[UA] I think I grasp Creative Agendas now!
Callan S.:
I'd like to add a footnote, in case this mutates in a few years time like the LP. What someone is evidently doing can be just as missleading as what they say they do or intend to do. The observer can start inventing missleading things that are 'evidently' happening just as much as the subject can misslead with what they say or do. I think the strength in the word 'evidently' refers to physically measurable qualities of play and taking recordings of those. Those can then be compared to particular patterns. However, it's possible for the idea to mutate into the notion that an observer somehow is any better than the subject, in terms of the 'what they say they do or intend to do'. Or maybe this wouldn't apply, but I've kept it at a relatively tight paragraph that's easy to skip.
Abkajud:
Hey, Simon! I had the same kind of experience with Creative Agenda as you, I think - I thought I needed to very actively determine the sort of game I liked, classify it carefully, and then play that.
This led to me only trying out Story Now games, among other things ^_^
When I finally got around to playing a Step On Up game (specifically, Storming the Wizard's Tower), I realized what a CA really is - it's something you observe when looking back at home play went, for the whole group, over the period of play. The other half of it is that your preference for one CA over another (if you have a preference) will not manifest easily - just because you don't like a game doesn't have anything to do with the CA, although of course if you have a strong preference for one or against another, that is important.
With games like Exalted and D&D3.0, I realized I wasn't having fun because the game didn't address what I thought was interesting. It finally clicked, and then I forgot it again, and then I went through this realizing/forgetting process a couple more times, and then started to see how big and small CA is.
The big part is really coherence and the clarity of the game text - D&D4.0 is perfectly coherently Gamist, but the designers don't quite acknowledge this in any way, not wanting to confuse folks who are used to a heavy Sim/Gamist hybrid design.
I think it was actually *good* Gamist design that made me appreciate Gamism, at long last - Storming has lots of Color to play with, but fundamentally the stuff covered by the mechanics is all about setting goals and challenges and overcoming them to show how awesome you are. That doesn't mean my experience of it has to be *only* about that, but it means that's where the game can support me. It can only tentatively support exploring theme or mood or setting (a friend and I used the Interrogation rules to help create a lovely little subplot about a secret pregnancy!), but, I learned, it won't try to STOP you from doing so if you have cool ideas. I learned what Color is, too, because of this game: it's not unimportant or peripheral, and in fact can be quite central to your enjoyment of the game, but it just has minimal direct interaction with the mechanics, or none at all. [checked the Provisional Glossary. Yep!]
I have yet to play a really crystal-clear, well-done Simulationist game, but when I do, I think it'll actually give me a much better idea of what Sim really is. Polaris was not my favorite style of game, but it definitely supported Story Now quite handily - the focus is not on the tactics, or on the setting (If you can readily change the setting and subject matter and the game is still very much intact, I daresay it's not focused on SIm-support), but the emerging tale of woe between the characters. Good. Stuff. ^_^
Gee, all I needed to do to get the Big Model was to actually play games! Whaddya know!
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page