Trying to wrap my head around the ideas behind the Creative Agenda, I decided to come to these boards and discuss actual play.  I’m thinking specifically about a past game I ran to its logical conclusion.  It was Mutants and Masterminds, superhero genre.  The game was, overall, a success because we had fun, but I always felt that it fell short.  Looking to the Creative Agenda, I think I now understand why.  Remember, this is now looking back.  At the time of play, I was not aware of the Creative Agenda.

I wanted to explore specific themes, but how they were resolved and to what conclusion was up to the players.  In CA jargon, I had the premise.  It was: Is there ever a price too high for power? And to a lesser degree, do we allow media too much power over us?  I knew the key events that were going to take place and had them pretty much mapped out, but how they ended was really of little consequence since the real conflict was the implication of those events.  The tone of the game was absurd with some comedy thrown in, however, there was also a hint of darkness as suggested by the premise. 

One of the key events was the opening where an American terrorist group held Carson Daly and the audience of TRL hostage.  They weren’t making any demands.  They were only making a statement by strapping straight jackets with bombs attached to them onto the hostages.  Another major event was when the recognized and adored superhero, ala Superman, goes crazy for no apparent reason and begins a nationwide rampage.  Another equally powerful superhero coincidentally arises to stop him and their brawl last throughout the story arc, taking place everywhere between here and the moon.  The story arc culminated in a government underground lab beneath Area 51.  Present were the two supermen and the players armed with a small nuclear bomb given to them by the same terrorist group from the story’s opening.  I should also point out that all superheroes needed to register and that the players were rogue superheroes – unregistered.  This was a prerequisite set by me.  It was for convenience sake (registered and rogue heroes in the same group wouldn’t work) and to serve as a springboard for the theme / premise. 

I was hoping for the players to explore the premise and decide a “correct” route of action.  I had not preset what the correct action was since I didn’t have one.  Although, solving the individual events was really a no-brainer.  The threats were obvious.  However, their implications were open for exploration, especially when strung together.  Unfortunately, we all defaulted to our regular RPG practices.  The players explored their characters in simulationist fashion and handled the threats like gamists.  This may have been in part due to a system whose mechanics facilitate these styles. 

I think I was trying to run a Narrative game, but at the time I wasn’t aware of it.  Hence it failed to do that.  I don’t think because I had general events as mile markers in the story that they hindered the Narrative because they weren’t the actual conflicts.  I sometimes wonder if I should have announced the premise to the players.  Maybe that would have helped instead of relying on the setting and events.  Is my analysis under CA of my past game correct?

Impossible to tell from (a) what you wanted to do and (b) what your story was.  CA is (to my limited understanding, at least) about what you subconsciously/immediately find satisfying, more than about what you think you want and how you pursue that.

Tell us of something in the game that another player did, that really made you feel good to be in the game.  Those stories usually have some pretty good indicators as to what you actually appreciated and supported during the game.

What Tony said. Also, were your players engaged with this Premise? Did they jump on the issues raised by this stuff?

Hiya,

What I'm about to say isn't jargon-cop talk, although it might look like it. I'm suggesting that you consider the term addressing Premise, rather than "explore Premise" (or theme). The latter isn't in any of my writings, for a reason.

What I'm getting from your writeup is that, however un-articulated, you would really have liked the group to throw itself into addressing the Premise that you just stated, in retrospect. But they and you didn't, somehow. I buy that, because I've observed that very thing so many times.

What Tony and Thor are getting at, I think, is that it's now time to reflect on what you, back then, wanted the other people to do - not generally, but specifically, at that time and with those characters and using those rules. Any notions about that?

Best,
Ron

I agree that not using "explore" and "address" as well as "theme" and "premise" interchangeably on these forums will heighten the understanding of my intent.  It is, after all, the resposiblility of the writer that he is clear to the audience.  But yes, using proper terminology this time: I was hoping for the players to address the premise and decide a "correct" route of action determined by them.  At the time, I did have a premise.  Except, I called it a theme then.  So the premise is a little more than simply retroactive; it did exist. 

Looking to specifics like Tony suggested, the players did address the premise at the end -- in a way -- when they had to decide whether to set off the bomb and kill one or both supermen.  Although he was fine for the moment, the second superman would eventually fall into the same psychosis, so killing him now when the means were available was an option.  We roleplayed and controlled the conflict together.  However, that was at the end and only for a brief moment.  I would have liked to address the premise at other times that the heroes used heavy handed methods to "save the day."  Obviously, considering the genre, there were plenty of those moments.  However, we did not address the premise. 

I believe the oppurtunities existed and the characters were suited to it.  There were rogue heroes and that posed issues of power, responsiblility, and authority. Ron's question extends the responsibility to rules.  Should there have been a mechanic in play to reward that kind of play, like a Hero psychological limitation that awards the player with more XP for roleplaying?  Or is it an Everway card system where the flip of a card resolves the conflict through the premise as it is interpreted by a player?  I really don't know.

Hi Joel,

You might be interested in the thread Is this forcing?, especially my points about binary-choices coming at the end of a game and Chris' (Bankuei's) points on the third page.

Best,
Ron

Thanks for pointing me to that thread, Ron.  When I came across the term (although I been reading so many articles and threads here I can't remember where or when I ran across it!)  I wondered if it indeed was forcing.  I don't think it was.  Although the situation was a planned conflict in the story, I don't think that is what forcing means.  Technically there were three choices to take: detonate the bomb killing one, detonate the bomb killing two, and not to detonate the bomb.  And last, I had absolutely no predisposition to any of the choices.  What I had hoped for, and failed, was that as the premise was addressed during the game, this choice would lock the heroes' actions and eliminate any ambiguity to where they stood. It actually was a way to revisit any choices they previously made and judge once and for all how to go.  However, because it didn't occur during the game, the decisive moment wasn't as poignant as I hoped.  I believe that in the end, they choose out of convenience: detonate the bomb, ridding the threat, and keeping the other since he isn't a threat at the moment. 

That story arc ended about a year ago.  Perhaps now would be a good time to revisit it.  The premise would deal with the past and regret.  I'm going to need to nail that down.

BeZurKur wrote:
The premise would deal with the past and regret.  I'm going to need to nail that down.

Conversely, if the premise you choose is something the players aren't interested in, there is no way to make them engage with it.

Wow, and that is one of the primary differences between Nar play and the other two modes: true collaborative story crafting.  As you can see, it’s taking me a little time to shift gears from being in the position of crafting the story by myself and allowing others to play inside of it to actually allowing them into the crafting part.  But, I am getting it.

This is a real departure from our regular Sim play (although I think it was good Sim play.)  That’s not even to say that my regular players will enjoy it, but I am certainly going to pass it by them. 

Okay, so let’s entertain that I get the players together, we discuss bringing the characters back for another story arc, and we decide on premise X.  I’m thinking that there is going to be some necessary sim play – even if it is through occasional drifting – because they are picking up established (even if it was only within our game) characters and running through a familiar setting with its own tone.  I don’t see how this could be avoided or even how it is necessarily bad.  After all, they enjoyed their characters and the setting.  Is that right so far?

Hi Joel,

I think it's a great idea to present your ideas on Premise to your players. I wouldn't push hard to make the game full-on Narrativism unless you get a clear, strong reaction that that's what they want. You can certainly sell it by talking about how many comics already do this ("Power vs. Responsibility", for example), but watch their reactions carefully.

If they're just "eh" about it, I wouldn't try to change the game drastically. You might very well be better off running the game mostly as the same kind of Sim they've enjoyed, with some Narr-supporting techniques and a personal mindfulness of introducing situations that let them address Premise or not as they see fit. That's what I've done in past campaigns when the players were only slightly interested in Narr play, and I think it worked much better than if I'd hammered Premise all the time.

Joel:  It sounds like you've got the idea here, yeah.  There's also a trick to Premise.  Premise needs to be something that's incomplete until you actually play.  When people talk about engaging or addressing Premise, I generally translate (for myself) to "completing."  They are taking one puzzle piece (the Premise as stated) and connecting another puzzle piece (their actions in context) to make something new.

That's why so many Premises are asked as questions:  "How far will you go for power?", "The world is ending, what is it worth to save something for just one more day?", "Power is fun, but do you deserve it?"  Those require player input before they become real.  They solicit player input, unavoidably.

By comparison, completed statements (like... urgh... "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely") shut out player participation.  A player can express the fact that power corrupts, but they aren't allowed to go in and change the arc of a character who has been invested with power.  That arc is fixed.  The character will be corrupted.  Period.

So when I hear "the past and regret" as a Premise, I worry a little.  I don't know how to complete that Premise.  It sounds to me like it's already done. 

But if it were "Do we leave the past behind in order to embrace the future?" then I would immediately be all over that.  Even in the time I typed that sentence, I'm thinking "Hey, what about a crime-fighter who's too old to really be at top form, but can't let go of the glory of his youth, so he gets people in trouble covering for his errors?" and then I'm thinking "And what about a new hero who has taken up the mantle of his mentor... what does he owe to his mentor's outdated rules of conduct?  What does he owe to his mentor personally?  What if that mentor gets so steamed that he comes out of retirement to show the kid how it's really done?"  And I'm thinking... well, you get the picture.  A question solicits creativity.

Thanks, all.  I've got plenty to think about.  I usually stew on ideas for a bit, but I am going to run it past my group.