The Forge Forums Read-only Archives
The live Forge Forums
|
Articles
|
Reviews
Welcome,
Guest
. Please
login
or
register
.
January 28, 2023, 02:45:13 PM
1 Hour
1 Day
1 Week
1 Month
Forever
Login with username, password and session length
Forum changes:
Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Search:
Advanced search
275647
Posts in
27717
Topics by
4285
Members Latest Member:
-
Jason DAngelo
Most online today:
186
- most online ever:
660
(January 18, 2023, 03:22:41 PM)
The Forge Archives
Inactive Forums
Scattershot
Emergent Techniques: an Ambitious Approach...
Pages: [
1
]
« previous
next »
Author
Topic: Emergent Techniques: an Ambitious Approach... (Read 12647 times)
Le Joueur
Member
Posts: 1367
Emergent Techniques: an Ambitious Approach...
«
on:
May 14, 2002, 09:26:47 AM »
[Reading
Robin's Laws
by Robin Laws got me thinking. So many of his "Player Types" rang clearly of the Scattershot Model, I thought it scary, except numerous times he had
two
examples per Approach. They seemed like valid examples, so I got to thinking about what he had identified that I had yet to. For those who've read it, I include 'notes' about his model; if you haven't read this thought-provoking 'book,' just skip the box parentheses.]
After playing around with Robin Laws' model and mine, I finally concluded what I hadn't done was break down 'Commitment' into obvious 'levels.' I'd like to address them here because I do believe that even
within
each Approach (the Approaches are described in detail in
the Scattershot Gaming Model
), incompatible degrees of Commitment will cause problems, left unspoken. So far, I can't imagine more than three 'levels' that are relevant, Ambitious, Intentional, and Passive. Not to say that one doesn't change in their Commitment level from moment to moment or session to session, one of the most frequent times of Transition comes when a quorum of the group dips heavily towards Passive and reorients their Approach.
Ambitious play is more than just play with a 'goal;' it's play bent on pursuit of that goal. Service of that Ambition frequently, but not necessarily, shades into
Self-Conscious play
so that one may 'get more of what they want' even though it means 'stepping outside' of their Approach at times to 'aim for it.' Approach conflict comes into sharp focus when both parties are Ambitious about their Approaches. Hopefully knowing what they are can avoid the 'mine is the right way to play' type of arguments.
An Ambitious
Avatar
player is deeply concerned with who and 'how their persona is.' Not only do they pay close attention to this, they want to constantly 'poke and prod' their persona to elicit responses (a little like 'picking at scabs'). [This is most analogous to Robin's Method Actor and can be a thorn in any other group Approach for just the reasons he lists.]
There are several
Joueur
play Ambitions, 'beating the odds,' proving a point, being the 'test pilot,' or even 'winning,' to name only a few. They like to 'try things out,' often in a 'test to destruction' fashion at times. Most of this Commitment has to do with 'getting stuff done' in the game, as
often
as possible; it's not the size of the impact, but the frequency that counts. [This includes Robin's Power Gamer. He sketches out a few of the fields that an Ambitious
Joueur
might seek, but I don't think he has all of them.]
While superficially, Ambitious Commitment may seem at odds with the
Swashbuckler
Approach, Ambitious
Swashbucklers
will aggressively 'go forth.' They are frequently 'troublemakers' (both within the game when functional, and without when dysfunctional). Whatever a game has to offer, they will want more. [Robin's Butt-Kicker falls mostly into this Commitment/Approach, but doesn't cover all the same ground. Ambitious
Swashbucklers
can also be aggressive explorers (always headed to that place 'over the horizon').]
An Ambitious
Auteur
player usually has some kind of specific (even if unstated) purpose. They might want to evoke a certain 'message' given to strong theme expressed in the game (or maybe just 'discover' such). They could seek to 'dive deeply into' the 'character' of a setting (like 'living at the bottom' of a Noir game, reveling in the atmosphere). If there's anything that unifies the game,
as a whole
, you can just bet that an Ambitious
Auteur
player wants it either protected or increased. [The Storyteller of Robin's falls into this category, but with the proviso that 'story' is the singular most important 'unifying element' that the Ambitious
Auteur
wants to elevate. There are many more 'global elements' out there than 'story' to my mind.]
There is a whole class of gaming founded on the idea that players creating messages on a centralized theme can be heightened into a singular Ambition for a game (all the way into its design focus). While I like catering to as many types of players as I can, Scattershot cannot come near this 'end all, be all' Ambitious manner of gaming due to its Transitional nature.
Intentional play is clearly of its own Approach, but other than that, each does not 'push' its agenda as 'hard.' Getting everyone into the same Approach can help a game stay focused and can almost become crucial when the decision is made to actively Transition a game to a different Approach. The problem is, there is no such thing as Approach purity. People's tastes vary not only from day to day, but moment to moment, so the whole idea about knowing the Approaches is that you can identify potential clashes. Moreover, watching out for these clashes eventually becomes almost second nature, needing no terminology or explicit consideration. I include this information largely for those 'learning the ropes' and on the occasions we all have, of having a bad day. (Think of these as crutches for when your game 'breaks its leg.')
Playing the
Avatar
Intentionally means clearly focusing on what the game 'means' to the persona. While it isn't strikingly important to seek out evocative situations, this Approach to play still puts everything into a personal context. A frequent manner employed here is 'putting oneself into the situation.' ("What if I were there?") Anything that deprives these players of their sense of 'persona identity' is the no-no of this Committed Approach (even of the Ambitious version, but here it is central). It can also be important to make sure to give this Approach its 'time to shine,' otherwise it becomes pointless as part of the group effort to game. [In Robin Laws'
Robin's Laws
, the Specialist covers some of the Commitment to this Approach, although mostly in the 'time to shine' perspective. I get the impression that he had some significant Specialists in his games who 'played dirty' to get their 'time.']
The difference between an Ambitious and an Intentional
Joueur
player is often a matter of scope. Whereas an Ambitious
Joueur
player will probably want to 'make a difference' in as many situations as they can
frequently
, an Intentional player may take the 'grander scheme of things' into account and seek to have the 'biggest impact' possible in the long term. It's still important to them how much or how well they can affect the game, just not as much how often. [The Tactician of Laws' book is similar but tends to restrict it
only
to the larger scope.]
Intentional
Swashbucklers
are
explorers, but they easily get sidetracked by concerns other than 'getting around' or 'doing stuff.' While this Commitment does not stress how much is covered, it still focuses on what's
in
the game and 'experiencing' it. (And likewise can cause pacing nightmares as they innocently 'wander off' to experience some interesting delight.)
When playing the
Auteur
Intentionally, a player really wants to support the atmosphere and the Genre Expectations. They will also be interested in 'keeping the game together' or focused, frequently taking on a more 'supportive' role. This broader collection of priorities does not mean a lack of centrality; an Intentional
Auteur
player still wants the game to function well as a unit (within their priorities), they just don't put as much stress on any one concern.
[Laws is largely silent on the concepts of
Swashbucklers
and
Auteur
players who only practice Intentional Commitment. I believe that this is because they largely don't become a problem outside of games that contrast with those Approaches. And when played in those, these Committed Approaches look very much like his Butt-Kickers and Storytellers, only to a lesser degree (further heightened by the contrast). His 'book' is more in response to problems he sees coming up in gaming and clearly states that it is not 'for beginners.']
The various Passive forms of play can often be confusing because they are only subtly different from each other. Almost all of the Passive Commitments to gaming have gotten bad names. It's not terribly fair, seeing as these are the players who often cement a group together or otherwise 'fill in' an otherwise Ambitious game when there aren't enough players to Commit to an Approach. For simplicity's sake, I'm going to only touch on these based on their 'bad names.' [Laws calls all these Casual Gamers, lumping them all together. I had a shy, close friend who fell squarely into this camp and knowing him has given me a whole different perspective on the social 'goings on' in gaming, so I think that Laws does them a disservice.]
A Passive
Avatar
player is often called a 'navel gazer,' because of their semi-conflicting interest in their persona's perspective in games Committed to different Approaches. The Passive
Joueur
player is often (unfairly) lumped into the more dysfunction of the 'munchkin' archetype, because their interest in persona capabilities can be at odds with the Approach the game actually takes. A
Swashbuckler
of Passive Commitment is a 'tourist' or 'escapist,' mostly wanting to 'ride along' and 'see the sights.' I don't have any slang for the Passive
Auteur
player; their concern with 'getting it right' often disappears as they work to support whatever Approach is the general Commitment of the game. The most important thing to note is that all of these Committed Approaches put 'playing along' ahead of what they value, but [I disagree with Laws here] they
do
have Approaches of their own.
Ultimately one of the reasons Commitment is so important has to do with how well a mixed group can function together. [Robin's work focuses primarily on getting them all to work together, but I am not so sure that some of the combinations are worth the work necessary on the gamemaster's part, since Robin clearly thinks that's how it should be done.] I recommend that divergent Ambitious play is almost too much effort to bring together, because those players will likely run into many situations where their 'needs' are thwarted.
On the other hand, I believe if a group is composed mostly of Intentional Commitments, they can often temporarily 'set their interests aside' to let different Approaches take the stage. This can work as long as all the selected Approaches are openly accepted and dignified to the satisfaction of their practitioners. I'll get more into the 'get along' Techniques when I attempt the 'leadership' Technique idea I've been working on.
In my experience [and apparently Robin's], Passive Commitment players are pretty much happy in any game (although as their Commitment 'flares up' in contrast, I can imagine a certain amount of grumbling about Ambitious 'extremists.'). Overall, the most important thing to watch for is when Commitment goes into a period of Transition. Whether for the individual or for the group, it can signify the time for a change of Focus (the time to consciously make use of Scattershot's Transition Techniques).
It is my hope that I am finally 'getting to the meat' of what people want to know about Scattershot's Techniques. I am finally getting through a lot of the 'bedrock' of the foundation and I imagine sometime soon I may actually be able to address actual play situations and their techniques (which present the vast body of my work thus far, unfortunately). I look forward to any and all comments.
Fang Langford
Logged
Fang Langford is the creator of
Scattershot presents: Universe 6 - The World of the Modern Fantastic
. Please stop by and help!
mtr1966
Guest
Emergent Techniques: an Ambitious Approach...
«
Reply #1 on:
October 11, 2002, 09:56:03 PM »
I only have one question of this model. Where do you fit the players who analyse gaming to death vs. the players who just go out and play? ;-)
Seriously, it's an interesting model that is to me more compelling than G-N-S. Thanks for making my first read of The Forge an interesting one.
Logged
Le Joueur
Member
Posts: 1367
Did You Read the Parent Article?
«
Reply #2 on:
October 12, 2002, 09:07:53 AM »
Quote from: mtr1966
I only have one question of this model. Where do you fit the players who analyse gaming to death vs. the players who just go out and play? ;-)
Seriously, it's an interesting model that is to me more compelling than G-N-S. Thanks for making my first read of The Forge an interesting one.
You did read
the parent article, the one that goes into detail
about the scheme of Approaches as they relate to each other? Admittedly, this article does speak better about the four 'name' Approaches separately, but the older one really gets better into how they compare and some of how you separate different player preferences into different types.
As for the separation you describe, I need to point out that the first players aren't really playing, they're analyzing. The could be analyzing the game based on any of the Approaches. Same goes for the 'just go out and play'ers. I actually go into a fair amount of detail about why some groups become become 'paralyzed with analysis' in
my article about "Who's in Charge"
with some suggestion about how to avoid this problem (and how to know when it's not a problem).
Let me know if that helps somewhat. I'd be really happy to answer some questions about Ambition and the Approaches, if you've got any.
Fang Langford
Logged
Fang Langford is the creator of
Scattershot presents: Universe 6 - The World of the Modern Fantastic
. Please stop by and help!
Le Joueur
Member
Posts: 1367
Graphic Style!
«
Reply #3 on:
November 13, 2002, 02:26:43 PM »
Check out the new
Graphic Depiction of the Model
!
Fang Langford
p. s. I promise I'll get to the second level of the model sometime this year!
Logged
Fang Langford is the creator of
Scattershot presents: Universe 6 - The World of the Modern Fantastic
. Please stop by and help!
Pages: [
1
]
« previous
next »
Jump to:
Please select a destination:
-----------------------------
Welcome to the Archives
-----------------------------
=> Welcome to the Archives
-----------------------------
General Forge Forums
-----------------------------
=> First Thoughts
=> Playtesting
=> Endeavor
=> Actual Play
=> Publishing
=> Connections
=> Conventions
=> Site Discussion
-----------------------------
Archive
-----------------------------
=> RPG Theory
=> GNS Model Discussion
=> Indie Game Design
-----------------------------
Independent Game Forums
-----------------------------
=> Adept Press
=> Arkenstone Publishing
=> Beyond the Wire Productions
=> Black and Green Games
=> Bully Pulpit Games
=> Dark Omen Games
=> Dog Eared Designs
=> Eric J. Boyd Designs
=> Errant Knight Games
=> Galileo Games
=> glyphpress
=> Green Fairy Games
=> Half Meme Press
=> Incarnadine Press
=> lumpley games
=> Muse of Fire Games
=> ndp design
=> Night Sky Games
=> one.seven design
=> Robert Bohl Games
=> Stone Baby Games
=> These Are Our Games
=> Twisted Confessions
=> Universalis
=> Wild Hunt Studios
-----------------------------
Inactive Forums
-----------------------------
=> My Life With Master Playtest
=> Adamant Entertainment
=> Bob Goat Press
=> Burning Wheel
=> Cartoon Action Hour
=> Chimera Creative
=> CRN Games
=> Destroy All Games
=> Evilhat Productions
=> HeroQuest
=> Key 20 Publishing
=> Memento-Mori Theatricks
=> Mystic Ages Online
=> Orbit
=> Scattershot
=> Seraphim Guard
=> Wicked Press
=> Review Discussion
=> XIG Games
=> SimplePhrase Press
=> The Riddle of Steel
=> Random Order Creations
=> Forge Birthday Forum