The Omni-Player

[Mike Holmes]

It occured to me, quite a while back, that if one understood what one was doing, that one could, in play, decide to make decisions that were congruent more often. Ron's theory is based on the concept that, at some points in play, decisions will arise that make the agenda apparent because whatever you decide is revealing. But I think that's only true most of the time of those who aren't educated in the theory. That is, if you're educated in the three modes and what they entail, you can personally try to keep your decisions more congruent. In this way, you make your play such that it's less likely to be incompatible to players who are playing with you.

Note that I think that this style wouldn't be easy to do. It means that you have to look at decisions more carefully than you do already as a player, and often will have to think hard to come up with the solution. Often the first two solutions to a dillemma that you come up with will be the ones that reaveal as being one mode or another. But if you think about it, you can come up with ones that satisfy more that one, or all three modes at once.

Now, this does have the slight possibility that some players might detect the effort itself, and see that as offensive. But if one were to train onself, and only do it when it didn't take too much effort, and wasn't revealing that way wouldn't that be an improvement in play?

Does Omni-play seem viable? How about at least two mode play?

Mike

[Clinton R. Nixon]

Mike,

As I often do, I think you're off your nut. (I kid, really.)

The idea of omni-play seems somewhat repellent. I don't want to say impossible, for it might well be within someone's grasp. Let me see if I can break down my objection.

- A person is apt to follow a certain Creative Agenda because they enjoy it.
- Purposefully following a Creative Agenda not only ignores the usual fun -> type of play line of reasoning, but in this case, chooses mode over enjoyment.

Oh. That was easy. The mode is only a way to express what you enjoy in a game. Choosing a mode explicitly overrides that, and turns things around.

[Mike Holmes]

But, personally, I like all three modes. So, for me is it OK?

I mean, I'd enjoy playing this way. So, if that's the case, is it OK for me to try it?

I'm not saying that there's some mandate to play this way. I'm asking if it's a valid style for those who might enjoy it.

Mike

[C. Edwards]

Hey Mike,

On the decision by decision level, I think most play already appears to be "omni-play", even when the player making the decision is prioritizing one aspect of the three modes.

I'm not really sure that the degree of congruency could be increased substantially by actively adjusting for it. After all, a decision you may see as being congruent could be seen as an "obvious" tell of a particular mode by another player.

It would be interesting to try though, if just for the challenge.

-Chris

[Emily Care]

Hi Mike,

Mike, who dare tell you not to try? They'll sure get a tsk-tsking from me.

As Chris said, I think this approach may be more common it sounds at first. At least it reminds me of thoughts I've had over the last couple years. since Vincent got bitten by the narrativism bug and started lobbying our group to adopt that viewpoint consciously when we played.  

So, at any given juncture, my old by-words might have been: "What would this character do", or "what would be likely to happen" etc, now it is: "what will (within my understanding of the characters/setting etc) produce the most interesting results?" or "which choice will create the most havoc/pathos/development?" And the reason was because I'd been invited to do so by someone else.

That hasn't undermined the fun, Ralph, just made it so that I'm looking for a different kind of fun. If I didn't dig it, it would be a different picture, of course.

We always make choices, it's just a matter of how conscious we are of them, and what our motivations are.

Best,
Emily Care

[Mike Holmes]

Good points all.

Emily, those who'd be right to tell me that I shouldn't play this way, are those who might be annoyed by it somehow. That is, I'm asking if this has the potential to produce bad play somehow.

I agree that it's pretty common in some ways. In fact, that's a subtle point I was trying to make. Thanks. :-)

Mike

[Valamir]

That hasn't undermined the fun, Ralph,

...er?...

[Emily Care]

Sorry Ralph, didn't mean to invoke your name in vain.

That hasn't undermined the fun, Ralph,

...er?...

That is: Clinton.

(The fun's not suffering, but, sadly, my brain on the other hand....)

And: Mike, you sneaky monkey. Making us do the work. Good job. ; )  By "those who might find it annoying" I take it you mean those you might actually be playing with who would get annoyed. Yes? If so, do you think they'd see you as gns co-dependent, making decisions based on the needs of others rather than your own?  

What it seems more likely to engender, to me, is game-group gns coherence. If it is based on clarity among group members about different priorities and preferences and is part of a solid group contract that involves supporting a given desire style of play, then my prediction would be that it would create functional play, rather than bad play.

Any examples to the contrary?

--Emily

[Paganini]

Mike, I agree. :) And I both do and enjoy Omni play.

[Mike Holmes]

Nathan, I was going to protest, at first reacting that you're a pervy nar monkey. But you know what? I think you're right. At least, I've been very satisfied with the exploration that you've done in my game lately. So, good on ya mate!

:-)

From another POV, this could merely be seen as adherence to the Creative Agenda that we've come to in the game. But I think there's something subtle in addition.

Emily, that's exactly what I worry about, and exactly what I hope it would bring. I mean, the flakey narrativists are always talking about playing to please everyone. Well, why should that be limited to narrativism? Why should the sim guy get less respect than that? I would hope that this would produce the group cohesion that you cite. But also allow for a more fluid shifting of priorities in play in a way.

Mike

[Marhault]

Note that I think that this style wouldn't be easy to do. It means that you have to look at decisions more carefully than you do already as a player, and often will have to think hard to come up with the solution.

Purposefully following a Creative Agenda not only ignores the usual fun -> type of play line of reasoning, but in this case, chooses mode over enjoyment.

These statements may be true in varying degrees depending on the player.  It is silly to think, with all the gray areas and fuzziness of categorization, that everyone is completely focused on any single CA.  Once you acknowledge that most people possess an interest in all three, it becomes simply a matter of degree.

Someone who is highly focused on say, Nar - Nar 8, Gam 1, Sim 1 - (Geez.  Game stats.  I've clearly been doing this too long) might have a very difficult time completely ignoring Theme in order to focus on what they consider to be a less interesting Agenda (Whoo, boy.  We killed another stupid dragon.  Who cares?) but, conversely, someone who only marginally prefers one Agenda - Nar 3, Gam 4, Sim 3 - wouldn't mind so much, and might (That mission about my character's conflicted motivations was a great change of pace!)  even enjoy it.

Does Omni-play seem viable? How about at least two mode play?

It does to me.

[Mike Holmes]

Marhault, I agree about the complexity issue. Did you know that we used to use a ten point breakdown like that previously? Further, as thresholds its how I formerly tried to explain the Beeg Horseshoe theory in a positivist light.

I think that creative agenda is just getting people "close enough" together. So is what I'm saying just being a good player and sticking to the creative agenda? Hard to say, no? I mean, when does an active attempt to do more translate into it's own sort of agenda?

Mike

[Marhault]

I think that creative agenda is just getting people "close enough" together. So is what I'm saying just being a good player and sticking to the creative agenda?

I think so.  It still depends on the OOG situation.  Length of the campaign, interest levels in the CAs, current company, etc.  are all going to play a part in this.  You're a good player (although I'm leary of using good/bad here) if you're helping everyone enjoy the game.  You must remember, however, that you, the hypothetical Omni-Player, are one of the people that should be enjoying the game!  If, by ignoring your own CA preference, you should destroy your own enjoyment of the game, then this sort of thing is downright dysfunctional.

I mean, when does an active attempt to do more translate into it's own sort of agenda?

Immediately.  The thing is that this isn't a Creative Agenda, but rather a personal agenda.  Which is to say that this is really a Social Contract issue.

[Emily Care]

Hi again,

I mean, when does an active attempt to do more translate into it's own sort of agenda?

I think this is a normal part of functional play. When you take part in a game, you have to buy in to the social contract of play. Which means that even though your own personal most-desired form of play may not be occuring, if you want to be with the folks who are playing, you'll pick a different CA than you might otherwise. I've done this and enjoyed it quite a bit--because the social aspects were more important to me than the creative aspects in that situation. It helped that I had a second group I was gaming with at the time with which I had much closer compatibility, so what I was missing in one game I got in the other.

Immediately. The thing is that this isn't a Creative Agenda, but rather a personal agenda. Which is to say that this is really a Social Contract issue.

Creative agenda falls under social contract (just like everything else in play), and conflict, compatibility or compromise of the players' CAs is an important part of the what gets worked out in the social contract.

--Em

[Mike Holmes]

Em, what he's saying, I think, is that what I'm talking about is a sort of Meta-agenda. As such, he my be right that it's a social contract issue only.

I think that GMs do this a lot, actually. That is, Laws says that you ought to, as GM, cater to all the players individually. Like Eddy's example of his creative agenda. I'm just wondering if this applies to players as well.

Marahult, again, I would never advocate any participant doing anything they didn't like. I'm working on the assumption that the player in question is of the temperament that they would get satisfaction by playing this way. Given this assumption, my question is only how well this sort of thing actually works.

For one thing, it implies that there are other players who have different agendas to be catered to. If not, then you'd just play with the one agenda that they all were playing with. Given multiple agendas, doesn't that mean that, unless they too adopt Omni-play, won't they too have intra-player problems? Looking again at the GM example, can I provide X for one player, and Y for another, and not annoy both players with the play of the others?

Mike