Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 5607787" data-attributes="member: 27160">As I said, the Forge agendas apply to instances of play.  If you have a group that passes cues to switch agendas (in, say, combat, exploratory and social interaction passages of play, for example) I'm sure this could work.  But, then, I think you would, de facto, be using different rules for the different passages of play - I have certainly seen that happen in practise.  All it takes, though, is one player who isn't on-board with the cues, and it can become dysfunctional fast. I haven't, but if you are talking about improvisation (in anything) done around collectively understood themes and with collectively understood cues, I know broadly what you mean.  Add in someone who does not have a broad jazz (or whatever) education and an empathy with the rest of the group, though, and I imagine it would go south pretty quickly.This post prompted some interesting thought over what 'rules' or systems do in this context.  I'm wondering if the idea of rules "supporting" an agenda splits really into two 'cases':1) The rule has first to allow the focus in question.  The "Hero/Action/Luck/Whatever Point" mechanic is an example of a rule that 'allows' just about any focus.  Skill roll mechanics would be similar, as long as the "target number" is not too closely constrained.2) The rule may also cue a specific focus.  This feeds into pawsplay's/Starfox's/Crazy Jerome's point about cueing, but with the systems themselves giving cues about expected or encouraged agenda.  The advantage of putting this in the rules would be that a similar expectation would be engendered in all those coming to the table; a disadvantage would be that those who prefer to avoid the encouraged agenda(s) will avoid the system.  This is a disadvantage only in a commercial sense.Sounds to me like players expecting gamism (character "advancement" is a system that seems to me to give out pretty strong gamist cues, while not disallowing any other agenda) but getting a "character advancement" that was trying not to support gamism much.  I find it interesting that Classic Traveller had no character "development" (read: "getting more powerful") system.  I find removing such systems useful for Sim games, because of the Gamist cues they tend to give off.Or:"Don't be stupid - surely you know the chances of that are nil!  That's so suboptimal - we can sneak into a storeroom to nick stuff with only low level guards to beat!" - Gamism.Or: "Sure - your character is just the sort of futz who'd try that! OK, roll; let's see if he gets caught." - Sim.Or: "What?!? The pursuit of some dumb stunt like this has nothing to do with the story, or the theme we're trying to develop! Cut that out!" - Nar.While I think Gamist and Narrativist agendas are more "robust" - in the sense that they tend to generate more adrenalin/emotion and thus can swamp out Sim if they are around - I don't think this particular split is well founded, I'm afraid.Exactly what I was trying to convey - thanks <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />.  Hence the usefulness of cues - both in the social "layer" and in the rules.</blockquote>

Verification