unforum

[Rogi Ocnorb]

Hoping not to get a bunch of "Well, technically..."s, I'll say that the best way to make me lose interest in a game is to start seeing people discuss in the OOG forums or start taking action (in the game) on an aspect of the game, proper that I never saw, anywhere in the gamespace, itself. It's right up there with "I know a secret... ".

[pancito]

Noted. Done. Let's keep this on a theoretical level... (we use 'meta' way too much.)

[Fishjp]

[pancito]

Tell me about it. The BoL/SiD cf comes to mind... No, not CF, cf. You know, army term.

[Rogi Ocnorb]

@Fish: I have no problems with that when there's at least an accompanying, "In IRC, we determined...".

[jelloarm]

So, say, hypothetically, I get approached about helping run one of these theoretical PM-sanctioned mini-args? With a note like this, from someone who has, so far, been a player as well?

[quote='dishcito']Would you, in your capacity as RoboCop, be interested in helping me run a mini-arg? I have permission from the Space King *cough* PM *cough*. I'm not positive I'm going to do it yet, but if I do, are you interested? I can't do it as Mooninite guy. Wouldn't work... If not, fine, but please keep it under your RoboHat.[/quote]

I say 'hoo yeah,' and sign on. It seems to me that the game is not being 'thread-jacked' at all, especially since it comes with PM permission. Whereas some games are all user-created content (Superstruct and Shadowbox Inn being the ones that I saw during my time as an ARGer), they're still overseen by someone else peering over everyone's shoulders. In my hypothetical case, it's not a free-for-all - the game that was being originally run has come to a slow-down, and a player saw the opportunity to help keep the game from imploding. He steps in and creates a few log-ins to make a supporting cast for his idea.

The issue here is me. I've been asked to help, specifically in my role as RoboCop. I cannot create a new RoboCop - my IG persona is already RoboCop. I can't go on here and say "Hey guys, I'm going to be behind the curtain now, so I won't be on here" without lifting the curtain a little bit.

So I guess, in the spirit of hypotheticals, if you were in my RoboBoots, what would you do?

[pancito]

LOL. ROFLMFAO. LOL.
Hmmm... I might check with the PM to see if dishcito was yanking my chain. Or if I knew and trusted him I'd probably go ahead. Ah screw it. LOL!

[ALISDAIRPARK]

Ok, I had a long intense sensible post prepared earlier, but then a friend persuaded me to go out for a few drinks... So as I'm now drunk all I have to say is two things:

1) Due to the lack of trust expressed, people have had to come out from behind the curtain, and this essentially destroyed TINAG...while ironically the moaners were claiming TINAG as their justification.
2) Things evolve, things change, nothing in life is certain. Those who said "this isn't what I expected" tell me, when have you EVER been told at the outset of a game what to expect?

We need to evolve or we stagnate and die. So this isn't what you expected? If you enjoy it play, if you don't, then don't.

This all seems like a storm in a teacup, and for me has destroyed the fun of the whole thing - and it was fun, while a lot of games forget that essential element.

Still like I said, I'm drunk, so if I've offended, I apologise. I might post my more logical post later, or maybe not. But seriously let's just have fun people - the real world sucks, don't make the alternative the same...

[Silent|away]

[Rogi Ocnorb]

And what about those of us who appreciate a good story executed cleanly with just the right amount of speculation and hooks?

Do we (and the PMs who want to do a good job, investing a ton of time and effort making sure everything is well thought out) just have to suck it up and not say anything because we spoil all the "fun"?

I often wonder how much we've missed out on because people couldn't resist being asshats and caused the PM to throw in the towel.

[Euchre]

I have to say when it comes to talking about people being confused about the direction and control of WuF, and how it's fallen from their expectations, I'm really speaking for others. I just think there's something being seen and felt that they are not necessarily willing to express, partly in fear that they might similarly offend others the way they've felt offended. I myself am not too concerned about such, because I don't expect that concern to be extended to me.

I expected WuF to possibly be a sort of in-joke on the part of uFers, maybe a playground for uFers, perhaps some self-congratulatory exercise, and possibly even a honey pot for some less than germane purpose (considering the other contentious meta-discussion about bounds which transpired recently, to which this thread is directly related). [Yes, I can be quite cynical.] Bearing "unFiction" in the name told me this thing was very narrowly and specifically pointed at this site's populace. I figured what the heck - each of those possibilities could be entertaining. It'd been left open to basically anyone as far as I could see, so why not take a jab at it and see what came about. Honestly not much here has been any real surprise. Most of what I've gleaned from it isn't about ARGs and CF, it's been about the people involved in them.

I think this has been a good demonstration of how boundaries and authorship control can have a critical impact on the course of such a project. We call it Chaotic Fiction, but it seems not everyone can agree if the Chaotic means that is no limits or bounds of order at all, or if only the Fiction lacks bounds and limits. Of course, that comparison itself is quite the recursive quandary. Uh-oh, did I just /0?

[pancito]

[ALISDAIRPARK]

OK having sobered up now, here's the relevant bits of my more detailed post. I have tried to stay away from the specific debate about WUF, except where I think it's still relevant.

I think the larger debate is key to the evolution of ARGing. I used the term evolution, and still argue that without it the genre would stagnate (but let's not get into a Darwinian/ Fundamentalist debate about evolution!). I strongly believe that PMing needs to evolve along with game play. For me ARGs are about challenging our way of thinking, and we need to change and evolve to maintain the levels of challenge. For this to happen, the "rules" need to be reviewed, and challenged every so often

I find it fascinating that we're using terms like classic & traditional when ARGs have only been around for what, less than 13 years? Hey, we're only just teenagers, so we should expect some growing pains still…

In fact there's a quote from one of the founders of Unfiction, who suggested that the best way to define the genre was not to define it.

I agree the debate about unfair advantage is spot in if the PM is playing their own game, rather than posting in character. And I think that nicely defines the rule for me, you can't PM and play your own game. However fairness almost presupposes we have a level playing field to start with and we don't – ever. For example, I am useless at games with a heavy technical element, so I just tend to avoid them.

As Pancito alluded, we are throwing about other ideas to push the boundaries, and I'll cover some concepts in a moment, however the other thing to note about these "sandbox games" is, it's usually our creation, not the PMs. We all chose to start running with WU before we knew what it was about. It's not the first time either <cough> Pastry Wars <cough>.

Now that the WU situation has been clarified, we can see there it is possible to have a hierarchy of PMs, and I'm not sure that's ever been done, even in corporate games. For example the PM knows 100% of what's going on, Pancito only knows say 10% (the "gamejack" element, although it isn't one strictly speaking),

So future ideas to discuss:
• The game within a game – current example works fine for the debate. To use an analogy it's like the dream sequence in American Werwolf in London, where the element of surprise comes from the dream within a dream.
• Games interacting/ crossovers – I think this has only been done when the PMs are working on both, but could be wrong. But in future, separate groups of PMs could chose to do cross-over ARGs, while still playing in each others . So they would control characterisation, but have no say in/ knowledge of storyline.
• The ARG machine – A full-on hierarchy of PMs, mixing playing with PMing, so some, or all, players are properly puppeted by the PM, but no one, other than the proper PMs (Master Puppet Masters?) know the whole picture. This is the blurring of the lines that intrigues me, and take the AR element to a new level of immersion/ confusion.

The above won't suit everyone, but that's life. Different ARGs appeal to different people. Remember what we're discussing here is the rules and guidelines around them, rather than personal preferences.

[Fishjp]

The issue here is not whether the type of game play in WuF is right or wrong. In my opinion there is no "wrong" type of play. The issue is what will the community accept and what will it reject. the idea of a sandbox in which anyone can run with a storyline is great. In fact we were all doing that, The Mayor's office corruption, Euchres adventures in the wilds, Oriza collecting Pokemon. Little narratives that one could participate or not at will. The MrKrop/Clue storyline FELT different from those because it was. It was no longer a story that one could add to, it was a game that was being run by someone else. This was a marked change from everything that had happened before. It was obvious (to me at least) that it was being run (at least in part) by fellow players and not the PM of WuF. There is nothing wrong with that, The question becomes: Will the community accept that kind of game play. The short answer appears to be: Some will and some won't.

@Pancito I think the discussion here has become a more general discussion of gameplay and not a critique of your "miniARG" it is being used as an example for discussion purposes because it is so recent.

[pancito]

Fish, Alisdair, great posts. What can I say. I was tired and burnt out. Still am, probably. I agree with Fish that this is different from the other things that are going on, but not necessarily that players are excluded from the creation of it. Even a more 'traditional' story line, such as this, can invite player creativity. We have discussed various ways the players might eliminate suspects, for instance, and kosmopol incorporated it neatly into his story line. Well it works better as a news story than a Scattergory or a Pokeman. But it could, I think, add something to either of those should those authors choose to incorporate it. What I'm trying to say here is that it is perfectly possible to include elements of crossover, cross pollination, etc. and to pursue the 'solution' within the framework of the character you are using in the playspace, regardless of the degree of fictionality you bring to that character.

How would this work? Two possible ways, at least. First, a player could just do something and the pm (at whatever level of PMness) could incorporate and encourage that. E.g. Belle could say, "I'm going to search the Governor's mansion for clues." And the PM could respond with a card, i.e. 'You found nothing helpful." Or, as has already happened, kosmopol could run a story in the newspaper and the PM could respond to that. Which we did by leaking info to the press. Second, a player could go up the ladder and write an OOG email to the PM (Krop) asking if a course of action could fit. I'll use Kona here. "What would you think if the military imposed martial law? Could you use that somehow?" And I might say, "Great, I won't answer PMs after dark because Krop can't get to his mailbox." Now Kona has her own set of problems and gamespace. How do I impose martial law, what does that mean. What fun/strange/interesting elements can I bring to martial law, etc. Other players can participate, or not, to whatever degree they wish.

Yes, this invites a hierarchy of PMing within the game, which might lead to a giant cf, but needn't necessarily.

I'm reminded of the shared universe stories at this point, like Thieves World and the 1632 universe. There the rules are pretty simple. Don't kill off another writer's character without their permission, and don't break the shared world. In that case there is an editor that oversees the universe to make sure that doesn't happen. I think that's equivalent to the MPM in this case. Some of those spin-off stories work well, some don't. Some spawn spin-offs of their own. Some take the gamespace/shared world in a new direction. Is anyone buying this?

I do think there should be some sort of declaration at the front end that a gamespace is doing this. But that's not always possible. Sometimes things just grow.