Primary and Secondary Agendas

It might be easy to say that Forge terminology has become muddied over the years, however as a linguistic descriptivist rather than a prescriptivist, I'll be vocal in saying that it was always muddy. Yes, there were prescriptivists who claimed that there was a correct and narrow definition of the terms, but there were always people using the words in their own interpretations. Sometimes there would be definitions of the words that reflected their usage in more common parlance, sometimes there would be some other contextual spin on the terms. The gatekeeping was problematic, especilly when two people would be talking across each other because they couldn't agree on the basic semantics of what each other were saying.This whole situation is a shame, because there were some really interesting ideas raised back then, especially on the "Forge adjacent" forums.

Taken directly from the Provisional Glossary (which is now over 20 years old), three of the biggest takeaways from Forge theory couldn't even be defined in a simple form that was approachable. Instead they referred to other entries...

Gamism (Gamist play)

One of the three currently-recognized Creative Agendas. The term was first proposed by Mary Kuhner for the Threefold Model; its usage is very similar in the Big Model. See Step On Up.

Narrativism (Narrativist play)

One of the three currently-recognized Creative Agendas. See Story Now. 

Simulationism (Simulationist play)

One of the three currently-recognized Creative Agendas. See The Right to Dream.

In turn, these lead to...

 

Right to Dream, the

Commitment to the imagined events of play, specifically their in-game causes and pre-established thematic elements. One of the three currently-recognized Creative Agendas. As a top priority for role-playing, the defining feature of Simulationist play. See Simulationism: the Right to Dream.

Step On Up

Social assessment of personal strategy and guts among the participants in the face of risk. One of the three currently-recognized Creative Agendas. As a top priority of role-playing, the defining feature of Gamist play.

Story Now

Commitment to Addressing (producing, heightening, and resolving) Premise through play itself. The epiphenomenal outcome for the Transcript from such play is almost always a story. One of the three currently-recognized Creative Agendas. As a top priority of role-playing, the defining feature of Narrativist play.

Each of these elements is cluster of buzzwords and jargon that almost feel like a barrier to entry for anyone struggling to enter a dialogue about the concepts they are describing. In turn, they lead to essays which follow the type of socialogical pattern I've encountered far to regularly in university study, where terms are rigidly defined inways that seem tomake a general sense but are in fact constrained to narrow interepretations in specific cotexts so that the author can say "no, that's not what I meant at all...you're taking my terms out of context". The actual essays are here (Gamism, Narrativism, Simulationism). 

If you're familiar with New Testament biblical lore beyond the basic shallow verses that are basically a combination of truisms, morality tales, and secod/third-hand aneccdotes, you might have some kowledge about the relationship between Jesus and the Pharisees. 

A Pharisee was a member of a powerful and influential Jewish sociopolitical and religious movement during the Second Temple period (circa 165 BCE – 70 CE). They are the spiritual forefathers of modern Rabbinic Judaism, recognized historically for their strict adherence to the Torah. 

 

I've heard interpretations that Jesus hated them because of their interpretations of the law, he regularly attacked what they had to say about certain topics. However, it's a more interesting interpretation to say that Jesus was confrontational toward them because they were so close to what he was preaching, they were actually willing to listen to rational and justified debate while other groups wouldn't loisten at all and therefore weren't worth the effort. The Pharisees were 90% of the way there, and while they were resistant in that last 10%, they were open to debate. They opened the way to ideas, as long as those ideas were adequately tried and tested. But you had to come to them on their terms.

 

I kind of feel like the old guard of the Forge are a bit like this... no, I'm not the Jesus of TTRPGs, it's just an analogy. However, I hope you get my meaning. There's elements in the essays and terminology that are still useful, but there's a lot of baggage that needs to be either understood or discarded. 

 

An earlier description of the three agendas is probably closer to my interpretation, and is a bit less tied up in the baggage and hubris oif the later Forge...

 

Gamism is expressed by competition among participants (the real people); it includes victory and loss conditions for characters, both short-term and long-term, that reflect on the people's actual play strategies. The listed elements provide an arena for the competition.

Simulationism is expressed by enhancing one or more of the listed elements in Set 1 above; in other words, Simulationism heightens and focuses Exploration as the priority of play. The players may be greatly concerned with the internal logic and experiential consistency of that Exploration.

Narrativism is expressed by the creation, via role-playing, of a story with a recognizable theme. The characters are formal protagonists in the classic Lit 101 sense, and the players are often considered co-authors. The listed elements provide the material for narrative conflict (again, in the specialized sense of literary analysis).

 

(These definitions from 2001, are buried on one of the many essays that set the groundwork for Forge discussions)

 

It was generally accepted at the Forge that a single TTRPG was purest if it focused on a single creative agenda, either you played to win, played to explore, or you played to tell a story. Of course, as soon as you boiled it down to a simplistic sentence someone would inevitably pop up to say "No, no, that's not what we mean at all". But in wider usage, and in the post-Forge diaspora these have generally become the accepted ahorthands when describing a game. It was also considered that a game had "drift" if it moved from one of these agedas to another, or if players ignored certain rules (both of these was generally considered "bad").

 

Personally, I feel like most games inherently drift, and like a recipe with a few flavours in it, the drift allows some variation and nuance in its session. Under the three-way tension model, a game system may pull toward any of these three options, but will also favour a secondary option.

 

 

I feel like we've also got some inherent biases toward diegetic and non-diegetic elements among these agendas, but that might just be my experiences, so I'd love to hear other perspectves.

 

Let's look at the options where agendas have assymetrical pull on the session.

 

Predominntly Gamist...

There's a heavy non-diegetic component in this type of game, as it basically works as a contest between the players as they seek dominance over each othr in some way. If there is a Narrator/GM in the game, they tend to serve as an adjudicator for the competitive elements, perhaps serving like a referee to a game played by an exteral set of rules.

 

...with a twist of Narrativism

When narrativism is applied into this type of system, the competition is a bit less downplayed in it's attempt to find a winner, instead it moves toward whose story has the biggest influence over the session, whch might be relected in who gets the most screen time, or who's character gets a happy ending within the setting at the expense of others. It may also be set up so that the "happy ending" is only achieveable by working together and compteing successfully against the villain in the story, but with a single ending of win or loss it can often seem that this type of game and session is very linear. 

 

...with a twist of Simulationism

When simulationism is applied into this type of system, the competition outside the game often turns into a diegetic competition. If players are playing to win, then it makes sense w=for them to be playing within a setting where the characters are plaing to win. Elimination in game reflect elimination out of game. A session of Paranoia can often so this way. It's a style of play that necessitates loss  and is probably better reflected by narrative wargames and skirmich battle games rather than TTRPGs. Of course it depends what the simulation is trying to simulate, not all simulationism is trying to recreate "reality" as we understand it. We're probably looking at players utilising "Pawn" stance as they manipulate their characters to gain the most strategic advantage in the session.

 

Predominantly Narrativist...

This agenda often feels like it straddles the line between diegetic and non-diegetic. It's as much about the stories around the characters as it is about the characters themselves. The stories generated by these sessions are the point of play, as the participants aren't necessarily trying to "win", they're just trying to weave a story that works well, which could be comedy, drama, tragedy, or something else entirely.

 

...with a twist of Gamism 

We're still focused on telling a story but focused more on the meta-events surrounding the characters. here. I'd probably suggest that this is the cleanest fit for "Director" stance, where the participants are shaping the world around the characters as much as they are shaping the actions of the characters. I'd say that the aim here is to tell the best story possible, competing to weave together situations and actions that will be remembered later, and recounted as anecdotes for years to come. The game could be to have people remember your character's story, or to set up some-one else for something memorable.

 

...with a twist of Simulationism

The essence of this stye of game is to tell a story that fits specifically within the genre of an exsting world. That world could be our own reality, or t could be the defined reality of an intellectual property. I

m thinking of the Star Wars RPG as a prime example here. The game is designed to tell stpries, but it tells stories within that particular setting. I'd argue that "Actor" stance fits here best, with players making decisions within the diegetic world purely based on what their character knows and nothing else.

 

Predominantly Simulationist...

This is generally diegetic in nature, and while there may be elemtelling a story or competitiveness, these factors are subservient to the diegetic elements of play. The important thing here is mainraining the verisimilitude of the character's experience within the setting. Anything that breaks immersion endangers breaking the simulaton.

 

...with a twist of Gamism

Competitiveness within a space dedicated to simulation isn't a bad thing, it just measn that the characters are probably competiting in some way within that space. This could involve competing for resources to survive,working against one another to win, or even just solving puzzles within a scenario to uncover a mystery. As the players are working within the imaginary space through their avatar characters, they don't have all the necessaruy clues, information or resources available, and they may be making strategic choice based on uninformed positions, it's basically the way I've seen many old-school dungeon-bashes played out.

 

...with a twist of Narrativism

Now we're working toward a story within a specific setting, the boundaries of that setting may be established at the start of play by adhering to a known intellectual property, genre, or story tropes. We don't know where we're going, or how we'll get there, but we've got specific rules that govern our narrative structure and need to abide by them. (OK, so we're stuck on a spaceship and it's hurtling toward the atmosphere of a dangerous planet. Do we suddenly find an extra reserve of fuel for a safe landing, no because it goes against what we know so far in the established setting.) The other "Actor" stance works here, with the players really inhabiting their characters almost "method" acting. If we're counting genre-emulation as simulation, then this is firmly where PbtA goames sit in the scheme of things.

 

None are wrong, just different.

 

Of course, now that I've written this, the circular sections are probably not the best fit. Most games are probably a mix of all three, despite the histrionics of their designers. So a triamgular grid plotting the three against each other is probably a better fit. A lot of this was covered in the "How to run a Game" series... (particularly posts 3 and 4).

 

 

 

I'm sure there's more to work through here, but I'll be interested to see other folks feedback first.