Hey Folks,

There are near constant references to how posting to Actual Play gives context to pretty much all the other theory stuff that goes on at the Forge. I know personally that some of the most thought provoking stuff I've seen has come directly out of Actual Play posts. I also know that I get more out of some posts than others, but I feel like I personally have a hard time constructing a post that really reveals the useful stuff. It ain't the cake walk I'd expect it to be.

Part of this I think is related to a sort of laissez fair note taking during play on my part. I'm just not good at it, and so the player kibbitzing, and the group dynamics that I'd really like to get across is often lost. Part of it comes from wanting to get across how neat this scene or that scene was, but replaying the game as fiction falls somewhat flat. So, I'd like to talk about successful techniques for both keeping things like:

-Kibbitzing at the table
-Player resonance
-Interesting social resolutions

fresh in your mind after play, via notes or otherwise. I'd also like to talk about how you best combine the fictional events with these metagame inputs in order to provide the most effective look into a play session. Things like the 'Moose in the City' PTA thread, and Vincent's 'Adventures' threads are great, but there are lots of examples.

So, how does one go about preparing for and creating an engaging and analytically useful Actual Play thread?

-Tim

Hi Tim,

I can't say for anyone else, but I know the big thing I'm always looking for is the information about interaction amongst players, mood/flow/synergy of the group, and what aspects of system went exceptionally well or poorly. The in-game events(Transcript, or whatever word we're using for it now) are the least interesting bits to me, because they tell me nothing about what the players liked/disliked or how the system worked.

Usually, in my own accounts, I do a high focus on those things, and pull out a few short examples of in-game events as concrete aspects to point to a given thing I thought was cool or not working out right.

Chris

Speaking for myself, I'd like to contribute to AP, but I find that whenever I try to consciously prep something, it is just quicksilver.

All of the stuff that really matters for an AP post is so referential to past history, social context, the specific personalities involved.... every sentence I draft seems to need six more to give context.

And inevitably I give up. This thing is hard to write about.

Two suggestions. AP with a new group or a one-shot may be easier to see meaningful total-System phenomena than AP with an established group of players who have a lot of history or tacit culture. And if you can get group consent, tape the session.

Now, if only I could get myself to act on that advice.

Best,

Mark

Hey Guys,

Chris: I think it's a careful line between the interaction stuff and the in game events stuff. I think it's important to relate one to the other, but I agree that the long recaps aren't as engaging as well supported interaction information.

Mark: I find it hard too. I've got a few Sorcerer sessions, a couple of dogs sessions, all kinds of stuff that I can't quite get out. I want this thread to help guys like us by giving us some sort of template. Certainly having better raw data is part of that, but how to distill that data is important too.

Towards that end I'm sort of searching for something akin to the format you learn for a book report:

Intro/Premise
Support/Examples
Conclusion/Evaluation

Can we map something similar to an actual play post? I think having some sort of template might be useful for guys like Mark and I who feel like we flounder whenever we're trying to relate things.

-Tim

Hi Tim,

I think you just wrote it out for yourself right there :) To elaborate try some things along these lines:

Premise

-What are you playing? How long have you been playing/how long do you intend to play this game? Is this your first time?
-Who's playing, how many people, any notable things about them(demographics, relationships, blood kin, etc.)?
-Group history- how long have you all played together, if at all?
-Logistics- Face to face, LARP, online chat, email, forum post game? How long are the sessions?

The Game
-How did it go?
-Pro's/Con's - what caused them? specific examples to highlight them?
-System? Techniques? Drifts, house rules?
-The People? personality, communications, etc.?
-Compare and contrast- how does this compare to other sessions, other games, and/or other campaigns?

Wrap up
-How did people like/dislike it?
-Are you gonna play more? What will you do differently? What will you do the same?
-Questions
-Any questions about the system/rules?
-Any questions for advice on how to do X, or do it better?
-Ask for comparisons- "Has anyone else encountered this?"

I'm sure there are tons more, but that seems more or less comprehensive to me.

Chris

Hey Chris,

That's looking pretty damn good. If Mark is out there, I wonder if he feels like that's helpful for him too?

-Tim

Hello,

I'd like to clarify a key component to posting in Actual Play.

Before, I get into it, though, I should also say that this is not socializing. It's not about how much attention you get, how much people like or appreciate or praise you, or about increasing your reputation as a real-hot role-player.

Here's the point. This is discourse. You need to raise a point, something upon which someone else can express or arrive at mutual understanding with you.

It doesn't matter what the point specifically is. Maybe it's a point about using a particular system. Maybe it's a point about some aspect of your social interactions. Maybe it's a point about saying "I" instead of "McCargar the Macerator."

It does matter, profoundly, that it's a point that someone else can relate to. Maybe they relate to it because they do that exact same thing, man! Or maybe they relate to it in surprise, that they never dreamed of that being in play, and here's an example of their experiences without it. Or anything in between.

So! Raise a feature of play, whatever it might be, that others can use for a basis for comparison. And be damned sure that you, personally, are interested in that feature, so that discussion of what you actually did and discussion of how others do can be fruitful.

Best,
Ron

Tim Alexander wrote: If Mark is out there, I wonder if he feels like that's helpful for him too?

Mark Woodhouse wrote: [Well, sort of. My difficulty leans more to trying to balance that need to hit everything that is relevant and still be readable, while also, as Ron reminded us, having a real point that I can offer up for discussion instead of just "this is what we did."

I have an AP in my head and even outlined in text that's all about playing DitV Gamist, but it doesn't resolve because the context for it is so complicated that the whole thing becomes a digressive mess. Maybe I'll take the suggested outline and try to refine it enough to post.

Ron Edwards wrote: It doesn't matter what the point specifically is. Maybe it's a point about using a particular system. Maybe it's a point about some aspect of your social interactions. Maybe it's a point about saying "I" instead of "McCargar the Macerator."
....
So! Raise a feature of play, whatever it might be, that others can use for a basis for comparison. And be damned sure that you, personally, are interested in that feature, so that discussion of what you actually did and discussion of how others do can be fruitful.

Hey Chris,

clehrich wrote: I think "making a point" can be rather daunting, frankly. I think that some folks, and I'm included in this, are not at all confident that "I had a great session today" also means "I have something important that you should all sit up and pay attention to." That seems a bit presumptuous. More commonly, this arises I think when it starts with "I had a crappy session today." So if you want to post good play, happy play, I think realizing that asking why it worked may be very valuable for everyone.

Ron Edwards wrote: Here's the point. This is discourse. You need to raise a point, something upon which someone else can express or arrive at mutual understanding with you.

Damn close to socializing, and empty socializing at that, Frank.

Why did it rock? What rocked? How did it rock differently? Why might it not rock for someone else?

All that stuff. It's really about the discourse. Even a little is enough.

Best,
Ron

Hey Ron,

now, here's why "you have to raise a point and not just sucialize" makes me a little wary. The Actual Play thread I enjoyed most reading here at The Forge was Moose and the City. The thread awed me, and it made me want to possess, and play, PtA. Thanks again for sharing it.

The thread contains a lot of stuff that I would call "socializing" or "just sharing". However, it is exactly those passages that make the reader guess how great that session must have been. That you guys really experienced something special there.

Now, I do realize that points about the rules, about using the demo version instead of the full version, and about the delighted atmosphere at the gaming table were raised in that thread. I have made these very points in my German RPG-Forum, with reference to that thread.

On the other hand, the thread started with Vincent just wanting to share this great game. And even if it had been left at the "empty socializing", I still would have enjoyed reading it, and it still would have made me buy PtA. Is that nothing?

Frank

Hi Frank,

You're mistaking "just socializing" for interacting at a personal level. A lot of people do that. They will mis-read this Sticky to mean that we all have to post with tightly-compressed lips and Deep Thinks furrowing our brows.

"Just socializing" means that we are forgetting to focus on illuminating the actual play of the game. Our posts in that case would be stuff like repeating little jokes to one another, or saying "Hey, it was cool to meet you too," as the main content.

The Moose in the City thread made it clear to the reader what playing it was like, from the top level of the Big Model (social contract) to the Ephemera, all nailed together by the Creative Agenda at work.

Perhaps, also, I should clarify that we can discuss how we socialize during play as a legitimate topic. Perhaps you are mistaking "just socializing" for discussing social stuff about play. The former is forgetting to discuss anything about play. The latter is not only legitimate, but encouraged.

Best,
Ron

Hey Guys,

Frank T wrote: now, here's why "you have to raise a point and not just sucialize" makes me a little wary. The Actual Play thread I enjoyed most reading here at The Forge was Moose and the City. The thread awed me, and it made me want to possess, and play, PtA. Thanks again for sharing it.

Sorry, maybe I expressed myself mistakably, or I just don't get the meaning of "raising a point" correctly. What I intended to say was: You shouldn't need to have a specific conclusion or even a specific question in mind when you post to Actual Play. Just sharing should be enough, you just need to get across what really happened.

Hiya,

Frank, let's take this to private messages. Your posts in this thread and in other Actual Play threads show me that you really are frustrated about this. However, based on the amazing threads and responses over the last week, I think the general community gets the picture. So as I say, let's talk about it one on one.

Thanks,
Ron

Hello,

I've decided to modify the basic forum rules for posting to Actual Play, as follows.

Instead of the front page being fair game for posting to threads, let's have it be the first three pages, including the front one. So yeah, that means clicking on "2" or "3" as an ongoing thing.

Best,
Ron