Educating your group on CA to prevent premature hair-loss
Ron Edwards:
Hello (and Baron, welcome),
I think it's important to distinguish between teaching a game and teaching a Creative Agenda. Both have their pitfalls, especially relative to one another.
Teaching a game is easy and fun if the game facilitates a particular CA and the people in question are inclined toward that CA. It doesn't matter whether the theoretical term is employed or not in this case, and I stress that I did not promote the term as a teaching device in the first place.
Teaching a game is not easy or fun when either the game fails to facilitate a particular CA or if the people in question are not inclined toward one (meaning "any") anyway. I need to clarify that the latter phrase is not talking about their psychology, but their habits. In the first case, it's at least possible that the group will Drift the textual rules (with the promoter of the game as first-among-equals I guess) in a way that's fun for them. In the second, it probably doesn't matter much what the textual rules are. If both apply, then you get Zilch.
So much for teaching a game. What about teaching a CA? My line, for years, has been, you pretty much don't. It's more useful to consider it a matter of discovery - who, among the gamers I know, is interested in playing for this? Clearly those entrained to Zilchplay have to be abandoned, which is often traumatic because they are among the most faithful of players in ordinary subcultural terms. But then again, some of them may well be long-standing would-be primary-CA players, if they'd only found the group and rules which facilitated it. And some of the most difficult or frustrated players may be CA-clash veterans who will settle into enthusiastic, focused, and socially-constructive players as soon as the clashing is resolved.
If one is working on getting such a group together, then in my experience, it's not a matter of transforming an existing group so much as the process similar to forming a band. Those members who work out their desires and goals stay, and some people phase out, and one or another new guy phases in. So the CA is not really being taught so much as being refined in a particular expression, both procedurally and socially.
And here's my final point about that: it may well help to be using a game which facilitates a particular CA well, but not if the game chosen is out of the comfort zone in terms of techniques, for whatever reason. Depending on the group, they may do better to stay with a fairly incoherent game while they get themselves together, at least for a while. Or in another group, "system shock" is a constructive experience after all.
I hope this shows why I think that creating the Narrativist-teaching RPG (for instance) is probably a false hope.
Best, Ron
David Berg:
Hi Eric,
I've occasionally been in the position where I know that I want to play a certain game Simulationist rather than Gamist, but I'm also aware that the rulebook procedures themselves won't make this clear. So, when I'm introducing the game to a bunch of players who I know enjoy Gamist play, I'll insert a lot of my own caveats ("There's no way to win. No one cares how good you are at building the most effective character."). Hopefully this will allow them to (a) leave behind some unsuitable habits, or (b) decide this game (as run by me) isn't for them. I've actually achieved a good amount of (a)! But then, I've had a lot of practice.
I think this qualifies as an example of what you asked for: getting people to understand and respect a CA issue. Whether you ever use CA terminology or not is up to you. Personally, I've found it to be more a barrier than an aid to getting practical issues sorted out; I save it for theory chats.
Ps,
-David
Ar Kayon:
I've been into philosophy for years. It took me this long to realize why people do not believe that philosophy is useful for anything. From my experiences, I'm inclined to believe it is because exponents typically fall into the trap of theorizing everything. You sit around the house in between sessions of your intellectual circle-jerk thinking:
"Everything is nothing"
"There is balance in all things"
"Sitting on a mat thinking about nothing and answering koans is what zen is really about"
"Objectivity is intrinsically subjective"
"A priori as opposed to a posteriori knowledge..."
How does one turn this into a happier relationship with one's spouse, family, or peers? How does this mitigate suffering and lead to happiness? These theories, to those who aren't predisposed to introspective cosmic musings, have no connection to the world right smack in front of our faces. And those who continue to contemplate Life, the Universe, and Everything are at risk of becoming completely disconnected from reality. You also see this phenomenon with the psychobabble morons the other poster was talking about, who read too much Freud and all of a sudden everything in life is a penis metaphor, or because you like cheesecake, you want to have sex with your mom.
I hope I didn’t lose you yet. I’m getting to my point.
My point is that although theory is necessary to comprehend the underlying functions behind things, when disproportionate to first-hand experience, you essentially begin to hammer contrivance into your head until you are adamant it is true.
You have the experience. You’ve read all the articles. Now it’s time to stop reading and forget about the terms so you can start connecting with the game itself rather than the meaning behind it.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page