thread: 2005-11-10 : Open House: Ask a Frequent Question...
On 2005-11-11, Vincent wrote:
Collin: I don't think I understand what is meant by Creative Agenda. I used to think that it refers to what kinds of things a particular player enjoys most during play, but I have heard people explicitly say that this is not what it means.
So if I'm the kind of player that really enjoys communicating about important human issues through play, is that my CA, or is that a poor use of the term?
That's a government-work use of the term.
Replace "enjoys" with "does" and you're good.
"So if I'm the kind of player that really does communicate about important human issues through play, that's my CA."
So, notice that what you enjoy doesn't 1-to-1 predict what you actually do. First you have to deal with a) what you know how to do, b) what everyone around you is doing, and c) probably some other things too.
Also notice that what you do can vary from game to game, independent of what you enjoy.
And finally, notice that we're talking about a relatively large time scale. "So if I'm the kind of player that does roll dice to hit during play, is that my CA?" No. We examine your play as a work of fiction - on the scale of situation escalating into crisis, resolving into a new situation - to see your CA; we don't examine it moment by moment.
This makes VB go "on time scale, think of it this way..."
Not what do you do when you play, but what do you do by playing?
This makes CMT go "Agenda"
The word agenda makes it sound like a goal or desire. But the way you define it here, it is a description of how you actually behave in practice.
This makes VB go "yep."
This makes XP go "Individual v. Group"
So what I got from my Forge discussions with Ron was that you need to be mindful of it, though; and that it only works out if the group reinforces each other about what's going on. I think maybe we're lacking in some semantic differentiation between individual and group level in this regard. That's what always confused me.
This makes JBR go "It's a moving target"
CA was at one point personal, and has recently been redefined as something that can only occur by group cooperation. Originally, CMT, the connotation you identify was spot-on.
This makes VB go "JBR, I think I'm going to pull rank on you..."
CA has meant what it means since the beginning. What you've observed is how understanding propogates through the Forge.
This makes VAX go "What something means is..."
What a word MEANS is what people understand it to mean. The meaning has changed because the understanding has changed. If Ron meant something else, early on, than people understood at the time, then Ron's the only one for whom that can be proven, no?
This makes VB go "nonsense."
I understood what CA meant at it's beginning, because I'd been following the development of the idea. But - this is a stupid argument and it's not welcome here.
