What is Right to Dream for?
David Berg:
Simon,
Ah! I like this technique a lot. It sounds to me like you're talking about using theme to inspire character/setting element selection/creation to contribute to the situations that the theme anticipates. (I could happily go on about how this is cool, but for the purposes of this thread*, I'll restrain myself.)
I agree that calling a game G or N or S doesn't get you that, specifically. What does G/N/S get you? I hope someone else chimes in on that. I can only quote from theory; my personal experience is very inconclusive. My understanding of the theory, though, indicates that the G/N/S distinction is good for something other than what your technique is good for, and the two can happily coexist.
*Maybe another thread?
Silmenume:
Hi Simon,
As the old Sim crank in the desert, I am going to agree with your premise that “Right to Dream” as a descriptor and potential guide for play of a particular creative agenda (ostensibly Sim) is a crock for a great number of reasons. Unlike “address of Premise” where there is a fairly solid of what “Premise” is and whole rules systems that guide the “address” process, the phrase “Right to Dream” offers no definition of what “Dream” means nor does phrase “the right” shed ANY light on the process. Adding to the problem is that the word “Dream[ing]” connotes a passive endeavor of letting one's mind wander. It's just as empty a phrase as “the emotional problems of rocks” is.
I also agree with you that Theme is a vital part of what we are referring here to as “Sim” play. The game I've played in and have written about over the years has powerful thematic elements running through it all the time. One the positivist side the themes are part and parcel of why we role-play this particular setting (Tolkien's Middle Earth). One the constricting side (I'm not sure of the appropriate vocabulary word) having Theme's does edit down the content of the game helping to create a contained situation making a better game for all the reasons you indicated.
As you indicated this is not Story Now. Premise has been tossed around quite a bit on this thread and I want to make clear that as “defined” here is a question about the human condition. Theme is a statement about the human condition. In role-play process this means that Theme is a constrictor on player choice. This isn't bad as this is where the challenge (not in Step on Up terms) to the player comes in. Can the player resolve the Situation while confining his choices to Themes of the game? The aesthetic, the beauty, the awesome comes from the creative manner in which a player deals with Situation while at the same time limiting their choices to the Themes being celebrated.
The key is that we are not “making statements” about the human condition, rather we are living (role-playing) our commitments to those statements or beliefs or fantasies about human behavior. In my game for example we cherish the Theme of the epic heroic character. By epic heroic, in Thematic terms, I mean something like that struggling against wrongs of vast consequence (that failure is not just personal but will effect many) and will mean risking your life is worthy and noble. For this to have emotive impact sometimes failure is necessary or there is no risk. So question at hand is not what is the player saying by his choice, but rather is the player going to be able to resolve Situation and Theme?
Why is Theme so important? Because we players are social beings and we are keenly interested about human behavior – even when the character's raiment is “non-human.”
Frank Tarcikowski:
Hey Simon,
Surprising or not, I guess none of the people participating in this thread right now were part of the crowd who were around in the discussions up to 2001 or 2002 when the terminology was developed. I guess many of these terms have grown from those discussions and were what seemed to work at the time, for the people involved.
Personally, I always found it to be problematic that terms like “Premise” and “Theme” suddenly had a very different meaning from the one they would have in a normal conversation. Perhaps they were giving me so much headache because I am not a native speaker. Ron and Vincent starting using the terms “Story Now” and “Right to Dream” more and “Narrativism” and “Simulationism” less, because that was working better for the newer people. But I think you are getting at more than just wording issues here. Creative Agenda has sometimes been described as aesthetic goal or preference, and you are shifting the focus in looking at such aesthetics.
Discourse at the Forge seems to have leaned heavily towards explaining the real world interactions between the real people, because back in the day, these real world interactions seemed to be neglected a lot in discussions about role-playing. Therefore, the Model focuses a lot on the real people and not so much on the fictional content. What you are doing now is, with a clear understanding of what’s going on at the gaming table, reconsidering the fictional content and looking for a red line, for an aesthetic goal or preference that holds the fictional content together and makes it worthwhile to the players, whereby it is already understood that it’s about the players, not about the characters, and that some things need to work out at the gaming table in order for play to be fun. You are doing the next step, zooming into Exploration, leaving Social Contract behind. And you’re using premise and theme (not capitalized) as very valid and sensible terms in discussing what you are doing, only unfortunately there has already been another, capitalized meaning attached to them at the Forge.
It makes a lot of sense to consider Exploration that way when discussing Sim, and in particular, High Concept Sim. And I’m looking forward to you applying that same “second step” at Gam, where I suspect you are going to take a hard look at Challenge.
As concerns the ethical dimension of the fictional interaction, I’m not sure if the connection is just as mandatory as you are making it. I sure follow you that the capacity to act and interact is what makes role-playing unique and interesting. I didn’t take philosophy classes but my understanding of moral is basically the Categorical Imperative, which looks specifically at actions and interactions. Now this could mean that the moral dimension of actions and interactions is what makes them interesting in the first place. Or it could just mean that actions and interactions are interesting per se, and happen to have a moral dimension, too. I for one think that the ethical/moral dimension of character actions is a great topic that deserves looking at (I have a great example in mind, actually). But is it really the defining factor for theme (not capitalized) and aesthetic preference, as we look at the SIS? Or even Creative Agenda all the way up to Social Contract? My impression is rather that you are making two important points in this thread that are, however, not necessarily connected.
- Frank
Anders Larsen:
Simon, I find that I both agree and disagree with you.
I agree that CA is rarely useful to bring up when you try to fix a boring/broken game. Here it is probably much more useful to do it the way you describe.
I disagree, though, with your description of CA. It particular go against my understanding, when you say that the common description of Sim ("enjoy the details of a world") does not need a SIS. The thing is that you can just as well say the same thing about Nar, that confronting ethical choices don't really need a SIS; you can just write a book about it. My problem here is that I can not agree with any understand of the CAs that does not require a SIS.
So here is how I see it: A Creative Agenda is not found in what the single player do, but in how the group together build up the SIS over time. Or to say it in an other way: Your Creative Agenda is not the input you put into the game, it is what you would like the the group as a whole to do with that input.
If the group take the consequences of the single player's choices, and use that to build a story, you have Nar.
If the group take the fictional elements the single player provide, and use that to fill out their understanding of the fiction as an whole, you have Sim.
In my mind these are two distinct (and, for that matter, equally valid) activities, that can not be separated from the SIS. You can of course have moral choices in both Nar and Sim, but the difference is in how the group treat it when it is incorporated into the SIS.
(Disclaimer: I am not sure that my understanding of CA is correct, this is just how I currently sees it)
- Anders
Caldis:
It sounds like you've found an approach that works for you in regards to Exalted and that's great but is that necessarily indicative of truth for all players of a sim game? You even said that tons of people seem to have fun with Exalted even if you didnt understand it, is it possible they enjoy the random mix of stuff that puts you off without having to hook onto a theme?
If you understand GNS as a classification system of how people play then those who are finding enjoyment without looking at theme there play still has to fit into the classification. So clearly Right to Dream still does have a use at least for classification purpose.
I think your making a mistake in conflating theme with Story Now, maybe that's your point that it has been all along. Theme isnt the same as addressing premise and just because you have it doesnt mean you are doing Story Now anymore than having a detailed system means you are doing Right to Dream. Furthermore I think your idea falls apart if you dont consider what agenda will be in play. If you are developing all of play with the idea of focusing on the theme but you dont know whether that theme will be questioned in play or reaffirmed then you dont really know how to move play forward, what direction to take play once those initial thematic developed situations are resolved.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page