thread: 2005-03-18 : Audience?
On 2005-03-21, Emily Care wrote:
So, Jason, looks like the kind of rules provided in an rpg that help support players be an engaged audience are quite beneficial since it is not altogether a natural thing, or runs counter to habits formed by trad gaming.
And as for conflict resolution, it does tie in when mechanically connected as in PtA, but I see it as being primarily about coordinating contributions. Kind of a "pre-emptive" conflict resolution.
Getting back to: "does the subset of games where Audience is limited in Engagement have some advantages or is Audience Engagement inherently and automatically a good thing?"
Very interesting question indeed. I'd have to say that encouraging players to attend to eachothers' contributions is always going to be a good thing. What's necessary, however, is appropriate boundaries about the input given based on that attention. I might not want to play a game where other players got to have greater say in what my character did than I do—but then again I might: if the rules make it clear when this can happen and when it can't, and give me and everyone else the same or some fair possibility of doing that to any given character, it might be just fine. As in Universalis.
But let me re-iterate some of what's been said here about engagement. We have a range of interactions, from bare minimum paying attention, to expressing support (how I see Ben's "witnessing"), to giving mechanically unempowered suggestions, to giving mechanically empowered suggestions, to making direct contributions to the in-game situation, to providing adversity. And more steps in between, surely.
If we try and draw the line between audience/actor/director stances (as was done in the good old rgfa days) we get caught up in the mire Eric pointed out. There is no clear cut dividing line. As John & Charles pointed out, we all (may)switch fluidly between these roles, from moment to moment. They must be observed at the level of ephemera, application of techniques. So it's problematic to look at it from that direction.
However, it's very useful to look at a player who is not empowered in a given scene in the usual ways (ie no character, not occupying a traditional role such as gm, etc.) and acknowledge that they are still taking part in the unfolding game. They are acting as a witness, engaging as an audience, and there is a huge amount that they can contribute. Either in that moment or later. Their attention is a necessary component of the in-game events being established as having existed. Another role of the audience we haven't addressed much yet is that of the scribe. Taking notes or reporting on in-game events can be an important and influential role.
So what I take from this conversation is not so much that we are trying to draw the exact line of when in a given game we are "acting as audience" or "acting as director", but instead are looking at ways that anyone may contribute and discussing new ways that have been found (and will be yet!) to help all players contribute regardless of what kinds of traditional in-game components they have access to.
Whew! what a mouthful. English this time? Not having a character, and not having gm tasks are two very convenient cues for us to say: "This person is acting as audience. They need to be empowered! Sock it to 'em."
