[Dark Ages Vampire] Assessing Creative Agenda
Frank Tarcikowski:
On a more thoughtful note: There are of course certain combinations of Techniques that are streamlined toward a certain Creative Agenda, though I’m hesitant to talk about this because I feel this point is often overrated. Most Techniques and even combinations of Techniques are ambiguous. But say we have such coherent a bundle of Techniques, like e.g. Dogs in the Vineyard played as written. The mere fact that these Techniques are applied isn’t enough to assess a Narrativist CA. You still need to look at the stuff I mentioned, at the communicated appreciation, on a sustained level.
I have seen groups go through the procedures of Dogs and just never ignite, because the players weren’t interested. That’s also why I stated, in the parent thread, the “genuine interest” of the players as prerequisite. Reithan, in your game, I think it might be the other way round: The interest is there, and the Techniques don’t work out. That’s why I suggested to focus on working out the Techniques issue and not to worry about CA at the moment. Caldis is right: Figuring that out is important, but I suggest it’s the second step, not the first one, and that it will come pretty naturally once you get over the Techniques issue.
As far as fictional content and CA goes, here’s a quote from “Narrativism: Story Now” by Ron Edwards:
Quote
Let's say that the following transcript, which also happens to be a story, arose from one or more sessions of role-playing.
Lord Gyrax rules over a realm in which a big dragon has begun to ravage the countryside. The lord prepares himself to deal with it, perhaps trying to settle some internal strife among his followers or allies. He also meets this beautiful, mysterious woman named Javenne who aids him at times, and they develop a romance. Then he learns that she and the dragon are one and the same, as she's been cursed to become a dragon periodically in a kind of Ladyhawke situation, and he must decide whether to kill her. Meanwhile, she struggles to control the curse, using her dragon-powers to quell an uprising in the realm led by a traitorous ally. Eventually he goes to the Underworld instead and confronts the god who cursed her, and trades his youth to the god to lift the curse. He returns, and the curse is detached from her, but still rampaging around as a dragon. So they slay the dragon together, and return as a couple, still united although he's now all old, to his home.
The real question: after reading the transcript and recognizing it as a story, what can be said about the Creative Agenda that was involved during the role-playing? The answer is, absolutely nothing.
By the way, I’m fine with talking about Reithan’s game in this thread, I actually think that’s a great idea. But I’ll be off for a while now, I really have to cut on my internet time at work.
- Frank
Reithan:
Quote from: Frank Tarcikowski on January 24, 2008, 11:10:10 PM
Quote
To me, it's a fallacy to say you can have a ton of Techniques, System, Exploration and Social Contract in place that all support a certain CA, and then say that those will have no bearing on what your final CA becomes.
The point is: They don't. That description of Techniques and Ephemera up there? Fits 100% for the Reign game I'll play in tonight. Which is totally Narrativist.
To me, by definition they HAVE TO.
An Ephemera is ANYTHING done at the table. A technique is a combination/grouping of those Emphemera.
So, to say that a CA has absolutely nothing to do with anything that actually happened during a game, you may as well just say "Well, you just sort of randomly assign a CA - they're not really determined by anything."
If you had a coherent CA - it was do to SOMETHING that was going on in your games. Those somethings are Ephemera. Those Ephemera can be classed into groups as Techniques.
So, if your CA is determined by Ephemera and Ephemera can be grouped in Techniques, then YES Techniques determine your CA.
The point, I think, and I could be totally off-base here, that Ron & others have consistantly made is that your CA is not the sum of all your Ephemera - just the sum of the ones that were important to your group. So, you can have a lot of false leads these...you can reference TONS of Techniques and Ephemera and if you don't make any note of which ones were REALLY important to your group then it all means nothing.
What I was saying above though it you had a detectable 'theme' or 'trend' to your Techniques. That theme would influence your CA. Now, sure, you could easily have just been doing all that stuff by coincidence and in fact the only 'important' bits to you was the Nar bits and thus you played a Nar game...but as the majority of the mentioned Techniques trended towards Sim, I guessed (and in this case correctly) that the CA was Sim.
Yes, it's still a guess. But, it's an educated guess.
Similarly, if someone said "My group's interested in exploring Nar play" then you could probably suggest some Systems, Techniques or Ephemera to try that would help support or enhance that style of CA.
Frank Tarcikowski:
Hey Reithan, let me set one thing straight: My purpose in this thread was not to put up some thesis for argument. The purpose was me explaining the Big Model to you, because you expressed your frustration at not understanding, and I'm pretty sure I do understand. Of course, you'll have to believe me that I understand (maybe this helps). You don't have to give me that credit, and if you don't, that will be fair enough and I won't be offended. In that case, however, I suggest that someone else (specifically, Ron) should take over, because then it makes little sense for me to go on. Your call.
- Frank
Reithan:
Quote from: Frank Tarcikowski on January 25, 2008, 01:04:44 PM
Hey Reithan, let me set one thing straight: My purpose in this thread was not to put up some thesis for argument. The purpose was me explaining the Big Model to you, because you expressed your frustration at not understanding, and I'm pretty sure I do understand. Of course, you'll have to believe me that I understand (maybe this helps). You don't have to give me that credit, and if you don't, that will be fair enough and I won't be offended. In that case, however, I suggest that someone else (specifically, Ron) should take over, because then it makes little sense for me to go on.
Ok, Frank. I wasn't replying on your assumed basis of me arguing with your, or competing with you or trying to proove you wrong.
Though, your assertation that basically your points are not up for discussion is, imo, not a very good standpoint. Anyone who is unwilling to discuss his beliefs is fundamentally weakening them.
Now, I do believe you understand what you're saying - or I wouldn't even be paying attention to you, but I don't believe I have to take everything you say as gospel without explaination.
The only point I'm trying to discuss here, which you seem either unwilling or able to do at this moment is already said in your very own post that you just referenced:
Quote from: Frank Tarcikowski on January 18, 2007, 07:09:10 AM
Attention: Creative Agenda is the full picture! It is recognized when watching a group play for a longer instance, with special attention to moments where specific priorities may conflict with each other. That’s not to say that any action by a player at any time during play needs to fit a scheme or something.
You said it, Ron agreed with it, and I'm trying to draw attention to it, yet now somehow I'm the badguy? I don't get that.
I'm saying what you've both already said: Creative agenda includes all points and parts of a roleplaying experience. That includes System. That includes Techniques. That includes Ephemera and Color and all the other great things I've read about in the Big Model. I didn't come up with this idea. I'm just regurgitating it.
What I have come up with on my own, which, I think, is a pretty basic inference, is that as all of these things are peices of your CA, they all have an EFFECT on your CA. Each individual peice itself may not innately determine what your CA is - but they ALL affect it.
To that end, many times Ron, in his articles has mentioned Techniques or System which more readily support or enhance a given CA than another. Sure you can use them for other CAs and they may work just fine, but they have a 'bias' toward a given CA.
My inference here, is that if you look at "the full picture" (your definition of a CA) and notice an overal trend in the bias of the individual pieces of the group's roleplaying experience, then that overall bias will have a large effect on the group's CA. I really don't see this as reaching very far, logically. Take, for instance your assertation that one should pay "attention to moments where specific priorities may conflict with each other". Any Technique or Ephemera used by a group has been used for a reason. Either it's the only one they know, it's the best one they like, or it's just better than the others they know for the given gaming experience. Given that each piece MAY (not always) display a bias towards a certain CA, it's logical to assume that, over time, a group playing under a given CA will tend to swap out pieces of their full picture for other pieces that will better support their CA - pieces with a 'bias' towards that CA.
So, if one looks at a game that's gone on for more than just a short time, or at a game played by players with more than a couple GOOD games under their belts collectively, one should assume that most of the Techniques and Ephemera and whatnot that are in play are there for a reason. Those reasons may also include that individual component's 'bias'. So, if you notice an overarching trend in the 'bias' of all peices, then, I think, logically, you would be able to make a fairly educated guess that this 'bias' indicates the group's CA.
If I have made a mistake in my logic somewhere here, or if you find that this does not hold up under scrutiny I would, and I mean this completely honestly and seriously, LOVE to have it pointed out.
NOTE: By 'pointed out' I do NOT mean just going, "NO, you're wrong!" But, to actually explain it to me WHY, HOW or WHERE I have become flawed in my thinking.
Frank Tarcikowski:
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.
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page