So even when we do enact a narrative, it's only a backdrop to the actual event. The actual event is the contest, Sebastian and his monsters vs me, Elliot, and our characters. Absent that contest, there's no event at all. The narrative doesn't bring us to the table; without the contest, we don't play and the narrative evaporates.

Cool. Yup. I buy that. Why does the game need a backdrop? Why does that make play more fun? How does that make play more fun?

Possibly related, what are the three GM agendas for Storming the Wizard's tower?

Hi!

Like I said in the other thread: I buy it. As in, I can relate to that experience of play. It sounds like play I've experienced myself, more or less, and I'm not thinking "hey, you're leaving out the important bits!" or anything. The important bits are right there.

But!

The next encounter is three rat-zombies working together and that gives them access to some tactical plays we just can't deal with. Elliot and I try to concentrate our fire - Elliot's guy's gunfire, my guy's magical backup - but we can't concentrate our fire AND protect my vulnerable low-endurance butt, so the end result is that they swarm us.

Elliot's guy drags my guy out of the sewers. I'm alive, the game's forgiving that way, but I'm going to be playing a different character next session while this guy recovers in the hospital.

There are some choices happening here, right? Like, Elliot could have been like "screw your vulnerable butt, I'm outta here!" It would be highly unusual, and probably would never actually happen in the scope of normal play, but it's an allowable thing in the rules (I'm going by an old playtest version of the rules here, so I don't know this for sure). The game doesn't hit you over the head with a big "You lose" here either, right? You just keep on playing? You're choosing, as characters and as players, to stick by each other and support each other against this threat.

The choice isn't exactly a "live" option. If you choose not to stand up to the challenge, you're basically choosing not to engage with the game. But it is a choice. It's what I'd call "Phatic". We go through the motions of it being a choice, even though we all know that it's not really. Does that sound accurate?

The role of passion and conflict in Step On Up play is super interesting, but how am I supposed to talk about it with someone who denies the possibility?

I'm denying what now? Because that sounds super interesting to me too.

Simon, "hard men with big swords" doesn't necessarily signify any more than the horse-shaped piece in Chess, the "kings" and "queens" in a deck of cards, or the "houses" and "hotels" in Monopoly. It's a mnemonic. It gives texture and landscape to the playing field. It works with the game's rules to communicate and reinforce how to play and how to win.   

Really? I don't agree, and frankly it seems a bizarre position. You'd have to at least agree that D&D is richer in this texture and landscape than Chess or Monopoly, and probably richer still than a wargame like Mechaton. I mean, I agree it's the same thing, but why does D&D have so much of it? And why does it have the specific colour it does?

Here's my position: If I and a bunch of my friends enact a narrative about killing a bunch of monsters underground, for example, that means something symbolically. That symbolic meaning isn't accidental, and is part of the reason we chose to do this thing in the first place. Sure, it's not the whole reason, because we also like how it's a fun tactical game. But there are a lot of fun tactical games out there. We chose this one because it is about Dungeons and Dragons.

What makes those things interesting?

Hilarious! It was playing lots of Moldvay D&D that convinced me of the opposite!

Oh yeah, they're totally not creative agendas in of themselves, they're just some things that are fun about roleplaying games.

Well, but theme isn't present in all roleplaying. Raw thematic matter - passions and conflicts - is common, but not universal. Passionate characters escalating through conflicts to crisis and resolution, far less so.

I dunno. By the Big Model definition of theme, then sure, absolutely. But in the literary criticsm sense (which I might be horribly misusing), I think any work can be read as a text and you can glean meaning from it. Passionate characters etc. aren't a requirement for a work to mean something, right? They're just an awesome (possibly the only) way to have that meaning be explicit and relevant and negotiated in play.

Here's what I'm getting at: We play our bunch of dudes, all sword-bearing psycopaths, barely even personalities, let alone protagonists. We send them out murdering folk who look different from them, just because it's fun for us to show off our skills at that. I think that means something. I think the violence isn't just backdrop, I think it's central to the experience of the game. It's fun because it's us, me and my buddies, triumphing over the things that are not us.

People who just want to show off their tactical skills play chess.

I dunno. Is this making any sense? It's frustrating because I feel like there's this connection missing between what you're saying and what I'm hearing, and vice versa, and in person I'd be like "oh shit, of course!" and you'd be like "sheesh, finally", and then we'd high five.

Motipha,

You're confusing me saying I don't find GNS useful with me saying I don't believe there are creative agendas. I'm on the creative agenda train, I'm just not getting off at the GNS station.

There's certainly an interesting discussion to be had about what role the fiction plays in games where players are more invested in displaying tactical skill and in-game knowledge. I'm unsatisfied with the explanation that it exists just as a space to manipulate for advantage. Unreliable currencies (such as are garnered by judgements of the fiction) are unsatisfying for hard-core competitive play.

Mike,

Hence why I say "Step on Up supporting" texts. If (I genuinely don't know) there are no texts that explicitly support Step on Up play, people could still be playing Step on Up by drifting game rules in play to support their creative agenda.

But that's all about the far less interesting subject.

Here's what I find interesting and useful:

I think there are three broad aspects of play that contribute to creative agenda - three sources of enjoyment that in combination (not exclusively) make up a creative agenda. Here's what I think they are:

Theme

When you play a game, you produce fiction, when you look at that fiction, when you "read" it as a text, it has a meaning - a message. It has a theme. Like, if your young farm boy grows up to kill a dragon and marry a princess, it has themes about personal agency, heroism, and so on. If you play unscrupulous mercenaries murdering orcs for pay, it says another thing, about the value of the lives of "other" peoples, and such. Doesn't matter what you intend to say with your game, there's a meaning there. Some groups pay attention to and appreciate that meaning as they're playing. Some do that more than others.

Some groups enjoy play where the meaning is explicit and negotiated during play - you don't know what the meaning of the game will be until you play it, but you care about which way it goes.

Other groups want the theme to be more like an organising principle: a single question we set up at the start and then find out the answer to in play: Can good overcome evil? What price loyalty?

And some other groups want the theme to be a statement that's reinforced through play (they might not say that, but they do). Like "Good always triumphs" or "Other cultures are sub-human" or something like that.

Experience
When you play a game, it makes you feel certain things. Like in AW you feel like you've been punched in the gut when you've gotta make some hard call. Or in The Mountain Witch you feel tingly and suspicious when you think about what the other characters' Dark Fates are. Or in Bliss Stage you feel weirdly exposed and intimate the first time you go into the Dream. Some groups care more about the experience of play than others.

Some groups appreciate feeling very close to how their character feels. Play is for feeling strong emotions, for making tough decisions, for seeing how it feels to be in particular circumstances. Good players get close to their character.

Some groups appreciate feeling closer to the other players when they play. Play helps you understand people differently, or helps you reinforce social bonds. Good players are emotionally vulnerable in play (or at least amiable and amicable).

Performance
When you play, you're displaying skills: improvisational skills, acting and oratorial skills, tactical skills. Also knowledge of the game's rules, the game's setting, and so on.

Some groups appreciate a well-performed character. You act out a powerful scene, and everyone else finds it convincing and enjoyable. You talk in-character for an hour, and everyone is like *high five*.

Some groups appreciate tactical skill. You moved your dude into the right square, maximising your chances of hitting the monster. Everyone nods, being like "right on". Often those same groups appreciate clever use of in-game knowledge, like, "I took sleep because it's the best spell" or "I brought fire-arrows, to use against those trolls".

Every group will have its own way of appreciating the three things above. Some of them will get a lot of attention, and some of them will get very little. They're all important to the experience of play though.

I think that talking about these three things is useful to explaining play and design.