Started by Frank Tarcikowski, January 24, 2008, 07:15:35 PM
Quote from: Frank Tarcikowski on January 24, 2008, 07:15:35 PMExploration: Our characters came to the city of Constantinople around 1250 AD. They found out a lot about the city's undead society. They found their place, chose which leader to follow. Picked their enemies. Picked their lovers. Lost their lovers. One (mine) created a new Vampire, a troubled relationship. One PC became the thrall in a blood bond to another PC. There were some dramatic scenes, fights and the likes, in between. Major NPCs died the final death. Around 1350 AD, the PCs fled the invasion by the Muslims. Techniques and Ephemera: Plain old role-playing. The players played their characters, the GM did everything else. Rules were applied mostly as written. Significant dice rolls were about combat, the use of disciplines, and resisting frenzy. Willpower points were spent. Blood pool was used to boost attributes in combat. Combat did not happen every session, but when it happened, there was some serious rules strategizing going on. Across the game, OOC commentary was constantly present. A lot of scenes were played with only one character in the scene, but all players strongly engaged, making suggestions and comments.
Quote from: Caldis on January 24, 2008, 09:22:41 PMWell I think your missing something Reithan. Frank gift wrapped it for you in the way he presented it and the fact that he mentioned it was a sim game in the previous thread plus he added it in his conclusion. Even then he's right that the short descriptions he gave could mean or describe any CA, his description could work for a very nar game of Heroquest as easily as it did his sim game of Vampire.[...]So you see simple statements thrown into a bigger conversation can gum up the gears. You see one of the above and think he's talking gamism or nar but he's not.
Quote from: Caldis on January 24, 2008, 09:22:41 PMI do believe getting a better idea of what CA your group is going for would help your discussion on getting characters invested in a community.[...]What I'd ask from you Reithan is you could give a summary of your game similar to the form Frank used. Social contract is big - who are the players in your group and what's your relationship with them. Give us more on the exploration - what kind of situations do the pc's find themselves in, what are the most memorable ones that you think the whole group enjoyed. Techniques and ephemera can help as well - when did the dice come out, are suggest from the other players allowed?Another thing I'd ask is this, You want community to matter in this game but why? How do you see a strong player investment in community fitting back into what your group enjoys about the game?
QuoteTo me, it's a fallacy to say you can have a ton of Techniques, System, Exploration and Social Contract in place that all support a certain CA, and then say that those will have no bearing on what your final CA becomes.
QuoteLet's say that the following transcript, which also happens to be a story, arose from one or more sessions of role-playing. Lord Gyrax rules over a realm in which a big dragon has begun to ravage the countryside. The lord prepares himself to deal with it, perhaps trying to settle some internal strife among his followers or allies. He also meets this beautiful, mysterious woman named Javenne who aids him at times, and they develop a romance. Then he learns that she and the dragon are one and the same, as she's been cursed to become a dragon periodically in a kind of Ladyhawke situation, and he must decide whether to kill her. Meanwhile, she struggles to control the curse, using her dragon-powers to quell an uprising in the realm led by a traitorous ally. Eventually he goes to the Underworld instead and confronts the god who cursed her, and trades his youth to the god to lift the curse. He returns, and the curse is detached from her, but still rampaging around as a dragon. So they slay the dragon together, and return as a couple, still united although he's now all old, to his home. The real question: after reading the transcript and recognizing it as a story, what can be said about the Creative Agenda that was involved during the role-playing? The answer is, absolutely nothing.
Quote from: Frank Tarcikowski on January 25, 2008, 02:10:10 AMQuoteTo me, it's a fallacy to say you can have a ton of Techniques, System, Exploration and Social Contract in place that all support a certain CA, and then say that those will have no bearing on what your final CA becomes.The point is: They don't. That description of Techniques and Ephemera up there? Fits 100% for the Reign game I'll play in tonight. Which is totally Narrativist.
Quote from: Frank Tarcikowski on January 25, 2008, 04:04:44 PMHey Reithan, let me set one thing straight: My purpose in this thread was not to put up some thesis for argument. The purpose was me explaining the Big Model to you, because you expressed your frustration at not understanding, and I'm pretty sure I do understand. Of course, you'll have to believe me that I understand (maybe this helps). You don't have to give me that credit, and if you don't, that will be fair enough and I won't be offended. In that case, however, I suggest that someone else (specifically, Ron) should take over, because then it makes little sense for me to go on.
Quote from: Frank Tarcikowski on January 18, 2007, 10:09:10 AMAttention: Creative Agenda is the full picture! It is recognized when watching a group play for a longer instance, with special attention to moments where specific priorities may conflict with each other. That's not to say that any action by a player at any time during play needs to fit a scheme or something.
Quote from: Frank Tarcikowski on January 25, 2008, 07:56:34 PMThe question is: Do we talk about the Big Model, state of the art, what it says, period? Then there is no argument, there is explanation. Or are we talking about whether the Big Model is a good model to begin with? I'm not interested in that.
Quote from: Frank Tarcikowski on January 25, 2008, 07:56:34 PMI don't know, I thought my example was a really good one because it has those parts in it that, with your technical approach, look like Gam and Nar telltales when they really aren't. I used this example for exactly that reason: Because I think it illustrates well how CA is an underlying principle, and not "what happens each single moment". It's more like "what it keeps coming back to". If that example doesn't work for you, because you went right for what you perceived as the Sim telltales and ignored the rest... hm. I guess then I don't know what else to say.
Quote from: contracycle on January 25, 2008, 08:17:59 PMI don't think the question is "is the model good" but rather "how does one apply it". How does one go from identifying a CA and then deciding to do or not do a specific thing to support or encourage it? If CA cannot be related to techniques or ephemera in any meaningful sense then we do not really have a useful tool. At present it seems the only function of CA is to apply a label to an observed behaviour, which is all very well for broad descriptive purposes but what actual functional USE is it? We don't seem able to say, if I want to design a game or alter a play style, I should seek out these techniques and avoid those. And if we can't do that, how can we have a discussion amongst real people as to what to do, what to change, or why something should be changed?
Quote from: Caldis on January 26, 2008, 02:43:01 AMTo be clear the big error I see in your thoughts (and it may just be the way you are wording it not meshing with the way I hear things) is that techniques are part of the creative agenda when they arent, they are tools that support it. Those same tools used slightly differently may support another agenda. We can make out CA by seeing how the tools are used and inferring the reason why they were used that way but just by knowing what they are they dont really tell us that much.