unforum

[imbri]

One way to look at it is that metacommunication is comprised of nonverbal and indirect discussions about the game. When that becomes direct it becomes Meta. Not that that really helps with the confusion which comes from the fact that, with ARGs, we are actually playing with metacommunication - it is not just a necessary componant to play it is a part of the play. This is different from other games and forms of play - all of which involve a certain amount of metacommunication. Without it, play simply could not exist because we wouldn't understand that it wasn't real.

Narrative and group play (whether it's putting on a tutu and having a tea party or splitting into teams of cops & robbers and running around killing each other) require more metacommunication so that everyone playing understands just what is happening and that it is only fantasy. This helps avoid hurt feelings and stops kid robbers from freaking out thinking that they might actually go to jail when the kid cop captures them.

However, since ARGs are constantly playing with the boundaries and turning metacommunication into play, they actually require even more metacommunication as that is what builds trust and stops people from feeling tricked or hoaxed. It is the metacommunication that reinforces that it is play.

The closer that one gets to the curtain, the more metacommunication is necessary. Conversely, the further that one gets away from the curtain, the more they are engaged in Meta conversations. When I am writing a character, for example, I am constantly thinking about the messages that I am sending through the characters words and actions and how those will enforce or break down game play. The further back I move from the curtain, I am still considering the metacommunication but I am also able to have conversations with others on the development team about the game itself (Meta). The same is true when I am playing - the closer that I get to the curtain, the more immersed I become in the actual game play. However, when I am talking to a friend later that evening, the conversation will be more about the mechanics of the game and the details of the story.

The curtain represents not just the boundary of but the blending of the communication between the players and the puppetmasters. As we get closer to it, the less effective actual Meta communication is and the more important metacommunication becomes. Not only does it hurt the suspension of belief, but it breaks down metacommunication which is what is needed in order to establish the trust needed to allow for actual play.

This does not, however, mean that Meta conversations between puppetmasters and players are not possible or that all curtains must be made of titanium, iron, or steel. However, it's important to consider how that will impact the metacommunication because suddenly there is an easier way to go about getting the information that one desires and, in my experience, most people will take the easy route once it is provided to them.

Brian: As for the example of the bears, I don't think it was a very good one I would say that if people actually failed to understand the real danger and believed that we had trained bears or whatnot, that was a failure in communication. I don't think that was the case. They didn't fail to understand the real danger, but they also thought we might take advantage of that danger and work it into our storyline. However, if we didn't want them to think along those lines, there was a simple way to handle it. Instead of characters frequently talking about the danger, we could have provided them with a printout (legit newspaper clippings or wildlife information) of the very real danger (the drought starved bears) and the information they needed to avoid the danger (from food handling to the fact that people in the area hunt with dogs, so making barking noises will make the bears run away) would give them the information that they needed. Though, it really was a nice red herring that they thought they'd find Dee & JD's tent ripped to shreds and them missing in the morning and added to the overall spookiness of the event. In other words, it was not just putting that info out there that caused them to think it was foreshadowing, it was the way in which it was presented that did that.

[FLmutant]

I, for one, think it is healthy for the genre that there seem so many way interesting ways to skin these cats and that no one is the right way. My approach tends to think of metacommunication as extremely sophisticated and not something that establishes trust with most "fresh participants". Your approach thinks of the metacommunication itself as establishing the trust (which I agree is true for sophisticated players, the kinds looking for metacommunication.) Both approaches end up with very similar rules about fun, slightly different assumptions about trust building. Every kind of media and experience can have metacommunication, can have narrative communication, can have meta communication, etc. right?

Accepting that "metacommunication is good and part of the fun" is pretty easy, but the topic is really an aside from the question that Dante raised:

[notgordian]

At least from my perspective, the degree of coverage the curtain achieves doesn't contribute in and of itself to the game experience. However, the puppetmaster decisions of how to deal with their choices does.

Example: I am perfectly fine with puppetmasters revealing their identities as individuals or teams before, after, or during the game. However, the decision they make regarding that information shapes how players will react to unexpected information. And that treatment defines whether the game is "better" or "worse".

I don't really need information to be hidden to aid in my suspension of belief. But what I don't like are discussions along the lines of "are we supposed to use this information, or was this a mistake?" If you choose an iron curtain, you're making any information you reveal (purposefully or inadvertantly) a potential clue. And that's a design choice you'll have to live with or abandon (I'm thinking LG15 here). If you choose a looser boundary, it's your responsibility to provide explicit indicators as to where the boundaries are drawn. And that's another choice you'll have to live with.

Each option is equally valid in my eyes, but the choice creates a responsibility to abide by the consequences. It doesn't matter what expectations you set, just as long as you set them. Because that's what leaves people feeling cheated.

[thebruce]

And the fundamental difference there is the philosophical point of admission by the 'game' that it is a 'game'. But whether that's acceptable to the players is a different matter. So I think that puppetmasters these days aren't focusing so much necessarily on retaining the game's self-recognition of it being a 'game', but moving towards catering to satisfaction of the players in their experience (which could mean either retaining the curtain or pulling it back).

It used to be, I think, that ARGs were focused on the philosophical points of TINAG and maintaining the curtain, by definition, and that if a PM broke any of those it was immediately considered 'bad form'. But I'm seeing a shift in that ideal, even if it is experimental in some cases.

When it comes to marketing, I think it's much safer to not have an iron curtain, and the reasons for that I belev are obvious. But now, whether grassroots game has an iron curtain or not isn't so much of an issue to the players - if the PM team manages that decision successfully.

[rose]

From a player's side and my frustration with the Cloverfield promotion, there are definitely times I would like to have direct communication with the PMs. Posting META threads here can be helpful I suppose, but I have many issues with what they did and why they did it. I would have loved to have a direct name of a person to contact about my concerns. I like to think that I may have been able to help improve the experience of that promotion for the players.

At the very least, I would have the satisfaction of knowing that I did what I could to explain my ideas to someone making the promotion. Obviously, I have an investment of time, energy and emotion in their promotion and this community and want to help both to be successful. So my point wouldn't be to complain, but to try to explain what I could see was happening. Perhaps I could even offer some suggestions to make it better. (although I don't think I could have predicted that they needed to know not to use "paramount" as a password.)

Again, that assumes that the marketers care what the players are saying. If all the marketers care about is numbers, then their concern for the players' experience and meta communication with the players is probably very small.

As for the idea that the promoters need to remain invisible for the benefit of the suspension of disbelief, I personally don't agree with that. I expect the demise of that whole notion as PMs realize that (most?) players don't require an iron curtain for the suspension of disbelief to work.

[vpisteve]

[danteIL]

[Agent Lex]

With my limited experience, and future plans to play with the curtain a little, I made a blog post over here (excuse the awful site design!). Basically, moderation in the curtain as with all things, and Schmeldritch is, I believe, along the right lines.

[vpisteve]

[Varin]

[FLmutant]

[catherwood-offline]

[rose]

[Shutaro]

[rose]