Hey guys,

Need a clarification for this paper on aesthetic theory in roleplaying.

Creative Agenda is something that can only be retrospectively said to exist, correct? Isn't that part of Ron's focus on the formal, exhibited properties of roleplaying? Actual play and not intent (that slippery beast)?

For example, I might start off a game thinking that the Theme is really cool and I want to help support it (i.e. play in a Narrativist fashion), but, before I know it, I'm caught up in the "Step On Up!" aspect and never get around to "Story Now!" Therefore, for all intents and purposes, I never had a Narrativist Creative Agenda because I never exhibited Narrativist characteristics in my style of play.

Basically, the model only applies to exhibited Creative Agendas (since they're a subset of Exploration) and not intent at all. Creative Agendas that aren't exhibited aren't really Creative Agendas at all.

Is that correct?

The problem with the term Creative Agenda is that the "agenda" portion of the term implies intent. As far as I can guess intent is totally incidental to all portions of GNS except as it is actually manifested or in terms with one's own satisfaction.

I cannot readily come up with better terminology. I am sure there is one out there.

To the best of me ability to understand, which is fairly limited, creative agenda in the model refers to the agenda manifested through actions.

Perhaps one might make better sense of the CA if one thought of it as Personal Agenda, for that is really what it is (most of the time). The CA is really an expression of desire, usually unexamined, but not always the case. What matters is what happens, not stated intent.
The model is really about practice (what happens), not theory (what should be).

Aure Entaluve,

Silmenume

Ron has a strong respect for scientific method, hence he emphasizes the importance of observable behavior for analysis.

I believe his model hypothesizes that players DO have a Creative Agenda in the instant they are playing. However, an _observer_ can only infer what that is retrospectively. This is an important distinction when trying to build a useful theory.

I think one can have "intent" by the way. If we all agree we want to explore themes of "faith, or the lack thereof, inspiring action" (just saw the extended version of Lord of the Rings at the Cinerama dome yesterday, it's on my mind), we can walk into character creation and world set up with that as our creative agenda.

That doesn't mean that's what we're going to pull off in play. Hence, the observation part is vital to know what's actually happening.

Also, all the ephemera will also, move "backward" through the model to reinforce agendas and decisions, it seems to me. "This felt good," might well get the player to do more of X, even if it wasn't what was planned.

I might be wrong about all of this.

But if I am right, it seems to me that the model, though it has arrows, influences all its elements in both directions. But, again, that might be a misunderstanding on my part.

Christopher

Hello,

Jonathan and Mark, perhaps an analogy will help.

A fellow has a wonderful dream of playing great trumpet solos in front of crowds. He buys a trumpet and tootles on it, he takes lessons, he buys all the trumpet jazz albums. Perhaps he gets involved with a local group.

... but he never really plays. His time at rehearsals consists of objections or debates. His practice doesn't improve his playing. He doesn't practice assigned lessons. He describes and judges others' trumpet solos elaborately and at length, but not especially insightfully. He never makes it to a gig.

Does he have a Creative Agenda? You can ask him, and boy, will he tell you. In detail. With circles and arrows, with a paragraph on the back.

Now you go over to this trumpet guy who plays gigs all the time. What's your Creative Agenda, you ask him. "I dunno, man," he says. "I just like to play, doesn't matter what." But this seems a little off to you, because this guy is well-known for his personal, idiomatic take on the current jazz scene and also for his ability to choose reliable group members.

I consider the first guy to have no Creative Agenda, but rather an ego-dream. I consider the second guy to have a highly developed Creative Agenda. I also think the verbal interview is a piss-poor method of getting at this issue.

Does that help at all?

Best,
Ron

Totally. That's close to what I was assuming to be the case, but your metaphor makes the distinction clearer.

The paper is going to discuss your theory as a Formalist model for roleplaying, as opposed to an Intentionalist model, where the intent of the artist (or player, in this case) is vital for understanding what's going on. The thing about your model, Ron, which makes it so dern useful, is you can begin analyzing games based on observations, without having to know the Intent of the players involved. This is one of the main differences between it and Threefold Theory, from what I understand, since the latter is all about player/designer motivations, not exhibited behaviors.

Creative Agenda was the only place in the model where people could possibly think you're talking about intent (and most people make this mistake; I know I did, initially), but you avoid that by focusing on a "show me the money" approach. Once again, the Forge's upholding of Actual Play over abstract theory (which is pretty funny, considering our reputation) wins out.

Jonathan Walton wrote: The thing about your model, Ron, which makes it so dern useful, is you can begin analyzing games based on observations, without having to know the Intent of the players involved. This is one of the main differences between it and Threefold Theory, from what I understand, since the latter is all about player/designer motivations, not exhibited behaviors.

Creative Agenda was the only place in the model where people could possibly think you're talking about intent (and most people make this mistake; I know I did, initially), but you avoid that by focusing on a "show me the money" approach. Once again, the Forge's upholding of Actual Play over abstract theory (which is pretty funny, considering our reputation) wins out.

Totally, John. I agree 100%. Very nicely stated.

In analyzing other people's behavior, all you have is their exhibited behavior, but in analyzing your own behavior, what you've got to work with is your own intent. That's why the Formalist/Intentionalist split in aesthetics will never get worked out, because artists deal with their own intentions while audiences deal with the work that results.

Jonathan Walton wrote: Creative Agenda was the only place in the model where people could possibly think you're talking about intent (and most people make this mistake; I know I did, initially), but you avoid that by focusing on a "show me the money" approach. Once again, the Forge's upholding of Actual Play over abstract theory (which is pretty funny, considering our reputation) wins out.

M. J. Young wrote: The trumpeter who was successful always intended to play the music and do it well; his actions prove it. The trumpeter who never played never really intended to play, whatever his statements on the subject. It is not what people say they intend that matters, but what they show they intend. The intention is there throughout; it is recognized through the actions, and thus identified after the fact.

M. J. Young wrote: Ultimately, unless you are prevented by outside forces, you will do what you intend to do. You might say you intended to do something else--you might even believe that you intended to do something else--but your real intent will control your actions.

John Kim wrote:

M. J. Young wrote: Ultimately, unless you are prevented by outside forces, you will do what you intend to do. You might say you intended to do something else--you might even believe that you intended to do something else--but your real intent will control your actions.

I don't think this entirely applies to artistic/intellectual endeavors. I mean, coming up with a creative work isn't like taking out the trash. For example, I might really intend to finish a crossword puzzle without looking any words/facts up -- but I get stuck and can't do it. Maybe I intend that my painting will be a photorealistic view of a horse, but it doesn't come out that way. Is there some outside force stopping me? No. But that doesn't mean that I never intended those outcomes.

John Kim wrote: I might really intend to finish a crossword puzzle without looking any words/facts up -- but I get stuck and can't do it.

John Kim wrote: However, you should also consider a trumpeter who genuinely tries, but perhaps doesn't have much natural talent and moreover has bad teachers who give her harmful advice.

I think there's some confusion based on how people are using the word "intent." Historically, when talking about an artist's intentions, we're not referring to some bull-headed determination to keep on chugging and create a piece of art, exactly as originally intended, surmounting all obstacles. While that may work perfectly well when talking about your intent to take out the trash, when talking about long-term projects like art, that kind of view just doesn't apply.

Imagine a work as complex as a painting or a roleplaying game. The creator's intentions for the piece are obviously going to develop over the lifetime of the piece. Some will get realized, some will get altered, and some will probably never be realized at all. If you're talking about intentions that will inevitably be realized, then, in my mind, you're not talking about intentions at all, you're talking about a specific kind of intentions, whch aren't usually what's implied when people use that word. I would call that something like "determination." Obviously, if the trumpet player has the intent to be a good musician, but no determination, his intention probably won't get realized.

Likewise, an artist with no determination will probably quit at the first sign of trouble. However, you seem to be implying that altering or dropping certain intentions reveals a lack of the determination required to realize them, which I find preposterous. There seems to be no acceptance of human limitations. Sure, it sounds nice to say that anyone can do anything, as long as they try hard enough, but I don't think that's a proven fact. The American Dream is not a law of physics. Sometimes the factors that are against your or the task that you have picked for yourself is simply impossible.

Say I want to create a sublime roleplaying game, of such obvious beauty and elegance such that everyone who plays it will love it. I could work on this goal for my entire life and still not realize it. Sometimes you set your sights too high, but that doesn't mean you never had such intentions.

So, I still think Creative Agenda talks only about demonstrated intentions, but there could be others lurking in there that don't get expressed, because it may not be possible to do so. I don't see this as a problem, but it is important to remember.

Hello Jonathan,

I think that M.J. and I are simply letting those "lurking intentions" take care of themselves - which is to say, remain absent from the analysis.

The same applies to the hypothetical trumpeter, absent from my example, who is very much like trumpeter #2 but gets hit by a bus on his way to his first gig, meets a nurse in the hospital, and goes into selling insurance instead - perhaps with mild regrets, but (let us say) remaining happy until the end of his days. Casting no aspersions on his astounding Creative Agenda prior to this event, I do consider it irrelevant to the analysis of such things. The same goes if the fellow merely decided to do anything else, for whatever reason, along the way.

You see, these trumpeters are actually myself. I was pretty good at playing this instrument by my late teens, to the extent of getting to mild professional level. It turned out to be less important than other things in my life; whether I'm #1, #2, or #3 remains a matter of observer interpretation (certainly not mine; I'd be the worst judge). What matters is that my nascent or (who knows) actual Creative Agenda, such as it was regarding music, cannot be a subject of analysis - it never found expression out of what might be considered training experiences. I cannot be a data point regarding trumpet playing as art, as career, or even as sideline hobby.

So all of the ifs, ands, and buts presented so far are, to me, essentially "reality's little fuzz" in the application of the model, and not especially important in terms of talking about actual play. Remember the arrow! Once you're talking about Creative Agenda, you're talking about a real Social Contract (Bob, Bill, Sue, and Sue-Ann are playing Goblin-Spawn), a real Explorative Context (these characters, this setting, this situtation, etc), and ... to get into the Creative Agenda box/arrow, we have to be talking about them really playing, and what they do.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: I think that M.J. and I are simply letting those "lurking intentions" take care of themselves - which is to say, remain absent from the analysis.

Hi Jonathan,

Dead bang center.

One of the connotations of "agenda," as a term, which makes it at least a little better than (say) "goal" and much better than "intent," is that one can have an agenda without understanding or verbalizing it, and that agendas are often expressed only as actions or outcomes.

All possible misunderstandings of my use of the term are founded in Intentionalist readings, as you say. I'm sure you'll appreciate that an evolutionary biologist with one foot firmly planted in the study of behavior is well-accustomed to the inevitability of such readings, especially when they're misplaced, despite any and all verbal care to the contrary.

Your model implies that, until we actually play a game (or, better yet, observe others playing a game), we don't really know much about it. All we have is intentions and ideas, but no demonstrated qualities.

Jonathan Walton wrote: BUT (and this is John's point, I think), most artists understand their artwork based on their own intentions, not the results. When I look at a game or other work that I've created, I often think of it in terms of what I want it to be, not what it is. You've said that the Storyteller system suffers from this, claiming to be something that it isn't.

*Does the "I've-finally-understood-Ron's-model" dance!*

Thanks, Ron, for walking me through it and dealing with all the crap it took to get me to this point.

John Kim wrote: I'm not sure I entirely understand how you are using "Intentionalist"...

John Kim wrote: My point is that it is reasonable to look at behavior instead of intent -- but there is also use for looking at intent.

Ron,

The trumpet analogy was excellent. Is it ok if I use it elsewhere?

Johnathan,

Great thread. I have been quietly watching from the sides and agree with most of what has been said.

Jonathan Walton wrote: Ron's model has only begun to examine how we translate intentions into actual play (Techniques and Ephermera, basically).

Jonathan Walton wrote:
Anti-intentionalists are often Proof-is-in-the-Pudding folks, who'd really like Ron's model, but there are issues here too. For instance, some experimental types of art seem to only be fully enjoyable if you know what the author is trying to do.

Jonathan Walton wrote: EVERYONE talks about Intentionalist interpretations of artwork, all the freakin' time ("I wonder what he meant by that..." "Why did she choose to do it that way..."),

Consider, though, the example John wrote: If someone bumps into me, I want to know if it was a deliberate slight or an accident.

M. J. Young wrote:

Consider, though, the example John wrote: If someone bumps into me, I want to know if it was a deliberate slight or an accident.

This is really where intent lies, in my understanding. This is the legal definition of "intent": did he intend to hit John, or did he not intend to hit John? Now, if he hit John once, we might be lost on the subject; he could tell us anything he wants. However, if he hits John repeatedly, or if he similarly hits a lot of people, then we begin to suspect that either he lacks motor control and is a danger to himself and others, or he intends to hit people. Similarly, if he smiles or laughs, apologizes insincerely, points and snickers, tells his friends about how he pulled one over on us--well, now we're pretty sure of his intent. In the end we don't care what he says his intent was, and we might not always care what he thought his intent was; we care about what his actions reveal about his actual intent.

Hello,

This thread has, I think, served its primary purpose. John, although what you're now talking about is - to use your term - interesting, I'm not sure that it really needs to get hashed out for purposes of talking about models of role-playing, or their utility.

The reason I say this is that, whatever method of divining "intent" you would use with the bumping-person, it must involve further information, a basis for comparison, and a degree of inference, just as in your example. Great! That's all we're talking about. That's the point of agreement between what everyone has said so far. I don't see any basis for blowing up smaller and smaller philosophical bits into longer and longer posts.

However, I don't want to act as shutter-down at the moment, so if you guys really want to keep going on generalized issues of intention and meaning, feel free ... but please consider whether that discussion is better suited to private email or similar.

Best,
Ron