(Please note: I'm hoping to use this thread as the opening point of a discussion, rather than as a straight report).

---

Of late, I've taken a lot of time away from the GM chair (with the exception of running a few playtests) in order to just play in games.

Currently, my lady is running a game, using one of my one-day efforts at game engines called The Exchange (that's a direct link to a PDF; you don't need to read it to understand this).  The setting is a frozen land filled with undead, vaguely Scandanavian myth in color.

The base situation is very, very simple quest-stuff; we're all members of a tribe dedicated to true death, enemies of the undead, and our tribe has been slaughtered and our sacred stuff has been stolen by powerful undead.  We need to quest to get it back together, find the scattered survivors of the tribe, defeat our enemies, unravel the mystery of how this all went down.  It's all pretty well handled, but nothing supremely one-of-a-kind.

Here's the neat thing; the thing that makes this game rock for me.  As players, we've been playing together long enough, in various groups and games, that we pick up on each other's metagame cues pretty well, in terms of "I'd like to use dice for this", "I just want to narrate", "This is me grabbing some spotlight", and other such stuff.  For us as players, this is one of the big ways that we work to grab at cool moments before they pass us by.  And the GM started showed us all why she wanted such a minimal game engine just a few sessions in, as we were dropping cues like that.

So, when one of the players, who has a defining love of dice and odd strategies, starts describing what he wants to attempt as his Child-Ritualist, while looking at his sheet and puzzling away, we know he wants some crunch.  And the GM immediately "changes stance" (using the term very loosely) and tosses out a basic idea on ways that we could handle this with dice, using the game engine as a base.  And the rest of the group, if they have any refinements or ideas to throw around towards that, tosses different things on.  He likes a bit of a tactical challenge, so we pitch in and get him one.

Alternatively, we have another player that doesn't care one bit about the dice and tactics - she's there to be social and to grab a few really good character scenes where she can really shine.  So, when she wants to get at something that the GM can't just agree to, but where the stakes aren't really important, the GM shifts the other way.  Instead of trying to build the stakes up to something that's interesting and fun if dice are used, the GM will downplay the stakes; her first impulse is to suggest one or two different ways that this player can get it as "a freebie".  And that's what the player wants, most of the time (not every time, mind; she'll push for a roll once in a while.

The actual methods by which we do things are just as different for each player; I'm a spotlight junkie, for example.  The other players have learned ways to 'play support' for me on the occasions when I'm basking.  The game engine has warped and folded in our hands, and we couldn't care less.

Slowly, in this fashion, we're learning to not only allow each other our various kinds of fun, but actively work to and enjoy providing such stuff for one another.

And it's good.

----

Now, here's where I'd like to go into theory-stuff just a little.  Part of the reason we got to this style of play is that we tried a few games (most notably, DitV) that shook up the way we played and introduced us to new ideas, and we've been talking about theory stuff from these boards in post-play sessions, as well.  This has been extremely helpful, on the whole.

But we ran into problems with the idea of creative agendas.  Not only does our playstyle not map well onto the three agendas, but considering it in terms of those agendas is actually detrimental to our style of play in this game; when attempting to reference this to GNS, we consistently feels as if it's telling us that we're doing it wrong.

I'm not sure I've expressed my aggravation here very well.  It feels as if the theoretical approach should, somehow, have more to offer us on this specific area than it does.

So...  for starters, is there something I'm missing, here?

Hey everyone,

This thread will be just for me and Levi for a while, OK? I'll let you know when it opens up for general contribution.

Best, Ron

Hi Levi,

Thanks for posting this! I know you want to dig into the ideas, so here goes.

First, let's review the Big Model again. It says:

Social Contract encloses Exploration (or SIS, if you prefer). Exploration/SIS can be dissected into five components, but for now, let's call it one thing because they're all interconnected. This one thing encloses a set of Techniques (what the people do during play), and Techniques include a whole constellation of Ephemera.

What you described are Techniques and some Ephemera.

How does Creative Agenda fit in with all this? It can be thought of as a unifying "arrow" or "skewer" that holds the multiple-layered thing together for a given group. It means that the payoff for play is made more likely and made more socially-powerful by all the layers at once.

One of the most overlooked paragraphs in all of my articles is this one, from GNS and other matters of role-playing theory.

For a given instance of play, the three modes are exclusive in application. When someone tells me that their role-playing is "all three," what I see from them is this: features of (say) two of the goals appear in concert with, or in service to, the main one, but two or more fully-prioritized goals are not present at the same time. So in the course of Narrativist or Simulationist play, moments or aspects of competition that contribute to the main goal are not Gamism. In the course of Gamist or Simulationist play, moments of thematic commentary that contribute to the main goal are not Narrativism. In the course of Narrativist or Gamist play, moments of attention to plausibility that contribute to the main goal are not Simulationism. The primary and not to be compromised goal is what it is for a given instance of play.

Let's say you have three guys, all of whom love pigs. One loves to eat them, one loves to race them against one another for prizes in the annual Pigathon, one loves to name them and pet them and scratch their chins. They don't know each other, but then they find one another in a chatroom or something and establish that they all "love pig." They get together on a Friday evening to all love pigs together, and the first one says to the other two, "hey, so here's my favorite recipe, what's yours?"

That's a group with an incoherent creative agenda.

Ron wrote: So what would be agenda-talk, for your group?

Hi Levi,

I think you're really good at talking about what people enjoy socially during play. I also think you're doing a good job of talking about the techniques of play, and how they change or when which ones are used.

But you're "blind" to talking about agenda in the GNS sense. Nothing you've described operates on the scale or parameters that characterize it. To stick with my analogy, it is so wholly "we're here to eat pig" that you don't even see that as a feature. That is OK. In fact, it probably is testimony to the excellent and non-problematic nature of the agenda in your game (whatever it might be). Most people understand Creative Agendas through negative experience, through seeing them stifled or through grappling after them unsuccessfully.

I have a series of questions I like to ask to help people tease out the CA in a given play-experience, and it's not a canned set, it depends on the person and what they've told me about their actual play so far. However, at this time, I'm not sure that's what you want to do here. I'm not fully satisfied that you want to know, and perhaps you're more comfortable saying, "Nope, no GNS for me, we don't match it, I don't like it."

For now, all I'll do is explain why I'm saying these things. You wrote,

Laura, our GM, started the game with the goals of creating versimilitude in her game setting, to make space for immersive-type play, and evoke the "feel" of certain bits of mythology.  John, playing the ritualist, came in with his standard set of goals - to build a character that functioned in a way the designer probably didn't anticipate as both a dramatic and tactical challenge.  Holly, playing the Skriver (uh, magical scribe) is our more social player, and came primarily to interact with the other players - both as herself and in new and interesting situations as her character.  Kim had a character concept that she really wanted to try on and explore, an undead-hunting necromancer and fanatical old woman.  I came to relax and play the big dumb thunk, partly to see how my game engine worked in play and tinker with it between games, partly to collaborate on creating setting in-play.

Ron wrote: However, at this time, I'm not sure that's what you want to do here. I'm not fully satisfied that you want to know, and perhaps you're more comfortable saying, "Nope, no GNS for me, we don't match it, I don't like it."

Hmm.

Here's a cluster of small payoff events that happened in pretty fair order...  I'm not entirely sure I'm giving you quite what you're looking for here, so feel free to dig further in.  The 'payoffs' are marked (*person), for whoever really the most out of that moment.  These are all little moments of cool that ended up giving us a satisfying chunk of session; the big moments, generally, are along the same kinds of lines, just with more lead-up, more focus, that kind of thing.

(Character names: I'm playing Andjagger, John is Son, Kim is the Crone, and Holly is Tavel.)

We're up on a crest, having acquired a foretelling of where our enemies will be in three days, and having beaten them there.  We're trying to discuss how to prepare for the arrival of our enemies down at the bottom of the pass.  Son has fallen behind, and is circling around behind out enemies.  Tavel, being a craftswoman among other things, suggests a rock trap - Andjagger volunteers to do the heavy lifting, but only if Tavel and the Crone will inscribe the stones with some kind of runes that will harm the undead we're going up against. (*Me - we tested some new combined cooperation and preparation rules here, a bit)

The enemy begins to arrive below us, and we set ourselves to meet them.  To our slight suprise, they have advance scouts - wraiths, in this case, who attack us with magic, attempting to corrupt us with death energies.  We struggle against them, and the Crone manages to drive them off by applying her own magic, warding them away from the area, and forbidding them to return for a time.

The Crone knows she's been marked out by the enemy, so she shows herself, and takes stock.  The enemy is a big band of zombies, led by a shrouded master with burning eyes, and they've got a sledge with them that is roofed and banded over with marks and sigils - it's a prison of some kind.  She locks eyes with the master, and engages him will-to-will; zombies, she can drive off by the bucket, if this thing can be driven away.  They struggle, and she's winning, but at great cost. (*Kim - this is awesome stuff for her character)

At the same time, Andjagger and Tavel trigger the rockfall, and chase it down the slope, driving straight through the zombies to the back of the wagon.  Andjagger can't smash the lock off the sledge, to his great suprise, but gets some fun in the spotlight driving back the zombies and breaking them up enough that destroying them shouldn't be all that hard, and Tavel does the picks the lock.

The door falls open, and our Tribal Totem is revealed - howling in pain, wounded, and clearly in the midst of becoming corrupted.  The zombies draw away from the sledge in terror.

Tavel stands agape; Andjagger simply ask the Totem what it would have of him.

The Totem intones "kill the witches", and gestures to the Crone and to another spot (where, unbeknownst to us, an enemy magician is slinking into position to assault the Crone, followed closely by Son, who is slinking towards the magician, in a Congo-line of assassinatory intent).

Andjagger charges the Crone, but has, to his great shock, taken enough of the 'death damage' that she can affect him with her necromancy.  She halts him and binds him to her will almost perfunctorily. (*Both myself and Kim).

Son backstabs the hidden magician, killing him almost instantly, after plenty of careful preparation (*John - this is the upshot of some fiddly, interesting mechanical play with some pretty high stakes, where he got the chance to do so knowing that failure would likely send him sprawling)

Tavel, terrified, stumbles back from the totem, as it turns on the remaining foes and slaughters the greater number of them.  She attempts to confront it and converse with it, horrified by the command, and it comes very close to killing her, quietly telling her that it must send her into Death to set it free, with her responding in shock and betrayal.  This is a short bit of pretty intense character-play. (*Holly - for her, the intensity of this short scene was a lot of fun).

Tavel manages to escape it's grasp, and leads it on a chase through the scattered few foes, which distract it in it's fury.  The Crone pitches Andjagger, currently her slave, into the fray to rescue Tavel - which he does simply by interposing himself between her and the Totem.  The Totem seems loathe to kill him, and as Son joins the Crone on the crest, and they work together to obscure our getaway, the escape is made, though we know that we won't have forever before our Totem sniffs us out.

During this short retreat, we attempt to determine why our Totem wants some of us dead - the apparent answer being that it wants us to enter the spirit world to either help it break free of some corrupting influence, or to free it of whatever has prevented it's total corruption.  Tavel is upset, the magicians are attempting to determine what the hell is going on by puzzling on it and making a check here and there; they banter a bit about getting into the spirit world without dying, and ways that they might do this; they're all dangerous, but might be worth it.  Andjagger offers to simply fall on his sword and discover the truth - to him, as a fanatical spiritualist, the Totem is the life of the tribe, and well worth his death - but the Crone won't allow this. (*Pretty much equal payoff alll round, here - we're all playing to our characters in this scene, hard, and trying to come up with a course of action under a time limit - it's good stuff).

Hi Levi,

Great play write-up! I urge whoever's following this thread to click on Levi's link to the Exchange PDF. Despite his claim to the contrary, you're going to see major significance regarding system and Big-Model stuff.

But I'm not ready to chat about that yet. Levi, I'm afraid this is turning into a bit of a question-marathon, but there is a reason for it. I'll ask the questions first and then maybe their contents will help illustrate the reason.

So! During this session, did you, Levi, like what the others did? Did they like what you did? I'm pretty certain they did.

Compare, for example, what Jasper writes in his description of play before his group tried Dogs in the Vineyard:

I have the impression that Lukas likes to do a lot of what he calls "real role -playing", i.e. getting in character, acting, and acting out behaviors and believes different from those of his real personality. He prefers rules "no to interfere" with that, though he seems to be o.k. with rules bringing about or framing situations for him to act upon, such as stress checks in UA or some of the BtI mechanics.

Niklas likes strategizing, delving into his resources and playing close situations - fights, car chases, interrogations and such. He loves clear goals and strong, blunt opposition and obstacles. Socially, he sort of bears with Lukas´acting, because, well, we´re all friends, Lukas does a great job, it´s fun to watch him, and sometimes, if in a good mood, he plays along and even seems to enjoy it, but my impression is that he likes getting his dice out and maybe coming up with a cool one -liner ("Prepare to die", "Ve haf means to make you talk...") a lot better.

I would like to see more thematic play happen. It did happen, now and then, in our UA game, but I´d really, really like some mechanics to foster that and, what´s even more important, I´d like everyone to appreciate and enjoy those moments. I want conscious thematic play to happen.

Now, I guess it´s pretty clear that our game eventually had to break, right? Any two of us got along just fine, more or less: Niklas let Lukas have some of that acting, and Lukas was happy to roll some mean ol´dice, once he got "his guy" to a point where that would make sense. Neither of them could fathom what the heck I was all about with that "thematic" stuff and what in heaven was wrong for me with the way the game ran. I could get into an acting contest with Lukas (while Niklas was rolling another cigarette) or throw dice with Niklas (while having to keep some acting up for Lukas - which is difficult, you know), and of course feeling that I was catering to their needs but got very little out of the game in terms of my thematic preferences.

I tried to adress these problems, we tried some changes to the game (stronger scene framing, some player empowerment, some meta - game currency, a more explicit social contract, heck, just some talking about what everybody wants out of our gaming). Dind´t work too well. I got the feeling that the other two tried to be nice and help me out, but, come on, why did they have to talk about gaming such an awful lot all of a sudden? 'Why not, you know, just ...game? The problem being, of course, that "just gaming" was a lot of work for ME. After a while, we kind of agreed to disagree and switched to board games. Fine.

Ron wrote: So! During this session, did you, Levi, like what the others did? Did they like what you did? I'm pretty certain they did.

Ron wrote: Looking back on the actual human interactions among you-all during play, how was this enoyment and appreciation of one another's play literally expressed?

Hi Levi,

PART ONE

There are a couple of questions that are going unanswered, which makes it hard for me to move the discussion forward. I'll point to one in a minute, but there's a larger part of the conversation that isn't working for me either, and needs fixing.

It is: when I say something like "Does that make sense" or "I think you're looking at it this way, here's another way," then the conversation cannot function unless you give me confirmation or acknowledgment of some kind.

Does my point about the atomic fallacy make sense? You said above that you were, in fact, interested in learning about what I mean by Creative Agenda. This is a key point in learning about it, given what you'd said earlier. So, can I have confirmation or acknowledgment about that? Conversely, if it doesn't make sense to you, then can you let me know what doesn't?
There's no point to continuing unless you provide that kind of interaction. Help me out a little on this.

PART TWO

The Nod, the "system-selection," and the development of fictional elements due to mutual interest are all testimony to the linkage between Social Contract, SIS (all five parts), and Techniques, with Ephemera expressing bits and pieces of each. A fantastic Big Model in action summary. This lets me know your group has a reward system which everyone understands.

But first, I'm hoping you can see what I mean by Creative Agenda now. I'm suggesting is that a group would not reliably get that linkage without a shared aesthetic standard for what is most fun and satisfying. Any one person's enjoyment of that standard serves as others' enjoyment; person A might set up person B for a great rush of it, and person B might follow up on person C's, and whatever.

That would be Creative Agenda - the shared standard by which they do these things. I'm not trying to fish in any kind of tricky way. I'm asking these questions as clearly as I can and pointing down the road ahead at what I'm driving at. It's not mysterious, it's just a matter of looking at the right place. I'm claiming that when we do articulate your group's CA, you'll say, "Oh that old thing! Of course we do it that way! As if that were any kind of issue!"

So, do you see the scale and type of variable we're talking about? Do you see that the diversity you outlined in your first post is simply not a point of contention about that?

Minor point 1: If you guys are using person-customized techniques or modes of expression along the way, that's OK. I'm thinking that you have read my essays to say "one way to roll! one way to speak! one way to do it! only one! do that, all of you, exactly alike!" as the meaning of "system." I've said no such thing. Systems can be plural regarding their techniques. To me, that's a nose-wrinkling "of course they can" with multiple examples to point to.

Minor point 2: I used "reliably" in that paragraph above with some care. You have not fully confirmed that this is a reliable phenomenon in your group, but I think it probably is ... to help me with that, let's review a question I asked in the previous post.

think about the session as a whole. I would like to know, was the entirety of what you described a climactic event relative to previous sessions, or a build-up toward something hefty in the next, or least later ones? I get the idea that the main bad guy was new to the group, but that you already knew a lot about the tribal totem and had dealt with it before in some way. Or is this mistaken? Was this the first time the totem had been brought into play? If so, was it the first time it was even mentioned?

Generally, one is getting the best bit of any moment. Two or three are actually in there with them, helping that moment work and enjoying it. And there's often one, maybe two people playing audience at any given moment, listening and relaxing. At best, they're completely cool with what's going on - they just don't have anything to add. At worst, they're not really into that moment, but they're trying to keep along with the fiction, looking for ways to play off the results.

Numbered parts today.  I'm a fan of those...

Ron wrote: PART ONE

Ron wrote: PART TWO

Ron wrote: Minor point 1: If you guys are using person-customized techniques or modes of expression along the way, that's OK. I'm thinking that you have read my essays to say "one way to roll! one way to speak! one way to do it! only one! do that, all of you, exactly alike!" as the meaning of "system." I've said no such thing. Systems can be plural regarding their techniques. To me, that's a nose-wrinkling "of course they can" with multiple examples to point to.

Ron wrote: Minor point 2: I used "reliably" in that paragraph above with some care. You have not fully confirmed that this is a reliable phenomenon in your group, but I think it probably is ...

Ron wrote: PART THREE

Hi Levi,

Well, we're just about ready to start the real topic now.

Trying to frame this from the perspective of a shared aesthetic standard...

"Anything that creates new situations in the fiction which speak to both the characters and the setting, creating further opportunities to explore both, is awesome (so long as it isn't overdone). The actual exploration of those things is good - the meat and potatoes of the game. Things that do neither are neutral or dull."

Closer to the perspective you're looking for?

What I described (the fictional events) was a minor climactic event on the way to a larger one. Our totem was one of the main objects of our quest - one we didn't expect to find there, but it was something we were looking for, and was a strong part of the background fiction for the game. The enemy leader was something we'd seen hazily in a vision, but never actually confronted.

Ron wrote: Our job at present is, having identified what we're looking for and where it might be found (how to look for it), to discover what it actually is: the content or identity of your group's focus, attention, goal, shared aesthetic standard, creative agenda.

Ron wrote: Regarding "speak to the characters," I will say this: the characters don't exist. The only imaginable interpretation of such a phrase is "speak to the participants," which is to say, the real people. I recognize, yes, that the characters are involved as fictional constructs, as media for the relevance to the players. When I'm playing simple Jed the homesteader, what "speaks to me" may not be the same as what "speaks to me" when playing Abbanzar the Avatar. But whatever and whenever, we are talking about the material speaking to me, and that's how I'm going to read your phrasing.

Ron wrote: Tell me, how was this quest established? What was up with the Frost Folk tribe that needed questing to solve? Now, I'm not asking for the metaphysics and what the Caribou Shamaness said in the sweat-hut, I'm talking about what was presented, in play, that got the players strongly invested in going off on the quest?

Hi Levi,

Regarding your points about characters: yes, yes, yes – full agreement. Perfect. We fully agree about what characters are, how they’re important, and what may be happening with them. If anyone ever asks me “what do you mean by ‘character’” regarding my Big Model talk, I’ll point to your list. That’s exactly what I mean.

Now, on to the task at hand. I wrote,

Our job at present is, having identified what we're looking for and where it might be found (how to look for it), to discover what it actually is: the content or identity of your group's focus, attention, goal, shared aesthetic standard, creative agenda.

Sounds good, but I'm not sure how to go from here to there.  …

John, playing the ritualist, came in with his standard set of goals - to build a character that functioned in a way the designer probably didn't anticipate as both a dramatic and tactical challenge.  Holly, playing the Skriver (uh, magical scribe) is our more social player, and came primarily to interact with the other players - both as herself and in new and interesting situations as her character.  Kim had a character concept that she really wanted to try on and explore, an undead-hunting necromancer and fanatical old woman.  I came to relax and play the big dumb thunk,

…  we were the aspiring heroes of the tribe, not yet risen to leadership positions (or, in the case of the Crone, actively in rejection of leadership roles).

… the overall feel of the setting, the characters, and the dynamics of the game - the whole idea that our characters had previously been secondary member of a supremely skilled tribe, and were now the best thing the tribe had going for it, and the character reactions to that (their own personal issues, so to speak). This was strong content in the sense of establishing characters and their stuff.

… that was the stuff that established the game.

Ron wrote: Not only, can the tribe be saved?, but also and centrally, can we save the tribe, when we are neither fully-yet leaders or even in one case, when we do not desire leadership? And when we are quirky bastards, too, with quirks that make our potential leadership problematic? And when we, with our faults, turn out to have to be spiritual leaders (heal/replace the Totem), not just a ‘tac squad?

Does that make sense? I am not claiming that any of you actually articulated any of this during play itself, whether aloud or internally. Such things do not have to be articulated in order to be central to our aesthetic interests, as human. I'm asking if it makes sense now, with you looking back over play as the Martian anthropologist.

Ron wrote: Now I’d like to talk about the last session or two of this particular saga.

What happened to the totem? Did any or all of the group enter the spirit world through the path of death? Did that help rescue it? How about any inter-character relationships, like Andjagger to the Crone? Did Son show any qualities of leadership, as opposed to showboating? Did Tavel emerge from her confusion to arrive at a powerful statement of ‘what we need to do’? In fact, did the characters establish any hierarchy or sets of individualized responsibility among them?

Because what I’m anticipating, in your account, is the presence of a certain degree of answer to the more abstract questions, italicized a few paragraphs above, inherent in the answers to these more concrete/SIS questions, italicized just above.

Hi Levi,

My statement of centrality is taken specifically from your own description. I dislike hurling your own words into your face, but phrases like "that was the stuff that established the game," and your confirmation that you were talking about the strong content of play, do support my point without reaching or projecting.

It doesn't feel so much like an "Aha!" as a "My, that's seductively attractive.  Our game could

become

that very easily; we're close enough to it that downplaying the other stuff and focusing on that would be simple."  But the other stuff, which we could downplay to bring that stuff clearer, and to be certain of answering those thematic questions, is of value to the group

Ron wrote: Other stuff? What, specifically?

Ron wrote: But wait, before answering that, we should check something. Your statement carries a very weird implication. You're suggesting, I think, that the issues that I outlined above, to be a Creative Agenda, need to be so prevalent, so urgent, so explicit as to occupy every second of the group members' in-play attention. There is no such requirement. A Creative Agenda is observable as a unifying thread of enjoyment of attention running through play, not some kind of overriding obsession whose drum-beat drowns out all details.

Ron wrote: Beware, as well, your feelings. Memories of feelings are treacherous things.

Levi, it's actually pretty important that we don't fire back replies within instants of reading the posts in this discussion.

If you would, come on back in a while and reply, whether only to clarify what you said, or to react differently this time, or whatever.

Best, Ron

Ron wrote: If you would, come on back in a while and reply, whether only to clarify what you said, or to react differently this time, or whatever.

Hi Levi,

PART ONE: ANSWERING THE DIRECT QUESTION

]I'm still trying to sort out the scope of Creative Agendas as you see them; in terms of how much mental share (acknowledged or not) they recieve from players.

In terms of the group aesthetic (whether I'm talking about an agenda or not), yes, the thematic questions you've described (with minor, piffling alterations) make sense and are present.

But in the same terms - of larger categories of stuff that unify our play and provide shared enjoyment in that way, there's a lot of time and shared interest in simply building and playing with the setting and mechanics of the game ...

Ron wrote: Character, Setting, Situation, System, and Color are your materials, your medium. I’m talking about what you, this group, is doing with the medium.

Excellent! I know it might seem like a pain in the ass, because I keep claiming we're about to talk about reward systems, but it might be helpful for you to read over the thread from the beginning, and see what you think about some of the posts this time. Any notions, thoughts, or questions?

I had also planned for us to look again at the later sessions' content, or rather, the whole thrust of where things went with the characters and the tribes, but then realized you guys weren't finished yet. I have to say, I'm a little bummed that you'll only play one more session given the events you described. It seems to me as if the really solid conflicts have only just begun.

Aaaand, finally, I also want to take a good hard look at The Exchange too.

Best, Ron

Ron wrote: Excellent! I know it might seem like a pain in the ass, because I keep claiming we're about to talk about reward systems, but it might be helpful for you to read over the thread from the beginning, and see what you think about some of the posts this time. Any notions, thoughts, or questions?

Ron wrote: I had also planned for us to look again at the later sessions' content, or rather, the whole thrust of where things went with the characters and the tribes, but then realized you guys weren't finished yet. I have to say, I'm a little bummed that you'll only play one more session given the events you described. It seems to me as if the really solid conflicts have only just begun.

Ron wrote: Aaaand, finally, I also want to take a good hard look at The Exchange too.

Hi Levi,

PART ONE: OVER THE FIRST HUMP

I hope it is not too traumatic to look in the mirror and say, "We are playing with a Narrativist Creative Agenda." 'Cause that's what it is, lock stock and barrel, without any complications or confusions.

In my essay Narrativism: Story Now essay, I have a section outlining how often people, in learning about it, must "say it yourself" in order to articulate what this CA is like or about. With this statement,

Primarily that from this specific viewpoint, it's plain that the group is creating emergent story. I say "emergent" because there's no guarantee that any specific piece of story will conclude in any specific way. Moreover, it's presently unclear which of those possibilities will be resolved at all.

Now, that doesn't invalidate a damn thing - it's just that this is there, as a natural thing within the group. Almost all games follow the basic storyline structure (they have a beginning, rising action, and denoument), but we've loaded the action with potential themes, and in play, things which serve or tie to a potential theme are often those that we, as players, use.

I continue to find it very interesting that, to us, the material we use and the methods we have adopted recieve the degree and kind of attention that they have from us, even from this point of view. Despite that, it's patently not the thing you were trying to show me.

This isn't just a debate about who should win.

Just a quick note:

I'd prefer to write up that update to the Exchange before replying in detail, and all the stretches of time when I can expect to be able to work on such stuff for more than half an hour uninterrupted (which I'll need) this weekend are largely going to be spent away (or far from sober).  So if there's a few days of pause here, it doesn't mean I've wandered off.

All right then! In the interim, while Levi is carousing or whatever it is he's up to, I will now accept five separate posts from five different people, which include specific questions that relate to anything Levi and I have discussed so far. To be clear about that ...

1. Your question may in fact be about your own play-experience with some other game, but the relationship or parallel or contrast to Levi's should be clear.

2. Your question should concern the Big Model, or even Creative Agenda (GNS), in some way, because that's the topic of the thread.

3. It should really be a question and not some kind of praise or condemnation of the ideas or the discussion so far (I ain't paid to read your opinions).

Once five people have posted (and only one post each), I'll provide responses. I promise to be much nicer in the responses than I was in writing this post.

Best, Ron

Hi, Ron,

I've been following this thread with a huge amount of interest, and I'm glad that I can finally comment on it. I hope that after the 5 posts, you'll be willing to answer some more questions, because my head is bursting with them.

Can you explain your thought process? More specifically, what clues did you look for to determine that the CA is Narrativism?

I'd like to post a question for Levi -

Looking back at your past thinking, I'd like to hear a summary (one or two sentences) of what you thought constituted a Creative Agenda (any one, doesn't have to be connected specifically to your game) - as opposed to what Ron has been getting at.  Something as clear cut as your "emergent story" comment would be ideal.  I'd like to know, because I hear a lot of "But I don't/my game doesn't fit any of those categories" responses to the concept of GNS from gamers I know who aren't into theory and I'm guessing that you were fairly representative of that bunch.

Ron, my question goes right back to the beginning of the discussion. 

Levi assumed the differences in player preferences for how things were getting done was a sign of different Creative Agendas ones that he felt were working together.  I feel, and it seems Levi has come to the same conclusion, that you've shown that they weren't different CA' s rather different means of achieving the same agenda.  So what are typical symptoms of actual CA clash and how does that relate to the text you quoted earlier about CA being exlusive in application?
What differentiates an actual conflict of CA instead of just a difference over preferred means or possibly a disfunctional version of the CA, such as a Typhoid Mary GM or Primma Donna player?

Do you have actual play examples that you can share that show this in action, or are your CA clashes so far in your past they're hard to clearly remember :)

Hi Ron,

Could you address the difference between the gaining of "social esteem" (as Ben Lehman phrased it on his blog) as the core of GNS Creative Agendas, and the use of medium (as phrased in this thread) to gain that esteem? This social aspect is the key, right? But most people focus on the medium, right?

As a sub-question to that: What about a group that simply doesn't care about social esteem? Have you observed such groups?

In my experience, what happens is the "wandering away" factor: people picking up magazines to read and so on. Or even waiting patiently for their "turn." Does the Big Model really have anything to say about or to these people -- if they are content?

What if simply not being fully engaged with folks at the table for the duration of the session isn't a high priority for people. It may be incoherent, it may not be what you and I would like, but does it necessarily need to be "fixed"?

I assume that you think this is -- well, bad. And so do I. And yet -- I'm hard pressed to say exactly why. If not being fully engaged with someone is -- you know, okay... I don't want it. And from your writings, I know you don't want it. But, geez this is tough...

How about this...

Although the Big Model is only about the activity of RPGs, isn't it actually about the choice to be fully engaged in a social group and a social activity? (The same way, when the pitcher is about to pitch, all the players on the field move as one to "get ready" -- they are engaged... Whereas, some employees, say, at a B&N, seem completely disengaged from their fellow employees and customers?)

If I'm taking this opportunity for the question too far afield, I apologize. But after reading lots of threads around the internet lately, and thinking about how thinking about GNS has changed my point of view on how to conduct myself and my choices outside of RPGs, what is your view that the division between those who see it as a useful understanding of RPGs and those who don't is actually a difference of desire about what people want from what they do with their time with other people?

Because truth to tell, I think there IS something wrong with not being engaged. And I could not tell you why I think OTHER people should be engaged at the table as a group (like the baseball players on the field). The Big Model seems entirely designed to push people toward that kind of engagement. So, what are your thoughts on this idea that this, ultimately, is what the Big Model is all about? That The Big Model is simply the "medium" for being more engaged with the people around you, a commitment to the activity you're sharing with other, and, in fact, a philosophical point of view about how to conduct oneself as a human being?

Thanks,

Christopher

Riffing off the concept that the actual transcript of a game says nothing in itself about the CA, I'd like to ask about PCs being violently at odds and how that relates to CA. Specifically, the incident of Andjagger vs. the Crone in your account, Levi. . .this incident bears a lot of resemblance to some styles of trad play: A band of PCs with a "party" structure, all having roughly the same goal, some reason for one PC to attack or otherwise dramatically oppose another, and then the respective player's decision to do so, resulting in "inter-party" conflict.

Only there seems to be a world of difference between Levi's scenario and the traditional version. But it's a difference I wouldn't have pegged from merely hearing/reading an account of the events. It's something in the tone used, and even moreso in the OTHER things Levi says throughout the thread, that tells me the conflict arises from, and works toward, Narrativist goals.

I've seen a fair amount of "PvP" in my roleplaying history, and barring a few instances of just plain dysfunction, most of the conflicts seem to have been, for the participants (i was usually a spectator), just "fun" in a departure-from-usual, let's-see-who's-tougher way, with the reason for the conflict unimportant, perhaps even forgotten. A couple of times I remember it was mind control or possession; in the few cases where it was a real conflict of interest, it always seemed like a pretty bland one, like "my guy is so crazy he'll kill you for the slightest insult". And one always suspected the participants were simply happy that the "reason" was sufficient excuse to trigger the fight.

So my question is, how does one tell the difference between Narr inter-player conflict and, say, non-dysfunctional Gamist? Does it look (or feel) different in play, or is it one of those "you can't tell from just the incident, look at the whole play cycle" sort of things? Levi, was there any element in that confrontation of "heh-heh, now we get to fight each other," or was it ONLY "wow, so THAT'S how devoted to the Totem Andjagger is" and the like?

Peace,
-Joel

PS In light of my recent gaming experiences, I'm really jazzed about Christopher's question.

Hi everyone,

OK! Five posts, five questions. Now it’s me & Levi again, no more outside posting.

I’ll clarify my reasoning for calling for the questions. First, and most minor, was sympathy – I could sense all the heads out there distending with the need to process the discussion so far.

Second was to give Levi some space to process the latest exchange, which he is taking anyway, and that leads me to a bit of a conundrum. Because I hadn’t intended for him to whacked with questions, but failed to phrase my post accordingly. I’m torn between (1) my desire for Levi to stick exactly with the dialogue with me, and not get into “speaking to the multitudes” mode – which can be destructive to the kind of thinking and writing we’re doing – and (2) my awareness that muzzling him at this point is simply not fair, especially since people asked him questions in good faith.

So, what to do? Levi, I guess my desire is for you to stick with the dialogue with me for now[]/i, because there are still some outstanding inquiries for you in my post ‘way up-thread. But then after, can you return to the questions from Precious Villain and Joel?

Best, Ron

Despite my intentions, I'm answering these out of order.

REPLY TO CALDIS

what are typical symptoms of actual CA clash and how does that relate to the text you quoted earlier about CA being exlusive in application?

What differentiates an actual conflict of CA instead of just a difference over preferred means or possibly a disfunctional version of the CA, such as a Typhoid Mary GM or Primma Donna player?

Do you have actual play examples that you can share that show this in action, or are your CA clashes so far in your past they're hard to clearly remember :)

REPLY TO CHRISTOPHER

Hi Christopher,

This is about two different things: what the Big Model is saying, and judging other people.

AS FOR THE BIG MODEL

I think Ben’s point about social esteem is … well, trivial. All social interactions occur in a medium, so saying that they require or take on certain aspects due to the medium seems, to me, like saying swimming takes on features because it happens in water. True but not, you know, really exciting unless you really want to engineer using hydrodynamics (or design a game).

Your comments on engagement scare me a little …

In my experience, what happens is the "wandering away" factor: people picking up magazines to read and so on. Or even waiting patiently for their "turn." Does the Big Model really have anything to say about or to these people -- if they are content?

What if simply not being fully engaged with folks at the table for the duration of the session isn't a high priority for people. It may be incoherent, it may not be what you and I would like, but does it necessarily need to be "fixed"?

How about this...

Although the Big Model is only about the activity of RPGs, isn't it actually about the choice to be fully engaged in a social group and a social activity? (The same way, when the pitcher is about to pitch, all the players on the field move as one to "get ready" -- they are engaged... Whereas, some employees, say, at a B&N, seem completely disengaged from their fellow employees and customers?)

… what is your view that the division between those who see it as a useful understanding of RPGs and those who don't is actually a difference of desire about what people want from what they do with their time with other people?

I assume that you think this is -- well, bad. And so do I. And yet -- I'm hard pressed to say exactly why. If not being fully engaged with someone is -- you know, okay... I don't want it. And from your writings, I know you don't want it.

Because truth to tell, I think there IS something wrong with not being engaged. And I could not tell you why I think OTHER people should be engaged at the table as a group (like the baseball players on the field). The Big Model seems entirely designed to push people toward that kind of engagement. So, what are your thoughts on this idea that this, ultimately, is what the Big Model is all about? That The Big Model is simply the "medium" for being more engaged with the people around you, a commitment to the activity you're sharing with other, and, in fact, a philosophical point of view about how to conduct oneself as a human being?

As a sub-question to that: What about a group that simply doesn't care about social esteem? Have you observed such groups?

Hi Ricky,

Can you explain your thought process? More specifically, what clues did you look for to determine that the CA is Narrativism?

… From the very first day I posted System Does Matter, I was thinking about big ol' arcs of satisfaction and participation, and this fascination with "Bludgeon-Man hits Ultra-Weasel! Is that Gamist?" has kept tripping me up from all the way back then.

… I suggest jettisoning instants as a direct Creative Agenda indicator. Yes, of course instances are composed of instants. I hope you can see that "instants" now have a name, specifically Ephemera, and the Big Model is built, in part, specifically to keep us from getting all hung up about Bludgeon-Man's action. We can recognize that Ephemera are often indicative, but also that we do not have to (and cannot) classify them individually by GNS and counting their little noses to arrive at a conclusion.

I also hope you can see that historically, I asked about all those "instants" from people, and still do, using this logic:

"What happened in that fight?"
"Bludgeon-Man hit Ultra-Boy! It was rad!"
"Why was it rad?" (answer)
"Did the GM or anyone else say anything?" (answer) ... and so on ...
... evolving eventually to things like "How does such an action factor into resolving stuff during play, with you guys? What sort of stuff? Does anyone sulk when that stuff comes up? Do people make suggestions about that stuff?" and so on.

I use these questions, the later one, to help the person evaluate the Creative Agenda, if any.

But I do not use this logic:

"What happened in that fight?"
"Bludgeon-Man hit Ultra-Weasel! It was rad!"
"Why was it rad?" (answer all about tactics and guts and ego)
"Oh, that's Gamist. So does that happen a lot?"
"All the time, except when we describe stuff or get involved in the whole family-issue thing."
"Ah, so if you have lots and lots of those, and they outnumber all those Sim and Narr instants, then the whole thing is Gamist."

I'll stick to my guns, this time. This really is an "all the way back to the beginning" point. Gamers' intense emotional reactions during moments of play, and their need either to be praised for them or called on whatever bullshit social-game they were playing at the moment, are very strong. They wanted to talk about that, and what I was trying to talk about was lost as we always hit upon fucked-up Social Contracts as revealed by those moments. So people rarely "graduated" to talking about any kind of play in terms of agenda as I wanted to discuss. Hundreds of threads, thousands of posts. It's been a long six years, man.

REPLY TO JOEL (MELINGLOR)

Hi Joel,

I’m a little surprised at these questions, at first. They seem to hinge on Social Contract and fictional-transcript, with no focus on the techniques of play itself, except for a couple of Ephemeral bits.

Then I realized why you asked them - because Levi and I haven’t talked much about system-stuff yet, and so far have only really talked about Social Contract, fictional content, and Ephemeral bits. But that doesn’t leave System out of the mix. I have tons of points to make about it, and tons more to follow upon his answers to my questions about his reward mechanics.

I think you'll see whole constellation of stuff at that level which makes a difference between your two contexts for inter-player-character conflicts.

Therefore, my discussion with Levi really isn’t complete and my points about system and CA are not yet articulated to him, here in the context of our immediate dialogue. And for this thread really to be an effective library reference for the future, that has to happen.

Best, Ron

Okay, first thing; here is that second draft, with the extra stuff.  It's still nine different kinds of rough and cranky, and I haven't shuffled any pages yet, just added stuff, but I figured I'd already been out of this discussion long enough, time to just put the damn thing up and get back in.

Now, then.

Ron wrote: I hope it is not too traumatic to look in the mirror and say, "We are playing with a Narrativist Creative Agenda." 'Cause that's what it is, lock stock and barrel, without any complications or confusions.

Ron wrote: If you have any questions about what incoherent play or dysfunctional play are, or how Creative Agenda relates to them, feel free to ask, although nothing of that sort applies to this group for the sessions you described.

Ron wrote: You also might consider altering your example setting in The Exchange to focus on the thematically-rich conflicts it offers, rather than just the

Ron wrote: Well, hold on, tiger. I do want to address that, but it couldn't be done until the whole Creative Agenda bugaboo got clarified. Didn't you know that I always said, CA (or GNS, whatever) is easy, and the real questions I want to discuss concern system? No one could have been more surprised than me to have the GNS thing turn into a tentacled monster that upset people at its very mention - I thought it'd be a big no-brainer and we could move on to talking about how role-playing, you know, functions.

Ron wrote: First thing: rewards
In the version I'm looking at, reward mechanics are very, very similar to those in Sorcerer. The point is not necessarily to make the character better at things, although this can happen to a small extent if you really want, but rather to re-position the character relative to existing or potential conflicts.

Sigh ... jargon alert. OK, a character in a role-playing game is always composed of three things: Effectiveness, Resource, and Positioning. The facts that a given number can do double-duty for more than one of these, or that in a given group some of these may be understood or simplified down to the bedrock, are not important. Without these in action, a character cannot exist as a part of the SIS. This applies for all role-playing, regardless of Creative Agenda, regardless of so-called crunchiness, regardless of anything else, yes, even for free-formers (who are not any such thing).

I also like to talk about Currency, which is to say, the means and rate by which "stuff" in these three categories gets traded off and switched around. Reward systems almost always concern Currency.

As a useful contrast, in the most familiar Gamist brand of role-playing, strategizing among options of Effectiveness and Resource is crucial, especially in the long term. One chooses one's race and class, one buys weapons and chooses spells with a specific eye toward efficiency, and one strategizes with (and occasionally against) fellow group members for purposes of acquiring new options, and thus a new platform to strategize from. That's pretty familiar, right?

Whereas in The Exchange, HeroQuest, and in Sorcerer, an increased point adds a modicum of Effectiveness, but the real oomph of that reward system is to nudge or angle the character into a different relationship with "what's going on" in any given way. I could give examples, but I am confident that if you, instead, listed the way every point was spent for every character, from the very beginning to the just-before-done bit (i.e. now), then we'd see exactly what I'm talking about.

Can you do that, maybe for your character during this particular scenario/story? Or anyone else's character? I'd like to see it.

Ron wrote: One other point, which I think is most pronounced in Sorcerer, is that one important re-positioning is to remove the character from further conflicts. "OK, he's done," with the option to keep playing in some way or (if everyone's done) to finish up this particular game. This is such a functional and powerful feature of role-playing that we could have a whole symposium session on why it's so rare, and why the default seems to be "Your character dies so you can't play any more" instead, or why reward systems have traditionally assumed continuing play.

The reason I bring this up is that you guys clearly grasp that, in this Narrativist context, situations do get resolved, and the trenchant/potential themes (I call'em Premise) get answered. That's what you're calling a "season" in your post. But how does it strike you to permit a given character, within the context of a season, to have his or her issues "be done" and be removed? Or is it more suitable to say all the characters have to stick with the basic conflict of the scenario, hell or high water?

Ron wrote: Second thing: Lumpley strikes

*Snip*

How's that work? I really wanted to show how the diversity you described in your first post is not even beginning to threaten or contradict the existence of a shared Creative Agenda, but rather is an expression of it to a significant degree.