What is Right to Dream for?
Simon C:
I think a thing that's causing confusion in this thread is that there are two kinda-overlapping but disparate ideas of what Right to Dream is.
There's the one that Ron proposes in his essay on the subject, and which has been developed a little since then, which is all about the experience of the "Rightness" of the "Dream": Building a fictional world, and testing the limits of what it can contain. Enjoying the resilience of your vision. Probably this also contains the kind of immersive, experiential play that Eero talks about.
Then there's what Vincent talks about on his blog. I think this is an attempt to define the same thing in a different way. Vincent talks about play where moral judgement of the characters is off the table - play is entirely "wish fulfillment" in the sense that you have a vision of the character, and everyone else acts to affirm and not challenge that vision.
Here's my take on these. I don't see how the first formulation of Right to Dream is incompatible with Story Now play. I don't see how you can't enjoy and test the resilience of your vision, while also exploring premise. Those two things don't seem mutually exclusive to me.
That's why I think Vincent reformulated Right to Dream as about not making moral judgements of the characters. That is, clearly, incompatible with play where you do make moral judgements of the characters, which characterises our current understanding of Story Now.
So what I'm saying is that I think this second definition of Right to Dream isn't exclusive of exloring Premise either. I think that not making judgements of characters is a technique, a technique which makes it impossible to explore many of the Premises that I personally find most interesting, but that does allow you to explore other Premises. These are typically pretty bland, phatic statements: Can good triumph over evil? What does it take to be a hero? Can a few people working together change the world?
I think you can reformulate many of the problems that have been called Creative Agenda clash as actually a clash about what premise is being explored in the game, and what techniques are appropriate for doing that.
Simon C:
Caldis,
Those are good points. For sure, ethical considerations were not at the forefront of our decisionmaking. The premise was not "Can you be a good person in an uncaring universe?" But I think every decision that the players made on behalf of their characters was answering the question "What do you do in an uncaring universe?". I think that's why we cared about what happened in play. We cared about the characters making some kind of mark, doing something significant. Not, I think, for the Gamist challenge of the thing (though that's possible), but because that's what gave the characters' actions some kind of meaning. The fact that it all ended in a fireball achieving nothing, was, I think, significant to us on that level.
Anders,
Simulation as something seperate from creative agenda is right on. Vincent talks about it in one of the posts I linked before.
David,
I'm not seeing the distinction you're talking about.
Lance D. Allen:
I'd like to weigh in briefly, as Simulationist play is still my primary preference.
I've probably fallen behind the bleeding edge of what GNS means these days, but I've got a decent grasp on the foundations. Sim play and Nar play can look very similar. The events of play can be identical. The difference is in the priorities of the players playing those events. Nar prioritizes asking thematic questions and answering them through play. Sim prioritizes exploration. I should say Big-E Exploration, in the Big Model sense. Every CA utilizes Exploration extensively, but only Sim makes Exploration the point of playing.
It's the difference between asking "How far will you go to save your family?" and "What would this character do in this situation to save his family?" Or more explicitly "What would it be like to be in this situation, forced to make a hard decision about saving my family?"
Also, exploration of character, situation and setting are only some of the types of exploration prioritized by Sim play. As Eero pointed out in his example of stylized superheroes, sometimes it's about exploration of color. Other times, it's about exploration of mechanics.
So, if I understand correctly, you're asking what tools this gives us? I'm assuming you mean tools to explore what went wrong/right in a given instance of play, and tools to improve future instances of play. If I'm right, we have a few tools. You can still keep the "moral choices"-centric focus, even. How does setting force/encourage moral choices? How do given character archetypes deal with moral choices? How do the mechanics reward/constrain moral choices?
I've more thoughts, but less time. I'd also like to make sure I'm in line with your goals, Simon, before going further.
Caldis:
Vincents talk about moral judgements being off the table isnt anything new. Take a look at the Right to Dream essay, it's big and there's a lot to go through but if you read down aways you'll find this.
"In Simulationist play, morality cannot be imposed by the player or, except as the representative of the imagined world, by the GM. Theme is already part of the cosmos; it's not produced by metagame decisions. Morality, when it's involved, is "how it is" in the game-world, and even its shifts occur along defined, engine-driven parameters. The GM and players buy into this framework in order to play at all."
So Vincent isnt talking about anything new he's just breaking the ideas down into bite site pieces.
I think your on to something important about games and possibly game design. That thematic question that you are getting at is a necessary component in having a game at all and makes it compelling to the players, gives the action meaning like you said the ending in a fireball did for your group of characters. I think it's been talked about in terms of design and having an idea of "what your game is about" and having it shared amongst a group is integral in having an active creative agenda. What you do with that question depends on the CA and how you are going to use it.
So looking at the thematic question again that your play posed. "What do you do in an uncaring universe?" For your group that question was already answered for the most part. They were unscrupulous mercenaries who I'm guessing would do pretty much anything. Play revolved not around how they answered the question but on the ramifications of that answer. They've chosen to go outside the law and morality, put themselves in dangerous situations, what's going to happen when they do that. Story now play on the other hand would be about pushing that question and it's boundaries and taking an ethical stance about the question for this character. Will your character break the law? Will he murder if pushed hard enough? Will he turn on friends and family? That type of questioning doesnt work well if the ones being questioned arent interested in the questions, conversely if someone is looking for those questions but they arent getting them they may lose interest or turn the game in an unwanted direction.
David Berg:
Simon,
A Story Now version: the players want every scene to push toward addressing "What do you do in an uncaring universe?" and they want to answer that question (or a chosen sub-premise thereof) in a single session. If the premise gets ignored for a while, players get bored or antsy. If they can't answer it in a way that makes a statement, they feel unsatisfied.
A Story Eventually (specifically Sim) version: Putting their own unique spin on space mercs, exploring the setting, and celebrating the genre is quite enough for players to enjoy scene after scene and session after session. No one gets bored or antsy if "What do you do in an uncaring universe?" is barely recognized, pursued or developed. The fact that it's explored eventually is good enough. In fact, it's good enough even you already could have known what the answer would be (as Caldis describes).
(Again, these are just examples, and not definitional of the CAs. I'm just trying to highlight the difference in priority.)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page