unforum

[xnbomb]

As various players are expressing how they feel about the notion of collaborative authorship in West Unfictionopia, I think we are seeing an example of one of the very difficult problems in chaotic fiction: One of the necessary preconditions for many players to enjoy an experience is a matching of their expectations of how the fiction will work with how the creators of the experience intend to execute it.

I mean this in the very roughest possible sense; that there will be a set of ground rules that define the nature of the back and forth between the parties in creating the chaotic fiction, and that those rules are understood and (at least implicitly) agreed to by everyone involved. Getting to that understanding can be a surprisingly difficult problem without someone stepping out from behind the curtain, or having a meta site that explains the concept. There's some trade off required between the wonder and excitement of figuring out the rules of the structure (which for some people constitutes a form of play itself), and knowing definitively what those rules are going to be so you know whether or not a particular experience is the kind of thing you would enjoy.

I don't think there is an easy solution to this problem that would satisfy all; I think it is a real, fundamental one. I will write this, though: One advantage of having a genre coalesce around a certain style and set of rules (like traditional ARGs within the broader notion of CF) is that an approach becomes accepted and somewhat codified, and thus participants can develop a set of expectations based on that. We impose an expectation on what happens on the unfiction forums by virtue of the Terms of Service that apply here. But, the whole point of this conversation is that games can and do happen in other forums, using different modes. Nonetheless, one is still left with the problem of looking at some new chaotic fiction (from the outside) at its outset, and trying to divine before the fact just what it is going to be.

This is an issue that has been discussed on at least one previous occasion (and also, as a part of a broader discussion here). A major theme that emerges is the idea that something called meta-communication is used to attempt to suggest to participants what the nature of the experience / ground rules are likely to be, without being fully explicit about it (and thus eliminating the fun that some have in figuring these things out as they go along). I've argued in this case that a set of meta-communications were made in the early stages of West Unfictionopia that suggested that it would make use of a collaborative authorship model.

But here's the problem with meta-communication: The interpretation of those signals is invariably subjective. Maybe those signals meant something entirely different to you. Maybe the creator of this thing never meant what I thought was meant by them (perhaps we'll find out in this specific case later this afternoon through an IRC chat). I don't think there is any way to avoid this delicate dance that we tend to do to try to preserve some of the mystery and fun that we do want in these things, without leaving some dissatisfied with whatever approach is chosen to communicate (or not communicate) the ground rules and general intentions regarding the nature of the experience before the fact.

[Euchre]

I think catherwood brings up a key point here about trust. Some players were unaware that other players still operating in the same apparent space were also acting in the role of PM, so they have felt betrayed and pushed to the outside.

A key difference in the communications here is that some players had already made IG openly communicated proposals of ideas in various fashions, and were not met with any official response at all. I know that I myself had communicated more discreetly and not really received such a 'behind the curtain' response, and I expect that I am not the only one. It would seem that even uF was used to get an idea for gameplay, or disseminate it (WuF thread as seen here and here). To suddenly have some players have behind the curtain access and yet remain in apparently normal play can clearly confuse some, offend others. It sure can muddy expectations.

As Fishjp points out we could have players decide to discard portions of the gameplay and just decide to 'play their own game'. Players in a situation like this now also can't be sure what's really part of 'the game' and not.

Put together, this all leads to a potential gameplay in a 'Tower of Babel' fashion, where nobody is playing the same game or know how to properly communicate with each other.

I suppose to some, confusion is a game unto itself.

(Sadly, I must work at the time of the chat. Would've been interesting to be there.)

[pancito]

[Fishjp]

[pancito]

[Fishjp]

[Lunsford]

[Gregoriev]

[mapmaker]

[ndemeter]

See?

There is a simple solution: Make your intent clear from the get go. Then people can choose and nobody's feelings get hurt.

Respect the player. Now that I know I can make my educated choice. That's all we ever asked.

[Gregoriev]

[pancito]

I'll try to answer these as best I can...

[Fishjp]

[pancito]

[Gregoriev]

@Pancito(in general):What does that have to do with anything?
*googles Clue rules*