What is Right to Dream for?
Simon C:
Quote from: Eero Tuovinen on March 23, 2010, 10:22:10 PM
A supposition about the idea of continuum between phatic and engaging themes: it seems to me that a theme that is worthy of the name is necessarily completely phatic - that is, internalized by the group and enforced in play. If the group allows breaking the theme as a matter of procedure (such as by allowing player characters to kill villains without being villains themselves), then the theme loses its authoritative structuring power over the process of play and actually turns into a premise: no longer is the point of play in Exploring this fiction, theme included, but rather a new choice is entered: the GM obviously allows and appreciates it if I break the theme, so should I? It's an important choice, and if the group considers it an interesting one, then the game is well on its way towards narrativism.
The above might misunderstand something about Simon's idea, but assuming I got it correctly, I think that I'll have to disagree about the idea that there is a continuum from simulationistic thematic adherence to narrativistic creation of theme through play. At best we can say that there is a continuum in simulationistic play over how well-verbalized and abstracted a theme is; some games only have an implicit theme that emerges by correctly using the game mechanics (or setting), while others have clear mission statements posted in the game's introductory foreword. Similarly we might say that there is a continuum in narrativistic play from a focused universal premise pre-loaded into the game into a situation where the premise is only isolated through play and addressed organically. As an example of the latter, in Sorcerer you basically know in rought terms what the premise is and what you need to do to bring it to the fore, while in The Shadow of Yesterday you actually don't when the game begins; you'll only find it out through play, as players get into their roles.
Eero, I think your understanding of theme is a little different to mine, because I'm not seeing how theme must be phatic to be worthy of the name. I think of theme more like a framework, a reference point against which we give meaning to the actions of the characters. If the group allows the superheroes to kill the villains without becoming villains themselves, maybe they're just playing with a different theme?
I think in labratory conditions or something you might find a theme that was never challenged at all, but in actual play this happens all the time. Now sure, I think there's a big difference in the feel of play depending on how this challenge to the theme is handled, whether we like it and go with it, or whether we shut it down and enjoy the reaffirmation of the rightness of our theme. But I think those two things can happen in the same game at different times, without it being definititive of a radically different agenda. What typically happens is that some genre conventions are up for grabs, and others aren't, sometimes it's ok to challenge the definitions of the characters or the setting, and sometimes it's not.
I'm really struggling to see the distinction between Right to Dream and Story Now that you're trying to maintain.
Twilight 2000: Ask yourself, why are the players playing this game, and not another? Why play a game of survival in a post-apocalyptic world, and not, for example, a game about college-age American gamers? If the only goal is objective realism, they'll be much more successful in the latter endeavor. I argue that they're playing Twilight 2000 because they enjoy the idea of survival in a world stripped of the "softness" of contemporary society. It's the testing of themselves to see if they could "really" survive in such a world (except that I think actuall testing is not the goal, but rather proving that, without the strictures of society, the gamers would be powerful and fearless). The supposedly "realistic" and objective rules are key to addressing that theme.
David Berg:
Quote from: Simon C on March 23, 2010, 09:02:14 PM
I'm hanging on to the idea that theme IS inherant to creative agenda, and that the concept of Right to Dream (and by extension Step on Up and Story Now) isn't a useful concept for describing play.
Dude. Why? Why are you hanging onto this?
Seriously. None of the productive portions of this thread rely on it.
If you care about whether the G/N/S distinction is useful or it isn't, please do some research, find out, and tell us.
Back to theme: in my own RtD (or "RtD"; whatever) play, observations on the human condition come and go in various scales.
1) My game Delve is embedded with a basic "What will you do to get what you want?" theme, with "evil magic" color hung on "what will you do" and "rise from peasanthood" on "what you want".
2) The players customize "not peasanthood" before play, coming up with goals like "become a famed and feared slayer of evil", "become the leader of a new political power not based on noble titles", and "become the grand vizier to a great leader". So now the campaign takes on potential themes of narcissism, vengeance, revolution, manipulation, and selling out.
3) The characters meet some guys who are like them, but with more experience. These veterans are extremely helpful, but also a bit condescending. The players' reactions to them linger, as the veterans are a frequent topic of discussion and questions in planning. "Should we find those guys and tell them this new info? Should we work with them on this mission?" I'm stunned by the amount of animosity the players generate. The human concerns of jealousy and respect somehow become a recurring part of play.
4) The characters are doing something else when they witness a murder. They capture the murderer, take him out to the woods, take all his stuff, interrogate him, and debate letting him go. Finally one character steps up and kills him, gleefully exacting justice; another character helps, grimly resolved; the third dislikes it but goes along for practical reasons. The human concerns of justice and mercy showed up for a few minutes and then went away.
5) One character starts humming a battle ballad on his way into town, and mentions that the hero's name fits the same meter as his own name. The human concern of being remembered popped up for a handful of seconds.
So, I see human concerns being tackled hither and yon, resulting from game design, char-gen, GM adventure design, and inspired roleplay of the moment. That last happens a ton, because each player is simultaneously looking to (a) express their character vision, (b) think as their character and really dig into the experience, and (c) respond to everyone else doing the same.
How can high-color, character-driven play not address human concerns at every turn?
Open-ended situations, where players have no "right answer", and must choose, and comment on the human condition while doing so! Sounds like addressing premise and creating theme, right? However... I've done all these things in a Marvel Superheroes game too, where we really did emulate those comic stories. You know that the Punisher kills people, but who knows if he gets jealous of better vigilantes?
On the other side of the spectrum, long ago I had some games where everyone was focused on coming up with engineering projects to maximize effectiveness. Not much character portrayal, more color on objects in space than on people; human concerns few and far between.
There's a spectrum, but I'm fuzzy on what it'd mean to say it goes from "phatic theme" to "engaging theme". Maybe "more engaging themes than phatic themes" to "more phatic themes than engaging themes"? Or do we need a term other than "theme" for commentary on the human condition that only takes up a few minutes of play?
Looking for one single theme ("phatic" or "engaging") that defines each game I've ever played seems completely impossible. What was the theme of my GURPS game where we played vampires, aliens and robots bent on world conquest, helping each other but also competing?
Frank Tarcikowski:
Hi Simon,
I’d so much rather talk about the positive ideas you are bringing up, than argue the usefulness or uselessness of Creative Agenda and, in particular, the distinction between Nar and Sim at the intersection (or overlapping) of thematically charged up Sim play, and richly imaginative Nar play. I have actually struggled with that distinction myself, to a point where I wasn’t even sure which of both it was I was playing (or was it a Hybrid?) Let me put it this way: GNS is an angle. It has been a good angle for some people to see where they were itching. For you (and me), at this point other angles may be more useful, but where’s the point in asking others to justify how GNS has been of use to them? In particular as GNS is actually giving us a framework right now so I can know where your angle is located, and compare it to mine.
Quote
A theme can exist on a continuum between phatic and engaging. Some aspects of a theme can be engaging, and others not. Players can be more or less engaged by the theme. This, I think, encapsulates my experiences of this kind of play in a way that the "seperate and distinct" GNS categorisations do not.
That’s an interesting observation. I think it’s important to note that “unchallenged” Sim themes can still be dynamic and engaging. That’s also my issue with Vincent’s explanation of Sim play (and, less so, with Ron’s terminology of “preset” theme): They make it sound static and lame. But in Sim play, theme doesn’t have to be static, it can evolve as all participants add to it. That is constructive denial at work. However, opposed to Nar, the point of play is not to challenge thematic statements once they have been made. In Sim play, you enlarge on theme, you modify and evolve theme. In Nar play, you question and challenge theme, tear it down and build it up again from scratch.
I would suggest this distinction can be there and can be fine and isn’t the same as the distinction between phatic and engaging theme, which is an interesting and useful observation in and of itself.
So in a Sim context theme can be quite dynamic (thus, “engaging” by your terms, Simon) if the game is highly thematically charged up and a lot of the players’ contributions are geared towards evolving the theme. The GNS expectation would be for it to still be disruptive if someone tried to throw the established theme out the window entirely, that would be a Nar thing to do.
Quote
What typically happens is that some genre conventions are up for grabs, and others aren't, sometimes it's ok to challenge the definitions of the characters or the setting, and sometimes it's not.
That’s my experience, too. So you could say this is maybe just constructive denial at work, or maybe it’s a hybrid, or maybe it’s Story Now where sometimes the participants just sometimes chose not to challenge theme. I agree the distinction is rather pointless at that instance, and it’s more useful to focus on theme itself. Still I would say it’s useful to be aware of when theme is affirmed/evolved and when it is questioned/challenged, so you can know what happened when you challenge something and you see your fellow player frown.
It’s just dangerous to take it as simplistic: “You either never challenge theme, or you always challenge it.” That’s of course bogus.
- Frank
Simon C:
I'm really tempted to agree that my understanding of theme and GNS can coexist. It'd certainly be easier and possibly even more productive in the short term. But the core of what I'm saying is essentially contradictory to GNS as I understand it, and I don't want to be burdened with maintaining allegiance to the old understanding simply for convenience. Discarding GNS feels like lifting a weight off my shoulders. I invite you all to try it.
For fun, I invite you to try discussing this idea without reference to GNS terms, and see if you find communicating any more difficult. I suspect you won't.
Also, I think it's fair to point out that I'm essentially arguing for a null hypothesis. GNS claims that there are (at least) three seperate and distinct creative agenda types, while I argue there are not. I think I've demonstrated effectively that creative agendas are broadly overlapping and similar, and the burden of proof is on GNS to demonstrate that that's not the case.
Frank,
I think "throwing the established theme out the window" is a disruptive thing to do in any kind of game. Many recent games are designed such that it's very hard to do this (Dogs, My Life With Master), but imagine a Sorcerer game where a player has their character ignore their Demon, and shirks on their Kicker. Instead they're off doing some other thing entirely. Sorcerer is set up to as strongly as possible point you in the direction of a theme, but it's possible to avoid the theme entirely, and it derails play completely. Dogs has a very simple mechanism for protecting its theme. As soon as a Dog makes a choice that puts them outside the thematic scope of the game, they cease to be a Dog. You don't keep playing while your Dogs go off to fight a futile war against the Territorial Authority. You don't keep playing a Dog who has decided that actually the Demons are right. If you kept playing these characters, you'd be derailing the theme of the game in an unproductive fashion. How robust a game's theme is to various character and player actions is a function of design largely, and theme partly, I'm thinking. There's no need to create a classification system that puts very robust games in one category, and very fragile games in another.
Unquestioned aspects of the theme essentially become part of situation, is my thinking. In Dogs, the situation is that you will play characters who make judgements about the people they meet. In most modern D&D, the situation is that you will play heroes who fight against evil. In most older D&D, the situation is that you will play hard-up adventurers hungry for gold. In Sorcerer, the situation is that you will play people with strong desires, and ways of achieving those desires that will cost them. In any of those games, questioning the situation can derail the theme. Some of them are more robust to it than others.
David,
I'm not saying that all play has a single theme. In fact, if you look you'll see that I said the opposite of that. I also am not saying that all play is relevant to a theme. I said the opposite of that as well. What I'm saying is that meaningful play is play that's relevant to a theme, and that some games have that quality more than others.
It seems like all the things you mention in your Delve play could fall under the "what will you do" or "what you want" parts of the game's overarching theme. Does that sound right to you? I don't think it's essential that they do, since I think that multi-theme play is probably a common thing, and "one theme per character" is probably a pretty common thing too. But what I'm getting at is that theme is the "skewer" that holds together the other elements of play. Small moments of play, where your characters make choices like "kill the hostage or not" or moments of seeming colour, like the character humming the ballad, are given meaning by their reference to the overarching theme(s).
contracycle:
Quote from: Simon C on March 24, 2010, 09:37:01 PM
Also, I think it's fair to point out that I'm essentially arguing for a null hypothesis. GNS claims that there are (at least) three seperate and distinct creative agenda types, while I argue there are not. I think I've demonstrated effectively that creative agendas are broadly overlapping and similar, and the burden of proof is on GNS to demonstrate that that's not the case.
No you haven't, you've simply asserted it. As I have explained, your perception that theme or premise or anything like that are significant in sim play does not describe the way it actually works.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page