[L5R, The Pool, and others] A new look at Drift
Callan S.:
Just a footnote: If it wouldn't be called creative agenda at a stage before the social mechanism, that's okay. What I'm getting at if the guy offers narrativist meat next saturday and you get a narrativist CA on saturday, if he hadn't offered any, what CA would have shown up? Certainly if they wouldn't have gamed at all, his initial thoughts (which are outside the social mechanism) are pivotal in whether a nar or any CA forms at all.
And if they gamed but no one offered any meat (hey, I own a book, turn up on saturday and we'll read it!), what does the text inspire in the people at the table/what meat is in the text, in terms of CA?
Ron Edwards:
Callan, we may or may not be hitting an impasse. Let me know.
My thinking is that whether someone decides "we'll play Narrativist" before the group sits down together is not relevant. Even if every single person in that group nods, smiles, follows that guy's lead, and proceeds to play accordingly, it's still a group dynamic that actually produces the CA. I'm not sure why you're focusing so hard on whether "it" exists before that point. I may not be understanding what events in real life regarding a real game that you're talking about.
I do think it's a relevant inquiry, because one of the issues we're driving at in this thread is arriving at a CA in two cases: (a) a text which is very helpful, directive, and consistent, even if not explicit about goals; and (b) a text which, if followed, results in massive confusion about goals. So yeah, talking about where CA "comes from" (and I don't mean motivation, I mean actual inter-personal dynamics) is key.
Thanks for your attention to this series of threads. Full disclosure: more than once, I've become aggravated by your posts in them, then stepped back to wonder why (because I rarely react emotionally to internet posting), to find that you were bringing up stuff that was absolutely relevant, just not what I felt like talking about myself. Which is bogus on my part. I went back over all of them to look over where you're coming from and what you've said.
Best, Ron
Callan S.:
Darn, looks like an impasse! My understanding of the forge term drift was that it occured in your point #2, because the text/rules didn't really push any particular kind of fun. I'd taken drift to mean that with the one text, I'd think it was gamist, while the guy over there takes it in a sim or nar direction. Drift was more like a description of how some people or whole groups can use the same text yet be so far away in terms of play - they got there by drifting there. It explaned alot to me about why people at the same table could be on such different wavelengths. On reflection I think I just invented this meaning for drift.
Invention or not, while I understand drift in #2, I don't entirely understand the example in #1. Here's probably one of those annoying questions: Why did you all take a supposedly strong gamist text like 3E and go nar with it? Why take a wrench and use it like a hammer? To further complicate that question, I'm not sure 3E actually is a strong gamist text. Everyone goes 'Oh, of course it is' and leaves it at that...but where's any actual evidence or critical method for determining that? Perhaps as a text its still in much in the same position as #1? That's my second annoying question, sadly. Anyway I'll leave it at that.
Tim C Koppang:
I have to say, this thread has me scratching my head a bit. I won't say that Drift isn't due for a thorough going-over, but I'm equally unsure of whether or not the term is as unclear as you are all making it out to be.
If I remember correctly, the concept of drift arose out of a need to describe one aspect of functional and dysfunctional play. This necessarily implicates Creative Agenda, which is a core concept of functional play. Specifically, Drift has always been about shifting from one CA to another as a function of actual play. Any misuse of the term to mean simply changing the rules of a game (without changing CA) is a red herring insofar as arriving at an working definition is concerned. In other words, it is very possible to change the rules of a game without shifting its CA. This isn't Drift, it's just an expression of preference within a given CA.
The question of what a group Drifts from is an interesting one. I have always taken it to mean, "Drift from the objective CA of a game as defined by what the text encourages." This is not a reflection of author intent, much in the same way that the theme of a book or movie has nothing to do with the author's intent. It is defined only by what appears in the finished product.
I think Drift is also strong enough to encompass the shift from the CA that a group begins playing with to another CA during play. In other words, you have to pick a starting point, but that starting point isn't as important as the shift itself -- at least not for purposes of defining Drift.
To go through Ron's list:*
- arriving at CA by putting rules into practice (your "adapting") to get System and presumably a functioning CA
This is certainly not Drift as I've defined it. Learning a game is learning a game. You can't Drift if you don't have a CA to Drift from. To me, this is an entirely different phenomenon.
- playing by CA 1, shifting to CA 2 (rules changes or no rules changes)
- using rules which nicely facilitate "adapting" to CA 1, finding them unsatisfactory (i.e. never actually playing CA 1), and making new rules which then facilitate the preferred CA 2
These are both clearly covered.
- using rules which are a mess, facilitating no CA, finding them unsatisfactory, and making new rules which then facilitate a CA of choice
This is the most interesting example to me. At first, it appears similar to just learning the game. But I suspect it's something closer to this: We tried to learn the game. That didn't work. So we had to change things to make it work.
But is it really drift if there isn't an effective starting point? The game text doesn't support one CA or another. The group didn't start out with a coherent CA. Therefore, intellectually, I tend to say "No Drift," even as I am aware that I've used to term to mean just that.
- and as a separate subject, "changing rules" ranges from the kind of fade-back and bring-forward I described with our L5R game, all the way to altering the written rules so drastically that you have genuinely made a brand-new game
Could be Drift. Could simply be changing the rules. It all depends on the change's effect on the current CA. Creating a genuinely new game is a side-effect, but not an indication of Drift.
What I would add to the list of questions is this scenario: Each player begins the game with a different CA in mind. In play, we see each player attempt to push his own ideas about CA (dysfunctional play). But then as the game proceeds, the group arrives at a common CA. This may or may not involve rule changes. Is that Drift?
*I realize, Ron, that you didn't mean your list as some sort of test. So I apologize for the re-purposing.
Ron Edwards:
Hey guys, I apologize for taking so long to get back to this. All the points required some reflection time.
Callan, you wrote,
Quote
My understanding of the forge term drift was that it occured in your point #2, because the text/rules didn't really push any particular kind of fun. I'd taken drift to mean that with the one text, I'd think it was gamist, while the guy over there takes it in a sim or nar direction. Drift was more like a description of how some people or whole groups can use the same text yet be so far away in terms of play - they got there by drifting there. It explaned alot to me about why people at the same table could be on such different wavelengths. On reflection I think I just invented this meaning for drift.
Yeah, that concept is about the same as Incoherence, in reference both to the text and to subsequent play, rather than Drift. Drift might be a response to that situation, though.
Quote
Here's probably one of those annoying questions: Why did you all take a supposedly strong gamist text like 3E and go nar with it? Why take a wrench and use it like a hammer? To further complicate that question, I'm not sure 3E actually is a strong gamist text. Everyone goes 'Oh, of course it is' and leaves it at that...but where's any actual evidence or critical method for determining that? Perhaps as a text its still in much in the same position as #1? That's my second annoying question, sadly.
Not much to say here. I asked Dan and Chris what they wanted, and they told me. Granted, I articulated the Narrativist option clearly rather than decreeing "This be Gamist, yarrr, let's go!" The reason I did that at all is because I know that the pure color and cultural mind-share of D&D often spark interest in Narrativist play, and I suspected that might be the case for these two. I took great pains not to diminish the attraction of the Gamist approach and articulated them both as equal and fun alternatives.
Regarding the text itself, I'm not sure what to say except to read it and play it in the absence of pre-existing personal priorities wrapped up in the term "D&D," which is probably an annoying answer. However, I'm not saying it merely to annoy you back, but because the text does a pretty good job of integrating Color and Reward, at least for the player (much less so for the DM; the DM's Guide is a mess). Basically, the system is the starting character sheet's way of making a later version of the character sheet, and options within the system affect everything about how that is to be done. Which, as a phrase, is practically synonymous with "good design," and given that quality of design,I think it's easy to see that those system-options are fundamentally strategic (how does my character relate to the party) and tactical (how do I hit hard and stay alive at the same time). In other words, the system becomes fun when you Step On Up.
Tim, you wrote,
Quote
If I remember correctly, the concept of drift arose out of a need to describe one aspect of functional and dysfunctional play. This necessarily implicates Creative Agenda, which is a core concept of functional play. Specifically, Drift has always been about shifting from one CA to another as a function of actual play. Any misuse of the term to mean simply changing the rules of a game (without changing CA) is a red herring insofar as arriving at an working definition is concerned. In other words, it is very possible to change the rules of a game without shifting its CA. This isn't Drift, it's just an expression of preference within a given CA.
From the standpoint of the current Glossary definition, that's correct. Except for two things. CA isn't actually a property of a text in isolation, despite the crucial if often-tenuous relationship between the rules (in the book) and play itself (system). More importantly, we're now confronting the issue of common usage definition.
The grim fact is, we never talked about Drift as only about CA-shifting. We always included some aspect of rules-messing, and "Drift the rules" is now an established and familiar phrase.
I'm a big proponent of resisting common usage if the term was previously nailed down by rigorous and referenced discourse and the divergent usage is easily identified as a clique or localized phenomenon (e.g. Fantasy Heartbreaker as a blanket derogatory at RPG.net). However, if the term is revealed to have been squishy from the start and demonstrates diminishing utility, then current and common usage is important to consider as we initiate or resume rigorous discussion about it. I think that's the current case. So Glossary-schmossary. We have to look at Drift with fresh eyes now.
There's one more, significant issue in your statement, too. CA doesn't define functional play; the only claim is that coherence results in functional play more reliably. Therefore Drift doesn't actually imply arriving at functional play. In fact, we probably need to think of attempted Drift, in which a person or group is hunting for a way to get to a CA but not necessarily getting there, or if they do, arriving at functional play that way.
Quote
The question of what a group Drifts from is an interesting one. I have always taken it to mean, "Drift from the objective CA of a game as defined by what the text encourages." This is not a reflection of author intent, much in the same way that the theme of a book or movie has nothing to do with the author's intent. It is defined only by what appears in the finished product.
Well, I'm going to say that all of that is now a topic for debate among multiple viewpoints. One problem with your interpretation is that "objective CA" in texts is itself a troublesome topic. I've been careful over the years to specify why I think a given text points toward a given CA, but I've also noted that this kind of thinking and logic is very, very hard for others to get into. Witness your own care in your phrasing to excerpt author-intent, which is testimony to others' instant tendency to invoke it unless stopped at the outset. The facts that many texts are ipso-facto incoherent in CA terms, and that the incoherence varies from a simple mess to particular magical-thinking kinds of incoherence (e.g. the Impossible Thing among others), make discussion about this difficult.
Quote
I think Drift is also strong enough to encompass the shift from the CA that a group begins playing with to another CA during play. In other words, you have to pick a starting point, but that starting point isn't as important as the shift itself -- at least not for purposes of defining Drift.
I agree with you from the basis of the Glossary definition, but the question is whether this holds up as we refine or re-shape the notion of what Drift is.
Quote
Quote
- arriving at CA by putting rules into practice (your "adapting") to get System and presumably a functioning CA
This is certainly not Drift as I've defined it. Learning a game is learning a game. You can't Drift if you don't have a CA to Drift from. To me, this is an entirely different phenomenon.
I agree with you on that. That point is mainly there to establish a strong idea of what isn't Drift. Also, it's important because what that feels like isn't easily distinguished, is perhaps indistinguishable, from the next point.
Quote
... But I suspect it's something closer to this: We tried to learn the game. That didn't work. So we had to change things to make it work.
But is it really drift if there isn't an effective starting point? The game text doesn't support one CA or another. The group didn't start out with a coherent CA. Therefore, intellectually, I tend to say "No Drift," even as I am aware that I've used to term to mean just that.
Currently, that question is entirely unanswered. I can't remember any time when we devoted attention to the idea of what might precede the Drift, and what that means for the definition.
Quote
What I would add to the list of questions is this scenario: Each player begins the game with a different CA in mind. In play, we see each player attempt to push his own ideas about CA (dysfunctional play). But then as the game proceeds, the group arrives at a common CA. This may or may not involve rule changes. Is that Drift?
I think it would be included in the Glossary definition, in theory, but I'm also skeptical about it being a real phenomenon. Genuinely incoherent play (as opposed to Zilchplay) doesn't resolve into coherent play, in my experience.
Well, all I can say is, the discussion's begun, and at the moment, I don't have a decided position to defend. I only know we have to hammer out the concepts and maybe end up with a set of distinct terms rather than one. All thoughts and contributions are welcome.
Best, Ron
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page