On tuesday, it's the first night for our new improv group. I'm sitting here, writing a program that will get people hooked, with new and interesting exercises...
Wait, hold it!
There's three things going on here:
1) Fear of rejection
2) Trying to be original
3) Planning real hard
None of these really belong in improv, at all. So, maybe I should just write a program with classic exercises that I know by heart and are, simply, fun.
Hey, maybe The Flow-er Model applies to this group activity as well? Let's translate it to seven steps for building a group:
1. Create an interest
2. Create a sense of security
3. Formulate a vision
4. Get everyone involved and active
5. Be open
6. Be clear
7. Listen and build on that
Well, that makes sense to me. For our first session, let's make it fun and interesting, and then safe, let everyone get a feel for each other, and then we can start talking about expectations and visions for our group, and involvement in it.
Cool.
Okay, I'm officially an over-analyzer. Rather than feeling uncertain before our first session, and picking simple and fun exercises, I have to instruct myself to do things in a fun and safe way. :-)
Showing posts with label the flow-er model. Show all posts
Showing posts with label the flow-er model. Show all posts
Sunday, 26 September 2010
Why Apocalypse World flows
 |
| This is what it's all about. |
Okay, so in my last post, on Why Apocalypse World rocks, I wrote that "[the] game is fluent, fast-paced, involving and fun."
Why is that? Let's take a look with the steps outlined in The Flow-er Model.
Step 1-3.
1. Player investment
I've got to admit, I was pumped as hell before diving into this game. Reading it, I felt that this is my idea of how improv roleplaying should be designed - So it had better work, or I would be wrong. I also got a group together I thought would be right for the game and my improv playstyle.
Okay, so that was a huge boost of energy for the game "for free". But there is also a way to increase player investment in your game design, by making a good first impression, and here Apocalypse World shines - When the players picked up the playbooks, they got invested. This was a game we wanted to play!
2. Sense of security
I think AW makes a very, very important point when establishing that the characters are sexy, the MC should be a fan of the characters, and that the MC should play with the other players, not against them.As I wrote in The Flow-er Model, if you make the players feel safe in their control, they will let go of control. If you try to yank their control out of their hands, they will just hold on firmer to it. Without this, I don't think AW would work, at least not in the way it does now. Apocalypse World is such a harsh place, it requires trust in your game group.
3. Shared vision
Here is where the benefits of a distinct style for your game comes in full force, and of course the fact that it is an improvised game.
The book specifically states that for first session prep, you should "day-dream some apocalyptic imagery", without committing to anything in particular. As the world is created through play and pre-play, the vision is shared. No-one knows anything anyone else doesn't know.
The game also has one move and one principle for the MC to ensure everyone is the same page: Tell consequences and ask ("This is what you think would happen, do you still want to do it?") and Draw maps like crazy. Basic advice, but very sound.
4. Agency
Nothing happen that the characters doesn't make happen.
Except for fronts. Fronts are these clusterfucks of badness to be managed before they end in catastrophe. That guy raising an army to take over your hardhold, the army itself, and your rival holds, that's a front.
What is neat about this is, as long as the characters creates trouble for themselves, you don't have to touch the fronts - But if you want to ramp the game up, or if things are slowing down, you bring in the fronts, they do something that brings them closer to fulfilling their agenda. And this in turn, encourages agency.
What I love about Apocalypse World is, every time you do something, you stick your neck out. You risk getting burnt, but if you don't do anything, then your guaranteed to sink and drown when trouble catches up with you. That's what the apocalyptic world is like - You can not be safe, unless you carve that safety out with tears, sweat and blood.
If you manage to convey the idea that there is no right or wrong, no story, and make both triumph and defeat interesting, the players will just keep acting. Great agency, great game.
5. Blocking
This is interesting. In a way, Apocalypse World has the ultimate blocking - When you fail a roll, you are punished by an MC move. It doesn't feel like blocking though - Because even if you fail, you get something, something interesting that adds to the story.
Again, for this to work, the players needs to feel secure in the game, and be interested in exploring their character rather than playing to win. This is of course not a unique stance, most story games share it.
6. Clarity
This game is so simple. Whenever a player says they want to do something, it should be pretty obvious which move that is. Make that move. Roll 2d6 plus one of the five stats. Miss, bad things happen. 7-9 good things happen, but maybe trouble too, 10+, perfect.
MC'ing just consists of following the to-do-list in the Master of Ceremonies chapter.
7. Yes, and...
I define Yes, and... techniques in roleplaying as a point where a player or the game says something, and then hands this over for another player to build on and interpret. It's a very inspiring and productive technique, and to my knowledge, AW uses three Yes, and... techniques:
1) There are lists to pick from everywhere, both in character generation, resolution you get to pick from lists and interpret just what that means.
2) Making a dice roll opens up for new story contributions.
3) The MC is constantly asking the players questions, which means the MC starts something that the player finishes/interprets. There is a balance here: The questions run from open, vague questions that leave a lot to the player; and strong questions that really are more of statements for the player to interpret. ("You killed his brother. Why?")
Does it work?
Oh hell yes
This analysis might be a little unfair even, as I built The Flow-er Model to map out and explain flow in roleplaying games such as Apocalypse World, Lady Blackbird and Berättelser från Staden. Of course it's going to "score" in a test constructed on itself.
Nevertheless, I feel Apocalypse World brings a great clarity to a design philosophy used by story games for some time now, and this model really stresses clarity throughout it's steps. Clarity both opens up this design philosophy for trad gamers, and makes a good design, really.
Saturday, 11 September 2010
The Flow-er Model: Step 4-7
This is the third part on the Flow-er Model. The first part is here.
Step 4-7 in The Flow-er Model concerns the process of play, it concerns how the players' input to the game are handled.
4. Agency (The will to grow)
The will to grow is what makes a plant out of a seed. Agency, to take action, to make decisions, is what makes play. Without choices, you're not playing a game anymore, or even interacting with the others. No matter if the choices are tactical, in-character or story ones - As long as they feel meaningful to the players, they will involve, activate and energize the players.
If you have a safe and secure environment (2), a clear and inspiring vision (3) and an openness for everyones' input, the players will jump to get involved in your game and start interacting with it! Active players means energy for your game and fun for everyone.
Now, I talk a lot about improv roleplaying, but I actually quite like D&D 4th ed. as well. What?!
Well, that game places player agency in its combat instead. Combat isn't planned, it's just a collection of conditions: These people have these powers, these people have these. They are at this place, and they have opposed interests. Now, let's see what happens! That is a very open setup, one that invites player input with cool powers. Also, between the encounters, our DM let's us mill around and explore his world at our leisure, going with the flow on our ideas and initiatives.
5. Blocking (Obstacles)
When players contribute to your game, they're adding valuable energy to it. Blocking is saying "No" to these contributions and energy. Blocking are big, ugly rocks in the way of your growth.
Instead of saying no, say yes. Say "Yes, and..." or say "Yes, but..." or say "Yes, if..." to other players' ideas. Take their contributions, accept them, and build on them.
That does not mean you shouldn't provide adversity to the players! You can definitly provide adversity by building on other players' contributions:
Don't take away their stuff, but let their stuff put them in trouble instead.
Let them see the impossible to see-high ranking official by their ludicrous plan, but have him angered by their hijinks and demand something from them.
Don't cancel out something that the player's have spent energy to obtain or plan or create, just raise the stakes instead - Add another risk, or raise the cost of failure.
Let the player's decide if it's still worth doing. Let the player's keep their agency and momentum.
Always build on top of what you get. Never take away.
And here is the big problem of pre-planning: When you've planned ahead of play, there is a right and a wrong, independently of what the characters are interested in. You have an investment in your ideas, you've already spent energy on them, and this means that at some point you are going to say "No" when you could have said "Yes", or you're going to let the characters head off in a direction you do not intend to build on yourself. In either case, you lose valuable energy and movement for your game.
When the players' wants to do something, that's a great opportunity for you as a GM. That's where their energy is, right now! That's what their interested in! Go there, meet your players where they are, and you'll have great reserves of player's energy and enthusiasm to scoop from and add to your game.
A big flaw in traditional game design is that skill checks are, essentially, blocking. You want do something - Great, either the game system let's you, or it says "No, you can't". It doesn't say "Yes, if..." or even "No, and...", it just says "no".
Crassly speaking, skill checks could be considered a blocking tool for the GM to keep the player's from straying off the right path of the scenario.
6. Clarity (Water)
Like water, both you and the game needs to be clear and transparent, or you will be blocking each other inadvertantly.
If the game rules are confusing and hard to learn, you will need to stop play and consult them. Only when you've mastered a game will it flow without interruption. So... don't design games that are impossible to master! (Duh.) Complex rules, sure, if you're okay with the player's spending the first sessions learning your game. Confusing, unclear and inconsistent rules, not so okay. Your players will never master those.
Also, the players need to be open and clear on what their intentions and interests are, what their visions are, either through conversation or through the system. Has the player's intentions and interests been clarified in step 3? (Shared vision) If not, the other player's are forced to guess, which makes nurturing difficult and blocking a hazard.
It never ceases to amaze me how hard it is for some practicioners of a hobby about talking with each other to actually talk with each other!
7. Yes, and... (Nurture)
"Yes, and..." is the opposite of blocking, it's taking another player's contribution and adding to it, nurturing contributions to make your game flow.
Mouse Guard is an example of a game that builds on player's contributions. When a player fails a roll, that doesn't mean sie can't do what sie wanted to do: Either trouble shows up, or sie accomplish what sie wanted, but at a cost, maybe getting angry, tired or lost. This adds more fuel to the story!
Is player reward, like XP, fate points, power points et cetera, a form of nurturing? Well, as long as it isn't a way to force the players to play a certain way, but rather something that stimulates the players and brings energy to the table - Sure!
A game can also invite the players to "Yes, and..." by providing inspiring output for the players to interpret. In the game Apocalypse World, when a character uses the move Sieze by force, you pick two or three keywords that define your action, and one them is "You impress, dismay or frighten your enemy". I can say "Yes, I frighten my enemy!" and then add "and I do this by quickly stabbing him, drawing my blade back, licking the blood off it and looking hungrily at him!" See what happened there? The game gave me a contribution that I got to accept and build on, I interpreted it according to the fiction and what it inspired in me. You can read more on this in my post on Designing with "Yes, and..."
A player can be nurturing by being a good listener, meet other players where they are coming from, understanding their contributions and adding to them. A good, nurturing player also feels safe, (Step 2) and doesn't try too hard. Sie doesn't try to be awesome, which makes play feel forced and unnatural, instead sie is obvious. Sie simply keeps an attitude of curiousity, spontanity and interest.
If you wish to learn how to be a nurturing player, that's beyond this model. Go buy Play Unsafe by Graham Walmsley, which explains it in an extensive and accessible way. Just as The Flow-er Model, it is rooted in improv theatre, but there should be something for everyone in it.
If you wish to learn how to becoma a nurturing game designer, that book hasn't been written yet. I will post analyses of games that inspired flow in me on this blog though, under the label "the flow-er model". Check that out for my thoughts on game design that makes flow happen.
The Flow-er Model: Step 1-3
This is the second part on the Flow-er Model. The first part is here.
Step 1-3 in The Flow-er Model concerns the basis for energy and flow. You can think of these steps as taken before the game begins, in how the game designer prepare you for the game, in how the game master (if any) explains the game to the other players, and in the play group's already set play culture and expectations. However, there aren't clear, hard borders between step 1-3 and step 4-7. It does make pedagogical sense to split them into these two categories, though.
1. Players' investment (The sun)
Energy is the basic currency of creativity. Just as everything starts with the sun, nothing will happen in your game if your friends doesn't show up and invest energy into it.
The more energy the players invest into the game, the more energy reserves it has to spend. You can invest energy by coming to the session eager to play, cook food for the other players (which builds group coherence as well!) and write little bits of in-game fiction or play reports, and prepare sessions, write scenarios, make hand-outs.
This is can be risky though, for if the other players do not invest as much as you do, you risk disappointment and bitterness, just as in any other relationship. (See my post on trust and investing it)
2. Sense of security (The soil)
As human beings, one of our top psychological needs is a need for control and understanding of the situation we're in. Therefore, a creative atmosphere requires the players to feel secure, and secure in their roles, just as a seed needs to sit secure in it's soil. For that to happen, the game needs to adress four points:
1. What is expected of me as a participant?
2. What contributions am I allowed to do, what authority do I hold over the fiction?
3. What if I lose control over play?
4. What if I mess up and do it wrong?
The first point (What is expected of me?) is all about what you need to do to make play good. Are you supposed to be inquisitive, tactical, obedient or creative in the game? Should your characters be reckless archetypical adventurers or ordinary people with great character nuance? If it is unclear what kind of mood and playstyle your game is going for, it's going everywhere and nowhere.
The second point (What authority do I hold over the fiction?) are all about making authority, stance and narration rights clear for the players. For traditional games, these are not a big issue: As a player, you decide whatever your character says, thinks, feels and attempts. To see if you are succesful in your attempts, you roll dice. Everything else, the game master decides. Whenever you leave established tradition (could be traditions and conventions of story games as well, of course!) of story authority however, you must be clear on these points.
If the players are confused with what is expected of them, how they play/run this game, or what they are allowed to say and do to the fiction, this creates insecurity. Timid players will feel intimidated and avoid doing anything while they feel confused, while brash players will just act to release tension, perhaps trampling more timid players in the process. Insecurity and confusion makes flow impossible, so always strive towards clarity!
The third point (What if I lose control over play?) is about creating a safe environment for your players. If the GM or the game have an attitude of punishing, opposing and controlling the player's characters, the players will close up and spend their energy to defend themselves against the GM's contributions, wasting energy both they and the GM could use to move the game forward. It is only natural that the players try to retain control over their characters' fates: The player characters embody the players' investment in the game, and the means through which they interact and play the fiction. If you take those away, the players have nothing, so the players will protect what they have.
As a GM, if your players are defensive, try telling them "I will never harm your characters against your will, and nothing will happen to them that you find not funny or uncomfortable". Maybe you'll see them relax a little bit, right there! A sense of control begets a sense of security, and a sense of security begets creativity.
Now, someone might object that danger and opposition is what makes the characters' lives interesting. Well, have you ever done the trust exercise where one person falls backwards, and another peson catches them? If your players feel 100% secure they will not lose control of their characters fate, they will willingly let themselves lose control. They will willingly fall backwards, have terrible things happen to their characters and explore catastrophes for their characters. Instead of you doing it against them though, you will do it with them, enhancing the game's energy rathe than blocking it. To have a sense of control is a very, very deep human need, and when we trust that feeling, we allow ourselves to do scary things.
The fourth point (What if I mess up and do it wrong?) sounds trivial, but it's huge. Being creative and improvising is scary! Everyone can improvise, but everyone also fears failure and looking like the fool. This too, is something deeply human. Playing towards flow demands a great deal of agency through your players, and not everyone feels safe with this!
But; If you cultivate a game where expectations, authority, vision and expectations are legible and clear, if you cultivate a safe and friendly environment, that will go a long way to make players feel more secure in their agency. Also, you can design your game to use techniques of Yes, and... (step 7), and then the game will go half the distance for your players, easing the load of performance anxiety markedly. Just going the second half of the distance is a lot less intimidating.
Also, fear of failure is probably the biggest difficulty for GM's to abandon pre-planned stories and start improvising instead. Give them the tools and the security they need in your game design, if your game is meant to be improvised!
3. Shared vision (The seed)
The seed holds an idea, a vision, for how the plant as a whole will turn out. Likewise, the players of a game will have a vision for what they're interested in, what they expect from the game, how the game world works and operates.
Much like sense of security, this step needs to provide a clear framework to the players - The game should evoke images in the players' heads, and these images needs to match up to each other. A game that conveys an unclear concept of what the characters do and what the world around them looks like will leave the players lost and confused, maybe heading in different directions.
The setting need not be detailed, it's enough to describe some details in evocative language for the players to get a vision and a feel for it. Again, it's a question of sense of security - As long as the players get a feel for the world, a feel for what kind of contributions and mood belong there, they feel safe contributing to it.
If the players' creative visions for the game differ, they will in best cases talk it through and reach a shared vision, and in worst cases fight each other to enforce their vision, or suck it up and feel bitter. This will make the energy and investment from step 1 fly all over the place, crashing into each other, and this is the one source of roleplaying drama.
Once again, a problem with pre-planning your story as a GM: You will have a strong vision that your players do not yet share with you, which makes it harder for your players to approach your vision. Furthermore, you have already spent great investment in your vision, which makes it harder for you as a GM to approach your players ideas of what should happen. In other words: When you have created a cool scene to show your players, you will steer play towards that scene rather than adapt to flow, encourage flow, and go with the flow.
The Big Model places great emphasis on shared vision, look up Social Contract and Creative Agenda in this article. Also, I talk a little more about shared vision here.
Step 1-3 in The Flow-er Model concerns the basis for energy and flow. You can think of these steps as taken before the game begins, in how the game designer prepare you for the game, in how the game master (if any) explains the game to the other players, and in the play group's already set play culture and expectations. However, there aren't clear, hard borders between step 1-3 and step 4-7. It does make pedagogical sense to split them into these two categories, though.
1. Players' investment (The sun)
Energy is the basic currency of creativity. Just as everything starts with the sun, nothing will happen in your game if your friends doesn't show up and invest energy into it.
The more energy the players invest into the game, the more energy reserves it has to spend. You can invest energy by coming to the session eager to play, cook food for the other players (which builds group coherence as well!) and write little bits of in-game fiction or play reports, and prepare sessions, write scenarios, make hand-outs.
This is can be risky though, for if the other players do not invest as much as you do, you risk disappointment and bitterness, just as in any other relationship. (See my post on trust and investing it)
2. Sense of security (The soil)
As human beings, one of our top psychological needs is a need for control and understanding of the situation we're in. Therefore, a creative atmosphere requires the players to feel secure, and secure in their roles, just as a seed needs to sit secure in it's soil. For that to happen, the game needs to adress four points:
1. What is expected of me as a participant?
2. What contributions am I allowed to do, what authority do I hold over the fiction?
3. What if I lose control over play?
4. What if I mess up and do it wrong?
The first point (What is expected of me?) is all about what you need to do to make play good. Are you supposed to be inquisitive, tactical, obedient or creative in the game? Should your characters be reckless archetypical adventurers or ordinary people with great character nuance? If it is unclear what kind of mood and playstyle your game is going for, it's going everywhere and nowhere.
The second point (What authority do I hold over the fiction?) are all about making authority, stance and narration rights clear for the players. For traditional games, these are not a big issue: As a player, you decide whatever your character says, thinks, feels and attempts. To see if you are succesful in your attempts, you roll dice. Everything else, the game master decides. Whenever you leave established tradition (could be traditions and conventions of story games as well, of course!) of story authority however, you must be clear on these points.
If the players are confused with what is expected of them, how they play/run this game, or what they are allowed to say and do to the fiction, this creates insecurity. Timid players will feel intimidated and avoid doing anything while they feel confused, while brash players will just act to release tension, perhaps trampling more timid players in the process. Insecurity and confusion makes flow impossible, so always strive towards clarity!
The third point (What if I lose control over play?) is about creating a safe environment for your players. If the GM or the game have an attitude of punishing, opposing and controlling the player's characters, the players will close up and spend their energy to defend themselves against the GM's contributions, wasting energy both they and the GM could use to move the game forward. It is only natural that the players try to retain control over their characters' fates: The player characters embody the players' investment in the game, and the means through which they interact and play the fiction. If you take those away, the players have nothing, so the players will protect what they have.
As a GM, if your players are defensive, try telling them "I will never harm your characters against your will, and nothing will happen to them that you find not funny or uncomfortable". Maybe you'll see them relax a little bit, right there! A sense of control begets a sense of security, and a sense of security begets creativity.
Now, someone might object that danger and opposition is what makes the characters' lives interesting. Well, have you ever done the trust exercise where one person falls backwards, and another peson catches them? If your players feel 100% secure they will not lose control of their characters fate, they will willingly let themselves lose control. They will willingly fall backwards, have terrible things happen to their characters and explore catastrophes for their characters. Instead of you doing it against them though, you will do it with them, enhancing the game's energy rathe than blocking it. To have a sense of control is a very, very deep human need, and when we trust that feeling, we allow ourselves to do scary things.
The fourth point (What if I mess up and do it wrong?) sounds trivial, but it's huge. Being creative and improvising is scary! Everyone can improvise, but everyone also fears failure and looking like the fool. This too, is something deeply human. Playing towards flow demands a great deal of agency through your players, and not everyone feels safe with this!
But; If you cultivate a game where expectations, authority, vision and expectations are legible and clear, if you cultivate a safe and friendly environment, that will go a long way to make players feel more secure in their agency. Also, you can design your game to use techniques of Yes, and... (step 7), and then the game will go half the distance for your players, easing the load of performance anxiety markedly. Just going the second half of the distance is a lot less intimidating.
Also, fear of failure is probably the biggest difficulty for GM's to abandon pre-planned stories and start improvising instead. Give them the tools and the security they need in your game design, if your game is meant to be improvised!
3. Shared vision (The seed)
The seed holds an idea, a vision, for how the plant as a whole will turn out. Likewise, the players of a game will have a vision for what they're interested in, what they expect from the game, how the game world works and operates.
Much like sense of security, this step needs to provide a clear framework to the players - The game should evoke images in the players' heads, and these images needs to match up to each other. A game that conveys an unclear concept of what the characters do and what the world around them looks like will leave the players lost and confused, maybe heading in different directions.
The setting need not be detailed, it's enough to describe some details in evocative language for the players to get a vision and a feel for it. Again, it's a question of sense of security - As long as the players get a feel for the world, a feel for what kind of contributions and mood belong there, they feel safe contributing to it.
If the players' creative visions for the game differ, they will in best cases talk it through and reach a shared vision, and in worst cases fight each other to enforce their vision, or suck it up and feel bitter. This will make the energy and investment from step 1 fly all over the place, crashing into each other, and this is the one source of roleplaying drama.
Once again, a problem with pre-planning your story as a GM: You will have a strong vision that your players do not yet share with you, which makes it harder for your players to approach your vision. Furthermore, you have already spent great investment in your vision, which makes it harder for you as a GM to approach your players ideas of what should happen. In other words: When you have created a cool scene to show your players, you will steer play towards that scene rather than adapt to flow, encourage flow, and go with the flow.
The Big Model places great emphasis on shared vision, look up Social Contract and Creative Agenda in this article. Also, I talk a little more about shared vision here.
The Flow-er Model: Introduction
This is The Flow-er Model. Go ahead, click it. Check it out.
In short:
Before diving in, a short introduction on my assumptions in this model:
Flow
Flow is psychological term for a state of total focus and immersion in what you are doing. You cease doubting and planning, you know what to do, and just do it. Performance is at it's peak, and all you need to do is to follow the momentum and your intuition, hence the term "go with the flow". Flow can be achieved in almost any task that requires concentration. The article on wikipedia describes flow as a very strong experience, but remember that flow is a gradient, not a strict category - You can have both slight and enormous sensations of flow, and everything in between.
For this model, let's consider flow as the moment when you're immersed in the game, whether you're immersed in your character, the story or overcoming a challenge. Everyone is active and throwing out great ideas, the mood is at it's top. Simply put; roleplaying that feels great.
Interplay
Energy and flow is something that happens in play, in the group. To me, roleplaying is primarily a group process, it's what happens between the players. It is not primarily obeying, exploring or using a game book.
What the game book is though, is a participant in this process, just like the other players, one that shapes this interplay. A game as written can facilitate or inspire energy, but the game book never has flow or energy in itself..
Also, when I refer to "players", that includes the game master. (If the game utilises a game master at all)
Play style
This model is drawn from my personal experience, it's a way for me to map out what makes roleplaying feel great. Although I feel that energy and movement is what makes roleplaying enjoyable, other people might of course emphasis other qualites of roleplaying.
Also, the model places a great emphasis on improv roleplaying and story games, which I feel are the kind of games that lend themselves best to flow. If you are new to improvised roleplaying, this is as good a place as any to start learning about it, and how it works.
Improvisation and pre-planning
In my model, I draw a lot from improvisation theatre, and in a way the model is born out of my experience in both improv and roleplaying. Throughout the text I problemise and criticize the tradition of planning stories and scenarios before playing. This is not because I hate that kind of roleplaying, but because I hope to develop both the traditional and the improv style of roleplaying with my writing. My goal is to make a model that is useful for all kinds of roleplaying, that inspire and provoce development in the entire field of roleplaying games. I hope everyone can find something informative, inspiring or useful from this model.
Okay, let's go!
 |
| The Flow-er Model as illustrated by the wonderful Anders Bohlin (DeBracy) |
In short:
- Energy is the basic currency of roleplay gaming. If your game has energy, it is going somewhere, it is interesting, dynamic and involving. Simply put, energy is what makes roleplaying feel good.
- This model identifies seven steps to cultivate this energy and bring it into a state of flow, which is what make roleplaying feel great.
- The model is meant to be useful for both players and game designers.
- The model places great emphasis on clarity, sense of security and sense of curiosity. It stresses confusion and rigidity as antagonistic towards flow.
Before diving in, a short introduction on my assumptions in this model:
Flow
Flow is psychological term for a state of total focus and immersion in what you are doing. You cease doubting and planning, you know what to do, and just do it. Performance is at it's peak, and all you need to do is to follow the momentum and your intuition, hence the term "go with the flow". Flow can be achieved in almost any task that requires concentration. The article on wikipedia describes flow as a very strong experience, but remember that flow is a gradient, not a strict category - You can have both slight and enormous sensations of flow, and everything in between.
For this model, let's consider flow as the moment when you're immersed in the game, whether you're immersed in your character, the story or overcoming a challenge. Everyone is active and throwing out great ideas, the mood is at it's top. Simply put; roleplaying that feels great.
Interplay
Energy and flow is something that happens in play, in the group. To me, roleplaying is primarily a group process, it's what happens between the players. It is not primarily obeying, exploring or using a game book.
What the game book is though, is a participant in this process, just like the other players, one that shapes this interplay. A game as written can facilitate or inspire energy, but the game book never has flow or energy in itself..
Also, when I refer to "players", that includes the game master. (If the game utilises a game master at all)
Play style
This model is drawn from my personal experience, it's a way for me to map out what makes roleplaying feel great. Although I feel that energy and movement is what makes roleplaying enjoyable, other people might of course emphasis other qualites of roleplaying.
Also, the model places a great emphasis on improv roleplaying and story games, which I feel are the kind of games that lend themselves best to flow. If you are new to improvised roleplaying, this is as good a place as any to start learning about it, and how it works.
Improvisation and pre-planning
In my model, I draw a lot from improvisation theatre, and in a way the model is born out of my experience in both improv and roleplaying. Throughout the text I problemise and criticize the tradition of planning stories and scenarios before playing. This is not because I hate that kind of roleplaying, but because I hope to develop both the traditional and the improv style of roleplaying with my writing. My goal is to make a model that is useful for all kinds of roleplaying, that inspire and provoce development in the entire field of roleplaying games. I hope everyone can find something informative, inspiring or useful from this model.
Okay, let's go!
Posts
