[Dark Ages Vampire] Assessing Creative Agenda
contracycle:
I don't think the question is "is the model good" but rather "how does one apply it". How does one go from identifying a CA and then deciding to do or not do a specific thing to support or encourage it? If CA cannot be related to techniques or ephemera in any meaningful sense then we do not really have a useful tool. At present it seems the only function of CA is to apply a label to an observed behaviour, which is all very well for broad descriptive purposes but what actual functional USE is it? We don't seem able to say, if I want to design a game or alter a play style, I should seek out these techniques and avoid those. And if we can't do that, how can we have a discussion amongst real people as to what to do, what to change, or why something should be changed?
Reithan:
Quote from: Frank Tarcikowski on January 25, 2008, 04:56:34 PM
The question is: Do we talk about the Big Model, state of the art, what it says, period? Then there is no argument, there is explanation. Or are we talking about whether the Big Model is a good model to begin with? I'm not interested in that.
Agreed, 100%. I do think it's a good model. I can see great examples of it in play in just about any successful game I've ever run or played in.
Quote from: Frank Tarcikowski on January 25, 2008, 04:56:34 PM
I don't know, I thought my example was a really good one because it has those parts in it that, with your technical approach, look like Gam and Nar telltales when they really aren't. I used this example for exactly that reason: Because I think it illustrates well how CA is an underlying principle, and not "what happens each single moment". It's more like "what it keeps coming back to". If that example doesn't work for you, because you went right for what you perceived as the Sim telltales and ignored the rest... hm. I guess then I don't know what else to say.
Did you even read through my last post or just skim it and go "tl;dr, lol!"
This is the exact point I went over in my last post. I am NOT talking about individual Techniques or Ephemera. I am NOT talking about a "single moment".
I AM talking about "what it keeps coming back to" and the "underlying principles".
I did NOT ignore the other parts that weren't Sim-related. I did NOT skip straight to the Sim.
Please re-read my previous post. PLEASE.
Quote from: contracycle on January 25, 2008, 05:17:59 PM
I don't think the question is "is the model good" but rather "how does one apply it". How does one go from identifying a CA and then deciding to do or not do a specific thing to support or encourage it? If CA cannot be related to techniques or ephemera in any meaningful sense then we do not really have a useful tool. At present it seems the only function of CA is to apply a label to an observed behaviour, which is all very well for broad descriptive purposes but what actual functional USE is it? We don't seem able to say, if I want to design a game or alter a play style, I should seek out these techniques and avoid those. And if we can't do that, how can we have a discussion amongst real people as to what to do, what to change, or why something should be changed?
BANG! Spot on. Fucking bullseye. Two thumbs up on this one.
Caldis:
I think this discussion is veering off onto a weird little side trip that isnt going to be very fruitful. I'd suggest we move past the theoretical discussion of the model and get back to the actual games.
What I see different between Frank's description of his game and yours is an agenda, a force that's driving the whole group towards a common goal. The techniques and ephemera his group is using may be supportive of that goal but they dont define the goal. The goal exists beyond the techniques, it uses the techniques to achieve something. I think that may be the problem with discussing your game, you (or the group) dont seem to have a goal or at least not one that's clearly defined. You are looking for techniques that will sort out the problems but if your group doesnt share a goal and you just try and find techniques to suit a goal of your choosing you may just end up butting heads. I see that in the parent thread discussion on how the players turtle and avoid becoming part of the community whenever any possible threat shows up. I also see you wanting to get the players to invest in community but I dont really see you saying why you want that investment? How does investing in the community relate back to any agenda you've been trying to aim for?
Does this make sense to you? I dont want to come across as patronizing but we really need to move past this discussion on what constitutes agenda to move on with your game. If we need to go over this yet I'm willing to continue but I'd rather get on to discussing that summary I asked you to provide.
To be clear the big error I see in your thoughts (and it may just be the way you are wording it not meshing with the way I hear things) is that techniques are part of the creative agenda when they arent, they are tools that support it. Those same tools used slightly differently may support another agenda. We can make out CA by seeing how the tools are used and inferring the reason why they were used that way but just by knowing what they are they dont really tell us that much.
Frank Tarcikowski:
Gareth, you are right, and I am not a Big Model fanboy if you believe it. I'm not saying there should be no talk about what you are pointing at and I certainly have my own thoughts on it. I'm saying three things instead: 1) I'm not interested in that, for personal reasons, which I ask the participants in this thread to respect. 2) Without actual play examples, statements about what "affects" which just hang there, without much meaning. 3) Before one starts questioning the Model, one should first understand what it really says.
Reithan, again, I understand your frustration. Boy have I been pissed by all these guys telling me I didn't understand when I first came to the Forge. Of course there is a connection between Techniques and Creative Agenda. But if I re-read some of your comments from the parent thread, and what you say here, there is a missing link. The missing link is the Reward Cycle. Check me on this:
Role-playing, as an activity, consists of four layers of the Big Model: Social Contract, Exploration, Techniques and Ephemera. All of these are present, to a degree, when you roleplay, as an activity. Creative Agenda may or may not be present and shared. So just because you are doing certain things on Ephemera or Techniques level which seem to lead to a certain goal, may mean different things:
* You are just using that Technique and heading that perceived goal out of habit. For example, not telling a player what his character doesn't know, because it "has to be like that" so you can "immerse".
* You are doing something, on Ephemera or Techniques level, because you like it and it's fun, but there is no direct connection between it and your Creative Agenda. For example, a whitty in-character dialogue that has everybody laughing.
* There is a specific feedback between you doing whatever you are doing and the game's long term pay-off, it ties into your Creative Agenda. In my above play Example, talking to a major NPC and learning new things about them and their history, for example.
(None-exhaustive list.)
I'm talking about observing a group in play and assessing Creative Agenda. What you say about how Techniques are relevant ("System does matter", basically), is all nice but not particularly helpful when you're still assessing CA. Once you have done that, and are sure there is a Shared CA and which one, then you can tell what Techniques work in that context, which ones are broken, which ones are fun but not relevant to CA, and which ones that are not applied yet maybe might fit in well.
In the parent thread, I suggested to focus on Techniques instead of Creative Agenda for a different reason, which I've explained over there: Because I think that your primary problem is killing those die-hard habits, and when you do, then Creative Agenda will work out given a few sessions. The problem is that I am working on a very thin base of information and a lot of assumptions, which is why I may be totally wrong about it, which is why for explanatory purposes, I posted about my own game instead. I mean hey, I didn't even know it was a VoIP game when I posted to the parent thread.
So if your purpose in this thread is to understand what you are missing right now, check out Reward Cycle, as a concept. The difference between play with a Shared CA in place and other play (incoherent or just "agenda-less") is a reliable Reward Cycle. And in those first three parapgraphs where I talk about my game, there is no information with regard to Reward Cycles. Which is why, if you guessed it was Sim from those three paragraphs, that was a guess but nothing more. There was no way to be sure about it. Cool?
- Frank
Frank Tarcikowski:
Oh, and also, I'd like to second this, word by word:
Quote from: Caldis on January 25, 2008, 11:43:01 PM
To be clear the big error I see in your thoughts (and it may just be the way you are wording it not meshing with the way I hear things) is that techniques are part of the creative agenda when they arent, they are tools that support it. Those same tools used slightly differently may support another agenda. We can make out CA by seeing how the tools are used and inferring the reason why they were used that way but just by knowing what they are they dont really tell us that much.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page