This thread was mentioned in the Experimental Validation: Query thread.

While reading throught his thread I kept thinking sentiments along Rob Carriere's line of thinking, in that the actions of the players may not necessarily be the definitive actions of a particular agenda.

i.e. Gamist is the one that lets the woman go with either handicap or a different personal objective of winning; also, Narritivist is the one that shoots the woman feeling that the best Story comes from following the objective and/or defying the decision of the one who let the woman go.

I also felt that Mike is correct in saying that the solution to creating a Congruent game is in the rules system. This seems like trying to design a game from a single situation to define the rules rather than having the rules referee the situation.

If the Gamist is the one that shoots to complete the mission, the rules may state that the decisions of players may not necessarily follow the Command's directives. (Stating the obvious, but sometimes it helps to do so). This may ease the Social Contract outside of play so that the Gamist sees the Narrativist offering up competition to commands directives and the Narritivist seeing the Gamist as offering plot points for deeper story development. In all cases the Simulationist happy to pick a side and play it through possibly even switching sides, playing the ends against the middle, etc.

My first thoughts I think are in line with Alan's in which a player chooses his reward system. The reward system enforces that players control on the world. For the Gamist, he might simply choose completeing missions objectives and enemy kills. The Narrativist might choose forcing other players into action and flavor text. Simulationist might choose a combination of completing mission of forcing others players into action because those are aspects in which he wants to explore. These are however in game results for rewards, out of game the Gamist migth develop tactics, the narrativist keeping a journal and the Simist suggesting plot points or misison objectives.

I think the idea of congruence between the three should be stated up front in the rules so that each play can understand the POV of the others. With this in mind and an clear explanation of goals rewards, creative agendas, the game can be agreed to be played by participants of all three agendas with the knowledge of exactly what they are getting into.

Having players understand the actions of the others even if it defies their own agenda may be part of the key to having them work together in a seemless fashion.
-----
Let's assume for a second that we have two gamist playing the situation, one lets the woman go and the other shoots her int he back. Because they are both gamist will the same conflicts arise as they may have if they are Gamist and Narrativist (either combination)? Or even if they are both narrativist?

The power of the direction over the story/game would possibly be in spending currency to affect outcomes. Say through good play the Narrativist has amassed a good sum of currency, and the Gamist a fair sum. When ti comes to this crucial point, the Narrativist lets her go. The Gamist shoots her. The Narrativist states an Intention to knock the gun away allowing the woman to escape. Fortune in the Middle (or Karma in the middle), with any spare points from the Simulationist helping one side of the other. Then the Execution and Effect.

I think satisfying the agendas, the Gamist has either won or lost the immediate competition. Narrativist has generated a dramatic point in play. Simulationist has helped to choose which path to explore.

---------------------
Revivng a Thread based on the aforementioned link, if possible.

Hello,

Split from An experiment in Congruence.

So it's a wee bit confusing; I guess you start with the Expermental Validation one, then the Experiment in Congruence one, and then this ... but hey! It's all good. Continue & enjoy.

Best,
Ron