I suppose I should just jump down into it. A note before I start: When I say "game," I mean it in the context of the actual play of the group, not what the system explicitly supports.

To what extent are creative agendas dependent upon game environment? While it has been made abundantly clear that system does matter, what about the social environment? Is it possible for a Gamist to Step On Up if the element of challenge and risk are omitted from the social contract? Would Simulationists maintain the Dream if game play consistently devalues setting or character immersion? How do Narrativists get Story Now if the game presents no opportunities to pursue premise?

In what way can the social environment support the different creative agendas? From reading this thread, it is clearly possible for a game to support (or at least not hinder) different creative agendas, but what makes such a thing possible? How does the social environment allow this to work?

Hiya,

As I see it, and as illustrated in the Big Model (see the diagram in the Glossary), Creative Agenda is best understood as an expression of the social interactions among the participants.

So to me, your question is a lot like asking "Can you swim when there's no water?" I'm not trying to be funny or dismissive - the straightforward answer to your question is that CA is by definition supported by the social interactions (or as you call it, environment).

That's why it's not the same as a "motive" or "personal goal."

Best,
Ron

Thanks, Ron.

Now for the second part of the post. What social factors allow a game to support various creative agendas? Everybody pretty much knows how play can be dysfunctional. I'd like to know what techniques or social factors allows a game to support more than one creative agenda.