Gente Che Gioca > Sotto il cofano
[inglese] Apocalypse World e Creative Agenda
Moreno Roncucci:
Continuo a trovare cose meritevoli di segnalazione...
Ci sono un po' di post strani in altri forum riguardo ad Apocalypse World. Gente, garantisco, è Story Now, conflict resolution e fortune in the middle!
In questo post Vincent ne parla, e fa anche considerazioni interessanti sul concetto di Creative Agenda in generale. Visto che è un post in mezzo ad un thread ed è corto, lo quoto quasi tutto:
The two crucial considerations when you're analyzing an instance of play for creative agenda are (1) who made decisions at the table, and (2) who the fictional characters were and what they did. A game's design, enacted by the players, contributes powerfully to both; in this way, a game's design contributes to play that fulfills a particular creative agenda.
Apocalypse World's design contributes to play that fulfills a Story Now creative agenda. If you try to play Step On Up or Right To Dream with Apocalypse World, you'll find that you have to fight with the rules all the time, ignore them, recast them, and finally you'll adapt them or throw them out.
Apocalypse World's GM's- and players' jobs (agenda, principles, moves) are a key part of its design, and in that way they, in turn, support Story Now play. What's interesting is that small changes to them could make them support Step On Up play instead. At least, that's the case with Dogs in the Vineyard's GM's- and players' jobs and Storming the Wizard's Tower. I have every reason to believe that it's the case with Apocalypse World's GM's- and players' jobs too.
I'm pretty sure that Story Now and Step On Up play are closer cousins, in this sense, than either are with Right To Dream play. I'm pretty sure that you'd have to adapt Apocalypse World's GM's- and players' jobs substantially to get a game design that contributes to Right To Dream play. I may be wrong about it, but as of this moment, it's my considered belief.
Moreno Roncucci:
Non ho finito (sto usando post separati per separare post diversi di Vincent). Quando gli chiedono cosa rende AW un gioco narrativista, ecco cosa risponde, in questo post
(1) Apocalypse World's techniques keep decision-making at the table in everybody's hands. No one can seize decision-making from anyone else. Furthermore, the game's rules demand decision-making, they don't let anybody coast by without making decisions.
(2) Apocalypse World's techniques (including especially here its character creation and GM prep techniques) make sure that you have passionate characters in an untenable situation, whose only recourse is to escalate through crisis (after crisis) to resolution. If you haven't seen it before, here's an old post of mine on that subject: 5-2-05: Creating Theme.
The simulationist stuff that you see in the game's design - and you're right! There's lots - isn't related to Right To Dream play at all.
Moreno Roncucci:
Questo post è più complicato. Devo riassumere post molto lunghi in quel thread. Se volete avere la versione originale seguite i link e andate a leggerlo.
La discussione nel thread prosegue con altri utenti che non hanno chiaro cosa renda AW "story now"
Fanno l'esempio di scene che dovrebbero "simulare" elementi della fiction. La risoosta di Vincent è
Those are great! For sure, Apocalypse World loves to help you create scenes like those.
They're straightforward character- and situation-exploration scenes. Scenes like these are the mainstay of any kind of cool, high-energy, actiony roleplaying, whatever the creative agenda.
Poi, in un post successivo, sempre su quelle scene:
Right on, but you have to look at the scene's purpose in context, not just scene-by-scene. The purpose of that scene in Matrix Revolution isn't just to be exciting, but to advance the plot by revealing, escalating and resolving conflicts between the characters, right?
e poi...
Not just any bunch of conflicts, but a passionate character (at least one) in an untenable situation, escalating conflicts through crisis after crisis to a final resolution, yes. That's the "story" in Story Now. The "now" is "...and we all do it now, live, at the table."
E dopo la risposta...
Yes! If we have something other than a passionate character untenable situation etc, it's not Story Now; that's one way. If we don't all do it together and live at the table, now, it's not Story Now; that's the other way. If we approach it with an end state, not just in mind, but decided, then we aren't all doing it collaboratively at the table. Somebody already did it, and now we're intent upon making it so, not upon making our own thing. Consequently, it's not Story Now.
Now this is important! We don't have enough information to decide whether it's Step On Up or Right To Dream instead, or zilchplay. All we can conclude so far is that it's not Story Now. I'm inclined to leave it that way, at least for now.
So to draw this back to the point of the thread: if we have a passionate character in an untenable situation, escalating through crisis after crisis to resolution, and we're all doing it now and live together at the table, it's Story Now. Having exciting scenes that explore character and situation is just part of roleplaying, and could be contributing to any creative agenda. The fact that Apocalypse World's rules help you create exciting scenes that explore character and situation doesn't mean that it's not a Story Now game; the fact that Apocalypse World's rules help you create passionate characters, untenable situations, escalation, crisis and resolution, live at the table, DOES mean that it's a Story Now game.
In seguito ad una successiva obiezione, in un altro post spiega:
(qui non uso il corsivo perchè li usa lui nel corpo del messaggio)
The point of Right To Dream and Step On Up play isn't interesting fiction. They don't want or need this passionate-character-escalating-situation crap.
Here's a fact about creative agendas. Ben Lehman pointed it out to me a few years ago. Most people, in their roleplaying histories, have pursued one creative agenda, sometimes fulfilling it, sometimes not. When they encounter the idea of creative agendas, they look to find their diversity in their own roleplaying history, but it's not there! There's only one there. When they finally encounter the realities of another creative agenda, they react with active rejection: "but that's not fun. Really, really no. Why would anyone do that? Is that even roleplaying?"
GNS is a theory of why other people roleplay. People you couldn't stand to play with (that's what "incoherent creative agenda" means). What are they getting out of it?
Your version in particular, Nocker, "but this puts all the interesting roleplaying under Story Now. There's nothing fun left for Right To Dream!" just shows that you love Story Now, and you're just now, this minute, encountering the realities of other creative agendas. You're the one saying that Right To Dream play doesn't sound fun. I'm only saying that Right To Dream play cares about something other than, y'know, creating a story now.
Ezio:
Post cancellati su richiesta del thread-opener.
I post cancellati rimangono come sempre consultabili nella sezione "Pattumiera".
Grazie per la collaborazione.
Ezio:
Il thread è rimasto chiuso tutta la notte a causa di un mio errore.
Ho rimediato al disguido.
Scusate il disagio.
Navigazione
[0] Indice dei post
Vai alla versione completa