Proposal: Creative Agenda doesn’t run through. It rides on top.
“Supported techniques” carry the Creative Agenda.
You get supported techniques when a reactive player enthusiastically judges the technique of another player.

I’m curious about the nature of support, the aesthetic choice behind it and how it relates to the Creative Agenda it lofts.

We are playing pathfinder. 
Technique: GM pulls a custom made critical hit card, consults the chart of the weapon to the damage.  “Guts ripped out, 1 CON bleed every round.”
Support: Several players groan and laugh at the same time.  One player says, “That is so cool.”

The support, the reaction to the technique, is where I’m interested.  I know one particular technique at any particular time and that person getting jazzed that they just did max damage, doesn’t automatically say “Step on up.”

But the overall reaction to the technique because it answered one of the following questions and the question was, prior to the technique being used, up in the air.

1) who stood up?
2) where is the story going now?
3) did it get the dream right?

When there is a cathartic resolution from a technique, that is what lifts the creative agenda.

Sure, the guy who swung the sword that got the crit, he did technically answer the question who stood up.  But the crit cards were new, there was nothing about it to "game" specifically, it wasn’t a real convincing case of him standing up -- mostly it was just the result of luck.

And sure, the monster that got it’s guts ripped out, it dying did direct the story, but that was never really at issue.  We all sort of knew the monster was going down. 

No, it was the surprise in how it got the dream of vicious, bloody combat “right” that brought the excitement and joy; an objective measure of involvment, i.e., support.

It makes me think a system that had specific ways to make support clear and required could help keep people on the same Creative Agenda page.

Other questions I have about this:
Am I using language of The Big Model correctly here?
Is support itself a technique? And if so, what does that mean?
Is this support tiered, in that a supportive reaction can itself be supported because it (technique +support) addressed a different question (1, 2 or 3 from above)?
How is support different from Reward?

Hi Rustin,

In terms of that support or getting the vicious, bloody combat 'right', it makes me think of this bit in the nar essay here

I suggest that both Gamist and Narrativist priorities are clear and automatic, with easy-to-see parallels in other activities and apparently founded upon a lot of hardwiring in the human mind (or "psyche" or "spirit" or whatever you want to call it). Whereas I think Simulationist priorities must be trained - it is highly derived play, based mainly on canonical fandom and focus on pastiche, and requires a great deal of contextualized knowledge and stern social reinforcement. This training is characterized by teaching people not to do what they're inclined to. No one needs to learn how to role-play, but most do need to learn to play Simulationist, by stifling their Gamist and/or Narrativist proclivities. Such training is often quite harsh and may involve rewards and punishments such as whether the person is "worthy" to be friends with the group members.

Hey Rustin,
I'd like to take a crack at your questions here.

Am I using language of The Big Model correctly here?
Is support itself a technique? And if so, what does that mean?
Is this support tiered, in that a supportive reaction can itself be supported because it (technique +support) addressed a different question (1, 2 or 3 from above)?
How is support different from Reward?

Callan,
Thanks for the reply.
I am in a Pathfinder campaign. Let me embellish.

I went into the game based on social obligations (i.e., the other guys would feel bad if I didn’t game with them).
Knowing full well that the creative agenda was not Story Now, I was determined to engage and support their agenda as best I could.  I was of the mind: “Sure, it’s not my preference, but I can enjoy a good Right to Dream/Step on Up Game-- just watch me!”

From the above example, where everyone got jazzed over the crit card, I just watched.  I was curious, sure.  Random critical hit tables are quite fun, but now that I reflect on it, it didn’t immediately plug into the story. Perhaps that is why I didn’t get jazzed.  I felt outside the game, despite my efforts to engage, participate and “enjoy some Dream/Step Up, dammit!”

Beyond Fanmail, what other concrete support mechanisms do you know of? 

I could see the “Stern social reinforcement” as a functional (if not gut wrenching) negative conditioner.  What of positive conditioning?
Perhaps with a specific tool, I too, would have been prompted to participate.
Like, what if there was a “and that’s how it really would work” card that I would throw down on the table.  We count the cards at the end of the session, and . . . something... that just doesn’t seem to work.  Seems artificial.

Do you think that support is more than just a technique vis-a-vis Creative Agenda?

I think there's indulging the idea that something exists and enjoying that (what one does at magic shows or in watching a movie or reading a book), and there's...something else, that your friends and I think my friends have been beholden to at times. Probably lots of posters at the forge too.

I think it's perhaps a mental short circuit - if you turn off your capacity to think "Maybe I'm wrong on this", then suddenly something seems very right/done the right way. Because what else can something seem, if you have no capacity to think your wrong in percieving it as seeming that way? Humans are great at gaming ambiguity to support the conclusion they want. They start with a conclusion, then work backwards to find only evidence that supports that conclusion.

So there's that short circuit and as an alternative, there's indulging the idea something exists.

Were your friends just indulging the idea that vicious, bloody combat was done right? Maybe they were. But on the other hand, I'm kind of thinking you saw them really keen and instantly excited over the matter while, as you say, you weren't drawn in in the way they appeared drawn in? And your kind of looking for how to get in on that deal? I think I've been in that situation a few times, anyway.

But I think if someones treating something as actually being done "right", if you only indulge the idea its done right, you can't join them. They are literally true believers. But that's just in the case of a group who actually think it's being done right (right as in some sort of galactic standard on what is right).

Ah. Heh, sorry I misunderstood you, Rustin!

It seems like Callan is following you - - if I may give it another crack, I'd say that the closest I've come to observing a supportive non-true-believer, so to speak, would be the act of just trying to pursue an unfamiliar Agenda and giving it your best, for the sake of something new.

I got my first shot at Step On Up play through a one-shot of Storming the Wizard's Tower - my Story Now instincts were on full alert, trying to make something more out of my character class and the GM characters I "bought" at character creation. When the game treated such things purely as tools, and not much else, and then again when we first entered combat, I started to get how things were supposed to work. It became clear that there wasn't enough meat in the setting material to really dwell there without a lot of effort.

I have seen Storming drifted into other territory, though - we were playing Etruscan pirates who were supposed to hunt down another group of pirates (dirty foreigners! This is our turf!), and my friend Allison and I ended up focusing on and playing off of one another's character-centered repartee - - we participated in the adventure, yes, but we used one another as the main springboard of conflict - she was clearly much more interested in focusing on the intra-group drama, and I was happy to get in on that too - - it pushed my Story Now! buttons pretty hard, and we had so much fun focusing on that, that the GM ended up ditching the final Big Bad altogether. Using Charged Conversations on each other, Allison and I explored a plot about a jealous, clueless father (me) and the tomboy shielding his pregnant daughter from discovery (her). The pirate adventure became a backdrop for this plot, totally something of our own design. I had played Storming before, and Allison had not - so I was consciously drifting play with her to explore where she wanted to take things.

Does this follow with what you guys are discussing? The rewards that came from drifting Storming the Wizard's Tower only existed in what we got out of our interaction; the rules had nothing to reward us with but the suspense of dice rolls ("Ask if the person's lying!").

Abkajud,
Thanks for the reply.  (Sorry, I had written a response, but wanted to sleep on it a second night-- I hope you did not feel ignored. This is just a reply to your first post, I haven’t reflected on your latest).

When I say “support” I’m meaning a positive reaction from a player because a technique presented in play spoke to the question of creative agenda.  (Presumably not from the player responsible for the technique).

From the Narrativism: Story Now Adept Press 2003,
Techniques do not map 1:1 to Creative Agenda, but combinations of Techniques do support or obstruct Creative Agendas.

I’m curious about this combination of techniques.  Wherein we have a standard, traditionally technique (e.g., critical hit chart) plus a very specific type of technique which I've called “support” meaning: enthusiastic, engaged reaction.  I’m not saying a rule does this support, per se. This support is a social communication to others which tells them you are engaged, happy and have had a cathartic release in regards to one of the three questions (creative agendas) because of that technique.

Maybe what I’m saying is: If you want to achieve a specific creative agenda, you might need to prime yourself, so you can support a technique at the right time. Moreover, would it not help -- that part of that support specifically identified what Creative Agenda question it answered for you and how?

In terms of my hypothesis, priming yourself wont connect you to the groups play as a whole. It's as if you were gaming with people who actually believe in some religions god, and it has something to do with play. Unless you somehow believe that god exists, you can't prime yourself to connect with other players who genuinely do think it does. Here, instead of the notion of some deity, there's the notion of...I dunno how they'd put it, but some sort of yeah, that really critted him right in the guts, yeah!

Or if I'm wrong on that hypothesis, well somehow in your account they are all supporting the technique at the right time. How/by what method are they organising themselves? Could you ask them?

Or am I not reading you right? I'm getting the idea that your not clicking with that moment they all seem to click at, and your looking for a fix. Or am I reading that in and your just talking about making some new game and that part of playing it is getting ready to prime yourself so when the technique comes your ready? If it's just that, I'd say that seems a good idea - I'd just suggest having some text at the front of the game instructing players that advance priming is part of this particular game. But just looking at the idea of priming - it sounds like it'd be good and effective!

Rustin, like Callan said, it makes sense that new and unfamiliar Agendas could require a little practice to get right. One caveat, though, is that various games will use differing techniques to support a given Agenda, so such practice needs to involve a variety of games.

What's key about this approach is that you'll learn what does and doesn't work, and you'll get a much firmer grasp on how different Agendas... differ. And, of course, get out there and play!

Callan,
I gave your posts some thought.
I wrote my first post with a particular issue in mind (basically some reflections on the Big Model).
You saw a different, though no less interesting issue, and replied to that.

As for my main reason for posting, I’ve pretty much reached the conclusion that most Big Model observations come to: Meh, that’s actually pretty obvious when one thinks about it.

The issue you’ve touched on is more interesting. 
You’ve made some pretty bold claims about how and if we can “plug into” any Creative Agenda, be it Story Now, Gamism or Right to Dream.

Yeah, I could go to church, watch the rituals, eat the crackers, drink the wine, etc. . . do all the ritualistic stuff--- but unless I’ve got the conviction, I won’t really get the catharsis or aesthetic release the “true believers” have.  Are you saying this is analogous to just Right to Dream, or does it apply to each Creative Agenda? 

Am I following you? Have I correctly summarized your points?

Hi again, Rustin! That's a pretty accurate summery.

It can happen in any agenda, as I measure it. I think sim has been synonymous with the true believer aspect. But yeah, in any you can have just spoken sound waves, but then suddenly someone digs in their heals and says no, they 'did' get the can of peaches, or they 'did' cut the cable, or that they simply could not make a raise now, and with a certain intensity. That might just happen at a certain point or points in the session, or perhaps throughout the whole session (I think for some, a successful sim session involves it happening through the whole session). It's like trying to enjoy a magic show with people who think it's real magic. Your just not doing the same activity as them. So your not doing something with them.

I think there are traces of it in all of us. Take this example - someone verbally describes a character as being at the top of a cliff. The person playing that character describes a fiction that their character will get u, and the player declares their swim skill will determine if this fiction is part of the session record or not.

And you might think "You CAN'T use your swim skill for that!!!" - I know I get that feeling welling up in me. But you can - there is nothing that actually exists that is in the way of doing that, except true believerism. (well, unless you battle grid the whole thing, with certain squares designated as cliff, and the procedure for passing these squares is climb, etc.).

The difference between "Well, I just enjoy play more where you use climb for that, but I can pass on that" and "You CAN'T use your swim skill for that!!!" is pretty significant. Inclination Vs zelous belief.