Quote from: John KimHowever, you should also consider a trumpeter who genuinely tries, but perhaps doesn't have much natural talent and moreover has bad teachers who give her harmful advice.

But if this trumpeter also keeps playing on the trumpet, reads trumpeting literature, listens to trumpet music, watches trumpet playing videos, seeks out new trumpet teachers, asks for advice and help, and keeps on going trying new approaches, eventually these temporary difficulties of low talent, bad teachers and harmful advice will be negated and eliminated. That's because the trumpeter is determined to play the trumpet successfully; the intent to play a trumpet successfully is evidenced by the actions of the trumpet player.

I think there's some confusion based on how people are using the word "intent."  Historically, when talking about an artist's intentions, we're not referring to some bull-headed determination to keep on chugging and create a piece of art, exactly as originally intended, surmounting all obstacles.  While that may work perfectly well when talking about your intent to take out the trash, when talking about long-term projects like art, that kind of view just doesn't apply.

Imagine a work as complex as a painting or a roleplaying game.  The creator's intentions for the piece are obviously going to develop over the lifetime of the piece.  Some will get realized, some will get altered, and some will probably never be realized at all.  If you're talking about intentions that will inevitably be realized, then, in my mind, you're not talking about intentions at all, you're talking about a specific kind of intentions, whch aren't usually what's implied when people use that word.  I would call that something like "determination."  Obviously, if the trumpet player has the intent to be a good musician, but no determination, his intention probably won't get realized.  

Likewise, an artist with no determination will probably quit at the first sign of trouble.  However, you seem to be implying that altering or dropping certain intentions reveals a lack of the determination required to realize them, which I find preposterous.  There seems to be no acceptance of human limitations.  Sure, it sounds nice to say that anyone can do anything, as long as they try hard enough, but I don't think that's a proven fact.  The American Dream is not a law of physics.  Sometimes the factors that are against your or the task that you have picked for yourself is simply impossible.

Say I want to create a sublime roleplaying game, of such obvious beauty and elegance such that everyone who plays it will love it.  I could work on this goal for my entire life and still not realize it.  Sometimes you set your sights too high, but that doesn't mean you never had such intentions.

So, I still think Creative Agenda talks only about demonstrated intentions, but there could be others lurking in there that don't get expressed, because it may not be possible to do so.  I don't see this as a problem, but it is important to remember.

Hello Jonathan,

I think that M.J. and I are simply letting those "lurking intentions" take care of themselves - which is to say, remain absent from the analysis.

The same applies to the hypothetical trumpeter, absent from my example, who is very much like trumpeter #2 but gets hit by a bus on his way to his first gig, meets a nurse in the hospital, and goes into selling insurance instead - perhaps with mild regrets, but (let us say) remaining happy until the end of his days. Casting no aspersions on his astounding Creative Agenda prior to this event, I do consider it irrelevant to the analysis of such things. The same goes if the fellow merely decided to do anything else, for whatever reason, along the way.

You see, these trumpeters are actually myself. I was pretty good at playing this instrument by my late teens, to the extent of getting to mild professional level. It turned out to be less important than other things in my life; whether I'm #1, #2, or #3 remains a matter of observer interpretation (certainly not mine; I'd be the worst judge). What matters is that my nascent or (who knows) actual Creative Agenda, such as it was regarding music, cannot be a subject of analysis - it never found expression out of what might be considered training experiences. I cannot be a data point regarding trumpet playing as art, as career, or even as sideline hobby.

So all of the ifs, ands, and buts presented so far are, to me, essentially "reality's little fuzz" in the application of the model, and not especially important in terms of talking about actual play. Remember the arrow! Once you're talking about Creative Agenda, you're talking about a real Social Contract (Bob, Bill, Sue, and Sue-Ann are playing Goblin-Spawn), a real Explorative Context (these characters, this setting, this situtation, etc), and ... to get into the Creative Agenda box/arrow, we have to be talking about them really playing, and what they do.

Best,
Ron