I’ve been doing some musing lately (hears various groans) and I am not sure how to focus them all into coherent whole. Thus this post will be more of a series of musings that I hope can be focused into something useful. Obviously these are up for discussion to be supported or discounted.

The first musing is that addressing situation (of the 5 elements of exploration) is the heartbeat of roleplay. Until a player addresses situation play has not begun. Addressing situation is that action where things happen. This is not to imply that this is where or what a given player necessarily grooves on, but until situation is engaged/addressed there has been no play. Color is texture/patina, Setting is a necessary foundational element, System is a tool, Character is revealed through addressing Situation, but addressing Situation is what moves events forward. Addressing situation is the dynamic where things changes and grow. Addressing Situation is where and when things happen. Until that happens, nothing has happened. I would posit it is here that we find the zilchplay phenomenon. Though the idea of it is still controversial I would say that z-play is play that does not address situation. Now it is entirely and highly likely that in most instances of what could be called z-play are really instances of play that are in the employ of a CA yet there are many games where either the players either don’t address any Situation or the DM has not effectively constructed a Situation that requires addressing. These would be z-play games. That a game play moment may not be diagnosable is not the same as saying that a play is not addressing Situation.

Another musing. It is in the addressing of situation that we see creative agenda in operation. When we are observing or diagnosing CA in action it is process of observing how a player responds to his situation or how a player responds out of SIS to the situation of the other player, i.e., social rewards, etc. This is what is at the heart of the need to observe for a long time before determining CA. It is not enough that a system be designed to support or encourage a CA, but rather how the players actually act. That act is in reference to how said player addresses a situation. Players may groove on all sorts of things that do not directly impact the situation, however, diagnosis of play, as I understand it, is squarely pegged to how players react to situation. It does not matter what system is being employed and how much it empowers the players to do certain things, it is what the players actually do regarding situation that matters. From what I understand it is possible, for example, to have a fully coherent Narrativist game system and still have players exhibit gamist priorities.

So the question I pose is thus –

How does an observer watching a player’s actions or reactions to situation determine what CA is actually being prioritized?

For this particular exercise I posit that said player is not “consciously” or “mindfully” addressing premise, challenge, or situation – as far as the player is concerned they are “just playing”. In order for this thought experiment to work the player must be at odds with the overt or “designed” creative agenda of the game as pushed forward by the DM and the other players. The reason I go this route is that if the play were coherent it becomes even harder to untangle the pieces. Contrast highlights.

What happens during addressing situation that one can say, “Hey! This player is not playing CA X, but is instead playing CA Y or Z?” For example a Gamist game is in full swing but one player turns out to be expressing a Sim CA. What elements of situation are the player acting/reacting to that would make an observer say, “Hey this guy is Sim, not Gamist.” I have a feeling that this will be answered – “This should be in the Actual Play section of the board with actual examples given.” But I don’t think that is an effective answer. The reason is that the model clearly states that CA can be determined by watching player behavior. So – what are we looking for?

I have read, and my memory may be faulty, highly possible, that a player is considered Narrativist if they are addressing premise, even if they are doing so and aren’t mindful of the process. I buy that a player can be acting on internal priorities that are not conscious to said player. The problem is that nearly all situations can be addressed by all three CA priorities. How do we know that a player who enjoys and “exhibits” the CA Sim priority of exploration of character is different from Narrativism which inherently explores character? For example, all three creative agendas <>can explore character, so how is it that exploring character via situation comes to be identified with a specific CA?

Some thoughts.

Aure Entaluva,

Silmenume

Let me put up a specific example (otherwise the swamp I keep in my head starts sloshing)

The game is genre-pastiche, let's say of samurai-movies.

Alice is into playing this sort of thing, her identical twin Carol wants to address premise instead. She'll play the samurai according to stereotype to build up the weight of the premise, and then, at a crucial point, make a choice: ``do I do the honorable thing, or do I choose a dishonorable move that furthers my goal?''

Now, if we observe play and all decisions are according to genre, we don't know whether this is Alice happily playing pastiche or Carol happening to address the premise in same way the stereotype does.

If we see a break from stereotype with happy-signals (rather than `Oops!') we know we're seeing Carol. If we keep watching and _never_ see a break from stereotype, then the probability that this is Alice starts rising.

Anybody know a more efficient method? (Please, pretty please?)

[Aside: I'm getting visions of a detective-game where one twin has been killed and you are called in as a GNS-expert to determine which twin this is.]

SR
--

Hello,

Jay, I think you've nailed it.

One quibble: I do think the term "mindful" is involved, which is only to say that I don't think Creative Agendas arise through some kind of confluential accidents, but rather through the mental, emotional, and communicative capacities of human beings.

I like "mindful" as a term because it connotes, to me, that some part of the person's mind is involved in the Creative Agenda, and it avoids to some extent (although apparently not for you) the baggage-heavy, openly-verbalized connotations of "conscious" or "aware."

Best,
Ron

I do think the term "mindful" is involved, which is only to say that I don't think Creative Agendas arise through some kind of confluential accidents, but rather through the mental, emotional, and communicative capacities of human beings.

Jay, you've got a lot of good stuff there; forgive me if I quibble just a bit.

You seem to confuse system in its sense under the theory (Lumpley principle) with system in its looser use, what is usually called rules in discussing the theory. That is, we don't choose to use D&D as the system; we choose to use D&D as the rules, and inject it into our social contract and so develop a system. Thus the system is not what's in the book, but what we actually use. If as a group we're playing narrativist, we probably are not playing with a gamist system, although we may have started with gamist rules which we have drifted and molded to form the system we're actually using to support our narrativist play.

The other thing is that the five elements of exploration are so tightly connected that you can't really single out one as "the" critical element. It would be better to say that roleplaying doesn't happen until some bit of each of the five elements is present; it usually happens that situation is the last of these, because usually we start by picking some rules, assigning a certain amount of credibility to each participant (system), building a setting and coloring it, and creating characters for it, and finally when the rest is there we create a situation--thus when the situation is created, play begins, because it's the last piece to fall into place. On the other hand, it's possible to start with a situation--to say, "Let's play a game in which this is the conflict" (establishing situation)--and then create characters around that situation. That we don't do it that way most of the time doesn't mean that's not plausible. I have designed game scenarios starting with the situation and working backwards toward the characters and setting.

Similarly, it may be easiest to recognize CA through how players address situation, but CA will infect all of the elements to some degree. It is more difficult to make those judgments from the other elements, but not impossible. There is such a thing as a character designed for narrativist play; there is similarly such a thing as playing exploring character in a narrativist fashion. It's harder to distinguish, but it is there.

So yes, situation can be a key that unlocks CA in all the ways you've suggested; but it is part of the interconnected web of elements, and inseparably so.

--M. J. Young

Ron Edwards wrote: …I don't think Creative Agendas arise through some kind of confluential accidents, but rather through the mental, emotional, and communicative capacities of human beings.

M. J. Young wrote: You seem to confuse system in its sense under the theory (Lumpley principle) with system in its looser use, what is usually called rules in discussing the theory. That is, we don't choose to use D&D as the system; we choose to use D&D as the rules, and inject it into our social contract and so develop a system. Thus the system is not what's in the book, but what we actually use. If as a group we're playing narrativist, we probably are not playing with a gamist system, although we may have started with gamist rules which we have drifted and molded to form the system we're actually using to support our narrativist play.

M. J. Young wrote: The other thing is that the five elements of exploration are so tightly connected that you can't really single out one as "the" critical element. It would be better to say that roleplaying doesn't happen until some bit of each of the five elements is present; …

M. J. Young wrote: …it's possible to start with a Situation--to say, "Let's play a game in which this is the conflict" (establishing Situation)--and then create characters around that Situation. That we don't do it that way most of the time doesn't mean that's not plausible.

M. J. Young wrote: Similarly, it may be easiest to recognize CA through how players address Situation, but CA will infect all of the elements to some degree. It is more difficult to make those judgments from the other elements, but not impossible. There is such a thing as a character designed for narrativist play; there is similarly such a thing as playing exploring character in a narrativist fashion.

Hello,

Jay, with respect, I think you are undergoing another one of those "say it for myself" moments.

A CA merely indicates that a player has an interest in exploring a certain broad type of conflict (Situation). If a player enjoys the type of conflict known as challenge then he is expressing a Gamist CA behavior. If a player enjoys the type of conflict known as premise then he is expressing a Narrativist CA behavior. If a player enjoys any type of conflict that engages/reflects their character found in Situation then he is expressing a Simulationist CA behavior.