thread: 2006-01-12 : A third kind of me
On 2006-01-12, Ben Lehman wrote:
I find the categorization (of games, people, rules) into "pushers" and "pullers" unfortunate, since any account of successful play I can think of does both, but that's neither here nor there.
Hey, Vincent? Do you remember that Polaris playtest we did (the one with Emily: pink blobs and eyelid-cutting-off)? Do you remember how much we pulled at each other?
You were like "there's a flashback with Kerhah, huh? Cool! I'm going to make myself complicit in Kerhah's corruption."
I was like "Oh, there's a demon taunting me, huh? Cool! I'm going to bind it to myself."
I'm curious how much of that sort of pulling there was in your freeform experience.
yrs—
—Ben
P.S. Hey, check out Dogs, too: "Okay, GM. We're going to take your fiction, deeply personally invest in it, and through that investment radically alter it."
This makes LBK go "I Agree Here"
After some thinking on the discussions thus far, I thought I must be misunderstanding push/pull - because, really, they both strike me as *failure* states when left alone. I think that more games fail from push, mind, but neither strike me as a state of play the suceeds on it's own.
This makes JBR go "Yup yup"
It's like the unfortunate "-ist" forms of the CAs -- these aren't things that a single individual must identify with and claim as their sole means of playing. These are tools and strategies for everybody.
