Not signed in (Sign In)

Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome Guest!
Want to take part in these discussions? If you have an account, sign in now.
If you don't have an account, apply for one now.

Actual Play Vignettes: [TSoY] Simultaneous Push and Pull

Bottom of Page

1 to 80 of 110

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. >
    • CommentAuthorTonyLB
    • CommentTimeMay 13th 2006
     # 1

    Mo got us clear cut definitions of Push and Pull. Yay! Finally we can do some analysis with a firm foundation. Mo rocks.

    So, my most recent game, this wednesday. Sydney ran TSoY for Eric, Jennifer and me. We did some character generation, then got into play.

    I play Yoshi. Yoshi is a young girl suffering from some pretty brutal repression. Despite her keen-ass skills in violence, she'd rather avoid a fight (Key of Coward) ... but she totally caves to male authority figures (Key of New Moon). For those who don't know the TSoY Keys system, I get XPs when I have Yoshi those things (try to flee a fight, give in to pressure from a dominant male).

    Jennifer plays Khaidu. He's a steppes barbarian, very male, with a soft spot for the weak and helpless (Key of Conscience).

    We start the game trying to get a whole herd of helpless peasant refugees to the Long Bridge into the old capitol, hopefully before the wolf-riders who are bearing down on us close the gap and slaughter them all. Khaidu is at the back of the group, helping the stragglers, and prepared to fight off wolf-riders. Yoshi is with him, because she feels obliged to be with someone.

    First line of the game from any player: I look straight across the table at Jennifer, do my best "scary-intense" expression and say "The Horde is too close. We have to leave them in order to save ourselves."

    So, analysis time!

    • Push is an assertion of individual authority.: Yep. Got that in spades. I've just asserted the horde substantially closer to us, purely in order to further my own agenda. Also, of course, the stuff I'm having my character say, which is also my assertion of authority (and for which I take the games first XP, off of Key of Coward). Cool.

    • Pull is a directed solicitation for collaborative buy-in and input. Yep. Also got that in spades. I'm aiming directly, dead-center, at the "Key of Conscience" flag that Jennifer has raised for this character. She had him (as I knew she would) demand that they stay behind and defend the peasants (XP for her!) ... and she phrased it as a demand to push/pull me, aiming at my Key of the New Moon, knowing that I would have Yoshi cave to a dominant male (which I did ... XP for me!)

    So ... my take on this is that this single action is both Push and Pull. In fact, I think that combining Push and Pull in the same action is a reliable tool for creating awesome roleplay.

    If people disagree that such a combination is possible, that's cool. I'd like to hear some opinions on that.

    If people agree that it's possible and desirable that's cool too. We can start building on Mo's definitions, and figuring out tools: how do we make it more clear to people how they can combine Push and Pull to their advantage?

    • CommentAuthorbankuei
    • CommentTimeMay 13th 2006
     # 2
    Hi Tony,

    You pushed, then you pulled. Push & Pull is very discrete chunks of action. You didn't solicit with the first statement, though you did with the second. It is possible to do one then the other very quickly- this is why P/P is very different than say, trying to identify Creative Agenda stuff- it is on the moment to moment.
    • CommentAuthorTonyLB
    • CommentTimeMay 13th 2006 edited
     # 3

    Okay, Chris, that's interesting. Why is the first statement not soliciting Jen to have Khaidu be brave in the face of the oncoming horde? Why is the second statement not asserting my authority to insist on running away?

    • CommentAuthorbankuei
    • CommentTimeMay 13th 2006
     # 4
    The first asserted a "fact" of the SIS, the second implied a (as yet unmade) decision. If someone narrates "you're in a forest", and you have not authority to counteract that- there you are. They Pushed and you had to accept it. "You can walk into the forest, or into town" gives choice, and therefore, makes it a Pull.

    If you had authority to narrate the choice (such as, having made a roll, or BDTP), then you could say, "And then we left them to the Horde" and that would be a Push.

    This is, of course, also assuming that your initial assertion is taken in by the SG and not just assumed to be dialogue.
    • CommentAuthorTonyLB
    • CommentTimeMay 13th 2006
     # 5

    Sure, Chris. Absolutely. I agree that the first statement is a Push. It is, as you say, me asserting my authority to insert a fact into the SIS. That's clear-cut, by Mo's definitions. It's a Push.

    But what makes it not be a Pull?

    •  
      CommentAuthorMo
    • CommentTimeMay 13th 2006 edited
     # 6
    Tony,

    Huh. Neat example. I can see why it looks like a pull and a push at the same time. I had to sit here and read it over several times to decide. I'm still not 100% sure, (especially since I have no experience with TSOY) but this is my best analysis:

    You're peforming two discreet maneuvers, one after another.

    Those manoevers can either be a push and a push or a push and a pull, depending on the social contract of your game.

    In the context of your game, if someone (you) puts something into the fiction that points directly at another player (Jennifer's) key, does that player have any choice but to address the key?

    If not, then it's a push, push (a push that appeals to the other player by demanding she respond to something she's flagged on her character sheet).

    If so, then it's a push, pull (a pull that invites her to address something she's flagged on her character sheet at a time or in a way that you would like to see).

    Whether it happens in the same moment or happens sequentially (I'm not convinced the distinction matters) they are parsed together like two transactions in an operative. In either case, you have two subtextual declarations happening.

    If it is Push/Pull the statements are "I am asserting that the danger is imminent and am having my character react to collect the XP on my flag. " and "Here, I've done it in a way that allows you the opportunity to do the same. Would you like to follow through?"

    If it is Push/Push then it is I am asserting that the danger is imminent and am having my character react to collect the XP on my flag. " and "Here! I've set it up so that now you must do the same thing! How do you react?"

    We need to differentiate between a narrative unit and a social action because you can have multiple social actions in a narrative unit. With that in mind I absolutely agree that combining push and pull social actions in a single narrative unit is indeed an extremely powerful tool.
    •  
      CommentAuthorBrand_Robins
    • CommentTimeMay 13th 2006 edited
     # 7
    Mo and Tony,

    I also think this shows why it can be important to understand what is going on in terms of push or pull, because if someone (especially someone new to a group) misanalyzes what is going on, it can lead to social miscommunication.

    Like, in Tony's example: If Tony was doing a push/push and Jennifer read it as a push/pull she might respond with something like, "The thundering wheels of the horde prevent me from even hearing you, and I continue trying to herd the peasents, not deciding to run or not yet." In that case, Tony might feel frustrated* becuase it could really feel like Jennifer blocked his input by casually dismissing his authority.

    If, otoh, Tony was doing a push/pull and Jennifer read it as a push/push she might respond with something direct to her keys (like she did in the actual example) but feel like Tony had forced her to do something she wasn't ready for when he really didn't mean to.

    To take all this off Tony, I've seen the latter happen in games where I'm GMing for players new to hippy Forge play who have come out of big Illusionist GM backgrounds. I will present something to them that is really, honest to God, me giving them a pull and trying to get their buy in or just showing them something I think is cool that they might want to address if they really want to. They respond to it, almost inevitably, as a push that they have no choice but to react to. In fact, they usually respond to it as a dysfuntional push that has only one possible correct response.

    For example, I was playing Mage a year or so back with a good friend who's had a lot of bad RPing experiences with GMs. At one point I suggested that the Technocracy find her and try to recruit her, because it would be an interesting test of her pragmatism vs. conviction. She agreed, and the Technocrats showed up at her house, talked to her, and then left. The player then immediatly said, "Well, that's that, I guess. I pack up all my stuff and run." I, being stupid, figured that was because she wanted to do a chase scenario.

    After the game, when we talked, she said that she had actually wanted to stay home, but thought that I was forcing her into a choice she wasn't ready for. When I pointed out that I'd asked her about it, she said, "Well... when GMs ask you about something they normally just want to hear yes."

    She totally thought I was pushing when I was pulling, and because of that reacted differently than either of us wanted.



    *I'm not saying Tony would. I'm using a hypothetical "Tony might" here, okay?
    • CommentAuthorbankuei
    • CommentTimeMay 13th 2006
     # 8
    Tony- you're right, under the definitions as they stand, you can Push and Pull simultaneously.
    • CommentAuthorTonyLB
    • CommentTimeMay 13th 2006 edited
     # 9

    If it is Push/Pull the statements are "I am asserting that the danger is imminent and am having my character react to collect the XP on my flag. " and "Here, I've done it in a way that allows you the opportunity to do the same. Would you like to follow through?"

    Mo, thanks for the response. Same question to you that I had to Chris: In what way is "I am asserting that the danger is imminent" not a Pull? I don't think there's any way I could have asserted that element into the SIS without soliciting Jen to respond to it.

    edited to correct a typo.

    •  
      CommentAuthorMo
    • CommentTimeMay 14th 2006 edited
     # 10
    Hey Tony,

    You said above that it was a result of your individual authority, which means that Jennifer doesn't need to vet it. It's not her response you're soliciting, it's her buy-in (read: approval) *before* the action comes to the moment of crisis.

    What I mean by "moment of crisis" is the moment in which things must either be decided or abandoned (rather than the crisis in the drama). For example, in Chris's example back in DitG, even if the fighter puts something into the fiction (I am leaving the ring out) it hasn't come to the moment of crisis because the thief's player can still decide to ignore it. If , on the other hand, the social contract had been negotiated so that the thief was not allowed ignore it, then the fighter has forced the thief to the moment of crisis. Ignoring it wouldn't be possible, therefore it's a push. In that situation, because Jennifer must submit to your authority, and because you did not have to gain her input or approval before setting it into the fiction, it is a push.

    Also, the very fact that you say "I don't think there's any way I could have asserted that element into the SIS without..." shows that it must be a push. You haven't solicited her buy-in: you've required her response; In the first, she participates in your action with you, while in the second, she responds to your action after it is complete.

    Up in Brand's example, he illustrates some ways in which Jennifer might have had the opportunity to negate your assertion. Whether that is or is not allowable as part of your social contract matters to whether it is a pull or a push.

    Now mind you, I think it's a particularly skillful push. It shows how, by paying attention to your flags and her flags it makes it an example of how pushes, skillfully used, can be highly collaborative. It shows how taking into account the other person's desires, even though you didn't have to do so, can make being pushed upon all the more appealling to the other player.
    •  
      CommentAuthorBrand_Robins
    • CommentTimeMay 14th 2006 edited
     # 11
    Mo and Chris,

    So am I reading you right that, to put it bluntly, any and everything you do in order to get a response is not "solicitation for collaborative buy-in and input" in the sense the terms are being used in the definitions?

    For example, saying "I attack you" is not soliciting shit. It may look like it is, because once its in the fiction the other person must respond. But that's the whole point, right there -- it is demanding or forcing response to something you have inserted with your authority. Once the attack is underway the person -must- respond to it. That doesn't mean you've gotten them to buy in, collaberate, or base the action upon their authority -- it just means you've got them in a place where they have to respond (or else stop the game).

    As Alex F put it:

    In push you force someone to address something. Sure, they address it, but because your action required a response.

    In pull you urge someone to address something that you would like them to deal with. So if they address it, it is only because they wanted to or were bribed/convinced to.

    Sound about right?
    •  
      CommentAuthorGraham
    • CommentTimeMay 14th 2006
     # 12
    Tony- you're right, under the definitions as they stand, you can Push and Pull simultaneously.


    I think it's important to point out that this doesn't make the definitions weaker. Pushing and pulling are useful concepts. The fact that you can do both at once doesn't make the concept less useful.

    Graham
    • CommentAuthorTonyLB
    • CommentTimeMay 14th 2006
     # 13

    You said above that it was a result of your individual authority, which means that Jennifer doesn't need to vet it. It's not her response you're soliciting, it's her buy-in (read: approval) *before* the action comes to the moment of crisis.

    Mo, absolutely. I didn't need (or expect) her to vet my assertion that the Horde was very close. So that is, indeed, a Push (as I've said several times).

    What I was saying is that inserting that element offers Jen an opportunity. The presence of the Horde sets the stage for her to show Khaidu's conscience.

    When I say "there's no way" I wasn't saying "there's no way for Jen not to show Khaidu's conscience," I was saying "there's no way to dump the horde in our laps without giving Jen that opportunity."

    So ... let me see if, maybe, I get the disconnect between how we're talking about this. It's a shot in the dark, but I'll give it a try ... please be forgiving if I'm totally off the mark:

    • I look at the act of declaring that the Horde is close, and I view that as the unit that should be labelled "Push" or "Pull" (or, to my mind, both).
    • You look at the act of declaring that the Horde is close, and that's an agglomeration of units to you ... there's "declaring that the Horde is close" and "Offering Jen an opportunity to show Khaidu's conscience" and "advancing the pace of the story" ... and all those outcomes need to be labelled separately, even though they are all intertwined in the same action.

    Anyway, that's my best guess at this juncture. Does that sound right, or am I off the mark?

    •  
      CommentAuthorMo
    • CommentTimeMay 14th 2006
     # 14
    Mostly.

    It looks to me like you are evaluating your verbal act, where I am evaluating your social actions. Your verbal act is like the package your social actions come wrapped in. It is your personal expression for how you parse the social actions you are taking. So it is possible for you layer social actions in one verbal act, or to make a whole bunch of verbal acts that only account to one social action. It's not the outcomes that I am labelling separately, but the social actions - the assertions or solicitations. If "declaring that the Horde is close" and "Offering Jen an opportunity to show Khaidu's conscience" and "advancing the pace of the story" were all things that you were trying to initiate in your verbal act, then they represent different social actions.

    It is the social actions that I am calling push or pull. Combining them into one verbal act, or one overall maneuvre I would call a technique that employs push and/or pull. The social act must always be one or the other, not both. The technique can combine them together for good or evil.

    In the end, I think right now you and I and Chris are about as far apart as the set of yellow lines in the middle of a highway... we're all going the same direction. As long as we understand that we can differentiate between the social action and the verbal act, then we'll be able to clarify as we move forward.
    • CommentAuthorbankuei
    • CommentTimeMay 14th 2006
     # 15
    It is the social actions that I am calling push or pull. Combining them into one verbal act, or one overall maneuvre I would call a technique that employs push and/or pull. The social act must always be one or the other, not both. The technique can combine them together for good or evil.

    I think you just connected the line for me. I was having the damndest time trying to figure out how to verbalize the difference between push and pull, because I've watched it enough in play, but unable to figure out how to call it.
    • CommentAuthorTonyLB
    • CommentTimeMay 14th 2006
     # 16

    In the end, I think right now you and I and Chris are about as far apart as the set of yellow lines in the middle of a highway... we're all going the same direction. As long as we understand that we can differentiate between the social action and the verbal act, then we'll be able to clarify as we move forward.

    Gosh, Mo, I really don't think we are.

    I think we're probably doing very similar things in our games. We're observing similar phenomenon. But you've got a model to try to explain them that sounds pretty questionable to me.

    I hope you won't mistake my willingness to listen and try to understand for tacit agreement. That might incite me to want to state my disagreement more forcibly, so as to be heard clearly, y'know?

    I don't think the "social action" you are talking about is an action... at least not an action that happens outside of the actor's head. I think it is a perception. But hey, we've got actual play ... let's test!

    Does it matter, in this case, whether I was thinking about Jen's feelings at all when I posited the Horde being close? If I had been purely attempting to get my XP off of Key of Coward, and never gave a thought to how Jen would respond, does that eliminate what you're discussing as the "Pull Social Action"?

    My sense is that it does ... that what you think of as the "Pull social action" was nothing more than my conscious realization that what I was doing would give Jen an opportunity to shine.

    •  
      CommentAuthorDevP
    • CommentTimeMay 14th 2006 edited
     # 17

    Off-topic comment: I myself don't feel as sure about classifying a given action as push or pull, but I could more easily how to make some given example be "more push" or "more pull". So that's a different conversation to have, possibly more helpful that the classification one.

    •  
      CommentAuthorMo
    • CommentTimeMay 15th 2006
     # 18
    Tony,

    Gosh, Mo, I really don't think we are.

    That's really too bad.

    I hope you won't mistake my willingness to listen and try to understand for tacit agreement.

    I wouldn't begin to pair you and words such as "tacit agreement", Tony. I merely thought from your own description that we were getting close. Apparently I was in error.

    There's a whole variety of other folks on SG that seem to have a firm grasp of p/p now. If you are really seeking to understand, maybe someone else might have better luck putting into your frame of reference than I have. If that is not the goal, and you think the model is questionable or don't find it of value, well, then I suggest you move on to other things.

    So now I'm going to step out of this thread and hope that you have more luck with someone else.

    Cheers,

    ~Mo
  19.  # 19
    Let me give you a model that might be different or it might be the same in other words and see how you like it, Tony. So in order to separate it from everything else and look at it on its own merit, don't call this push or pull; just look at it as my personal model of two ways to achieve something.

    Here's the prerequisite: You have something particular you want to happen. Say you want a specific event to occur in the fiction of the game. Either you:
    a) have the authority to introduce it yourself; or
    b) need someone else to put it in.

    In your example at the beginning of the thread, you first put something into the fiction based on your own authority ("The Horde is too close"--you introduce both that fact and the character saying those words). You have the authority to do that. The second part, however, is only something you put into the fiction as words ("We have to leave them in order to save ourselves"), but you don't mean it as fact. And it leaves open how the other person reacts. That means it's not b). It is, in fact, a simple a) with an opportunity for the other player to react. But since you don't have something particular here that you want in response, it's not like you're trying to get a specific fact established by the other player.

    In other words, while you're opening up space for reaction, you're not pulling the person into a specific action. So you used your authority to establish the fact that the character said those words, and that's it. Outcomes don't matter in my model.

    If you wanted an actual example of b), you'd need to solicit *specific* input from the other player. Such as saying, "If you decide that your character leaves the trek behind, I'll give you x reward points." After all, you can't decide what the other player's character does (you don't have that authority), so you're trying to make them do what you want by enticing them. Remember the example of the fighter and the ring? You want something specific (that the thief take the ring), but you can't put it into the fiction yourself, so you're trying to hint at what you want and hope the other person introduces it into the fiction. If you didn't care about whether the thief took the ring or not, that wouldn't qualify as b).

    Let me repeat this for emphasis' sake: if you don't care what the reaction is, it's not b). It's only b) if you're trying to make something specific happen. If you're just opening it up for a reaction by introducing something directly into the fiction, it's a Bang through method a).

    How would that model work for you?
    • CommentAuthorTonyLB
    • CommentTimeMay 15th 2006 edited
     # 20

    Tony. I merely thought from your own description that we were getting close. Apparently I was in error.

    Well, Mo, I suppose it depends on what you thought we were getting close to. I thought that (for my part, at least) I was coming very close to understanding your opinion. I mean ... when I said "Is this your opinion?" you said "Mostly." That's good, right? So I thought we were, indeed, making a great deal of progress in clarifying your theory (at least to me).

    I suppose you thought that we were, at the same time, coming closer to agreeing. It's not really the same thing though, y'know? I understand a lot of opinions that I don't agree with. If I only bothered to understand the things I agreed with then my comprehension of other people would be very shallow indeed.

    If that is not the goal, and you think the model is questionable or don't find it of value, well, then I suggest you move on to other things.

    What a very strange thing to say. If I have questions about your theory then I should move on to other things? I would think that the natural thing would be to ask the questions.

    I mean, if you've only got answers for people who don't ask questions, aren't you basically asking people to believe rather than to understand?

    I suppose someone else will stand up to answer these questions, and that's good. I can't help regretting the departure of Mo from the conversation, though. Anyone else's answers won't be her answers, and I think the Push/Pull theory suffers from multiplicity of viewpoints and voices as it is. Ah well.

    • CommentAuthorTonyLB
    • CommentTimeMay 15th 2006
     # 21

    Christian (xenopulse is Christian, right?) wrote: So in order to separate it from everything else and look at it on its own merit, don't call this push or pull; just look at it as my personal model of two ways to achieve something.

    See, Christian, I don't want to diss your model at all, but in this thread I'd rather discuss Push/Pull than other models. Maybe in another thread?

  22.  # 22
    Yes, this is Christian. And on second thought, nevermind about that model stuff. Forget I ever said anything.
    •  
      CommentAuthorkleenestar
    • CommentTimeMay 15th 2006
     # 23
    Tony, I can't promise that I really understand what Mo meant, but I've gotten something really useful out of the p/p model analysis, so hopefully I can share with you what I mean and why it makes sense to me.

    Because p/p is so social-context dependent, it's a little hard to tell whether your character's statement is a pull or a push from just what you've described, though it seems like it's much more push than pull. That's because you are basically saying, through your character, "Hey! Horde here! If we don't do something, we're toast!" Jennifer's really got no choice but to react to that statement in some way. Even though you're throwing her an opportunity to hit her Keys, you're doing that by asserting something in the fiction. She can choose not to hit her Key with it, but either way she's going to have to step up and deal with the thing that you've initiated.

    Of course, like I said, context-dependent! If what's really at stake is their protecting the column, then it's definitely a push. But imagine if the central thing at stake was whether Yoshi is always wrong about these things, because of her background that you described. All of a sudden, this is also a pull. Instead of saying, "Yoshi is wrong!! Deal with it!" you've made a statement that the other player can choose to bring into the "Yoshi is always wrong" story. The other person could follow up on Yoshi's known pessimism and say, "Don't be ridiculous, you're always way too pessimistic," which takes things in one direction - but if they choose to ignore that aspect of the story, then it doesn't really matter.

    (Of course, in this particular example, the pull interpretation might conflict with the push, because if Yoshi is wrong then the push stakes may not be stakey at all. But I don't think that's necessarily or always true.)

    I've been using this in actual play (as of this past Saturday) by making sure that I get plenty of in-your-face, cope-with-this-or-else pushiness ... but also that I dangle things near the players that are tempting, but that aren't absolutely important. For example, I introduced a plot that one player had been invited to be on a very important council ... but they didn't have to take the invitation. They ended up ignoring it because they had things they cared about more, and because I intended the invitation as a pull, not a push, I just let it go. I defined that this thing existed, but I didn't successfully convince them that they cared about it. Thinking about this as push/pull helped me realize when it was time to let the plotline go.

    I've also decided that thinking about it in terms of what's at stake, rather than specific statements and how they're made, is one of the things that has helped me make some sense of this. YMMV.

    --Jess

    PS: As always, if I'm being a moron or derailing things, just let me know. (But politely! I'm easily bruised!)
    • CommentAuthorTonyLB
    • CommentTimeMay 15th 2006 edited
     # 24

    Jess, thanks for stepping up to the plate. I hope I won't offend if I redirect you to a few of the specific points that have been raising questions in my mind.

    For instance: Can an action be both Push and Pull, or is Pushiness something which reduces or eliminates Pulliness (and vice versa)? In one place you say stuff like "Much more push than pull" that make me think that maybe you're viewing it as a zero-sum game, and in other places you say stuff like "All of a sudden this is also a pull," which makes me think that maybe you're viewing them as happily coexisting.

    Second: the question of intentions where things broke off with Mo. It went like this:

    Does it matter, in this case, whether I was thinking about Jen's feelings at all when I posited the Horde being close? If I had been purely attempting to get my XP off of Key of Coward, and never gave a thought to how Jen would respond, does that eliminate what you're discussing as the "Pull Social Action"?

    If you could respond to that I'd appreciate it very much. Thanks!

    •  
      CommentAuthorkleenestar
    • CommentTimeMay 15th 2006
     # 25
    No, Tony, it's actually really useful to clarify the places where you've got unanswered questions. Again, i can't promise I have the right answers, but I can at least say how I'm thinking about things. :)

    Can an action be both Push and Pull, or is Pushiness something which reduces or eliminates Pulliness (and vice versa)? In one place you say stuff like "Much more push than pull" that make me think that maybe you're viewing it as a zero-sum game, and in other places you say stuff like "All of a sudden this is also a pull," which makes me think that maybe you're viewing them as happily coexisting.

    In my mind, an action can contain both Push and Pull, but only insofar as it refers to different narrative or social stakes. From the point of view of "Yoshi's action establishes the imminent danger of the approaching horde," the example you gave is a Push. Jen has to cope with it Or Else. From the point of view of "Yoshi's action offers an opportunity to be skeptical about her judgment in these matters," the example you gave is a Pull. Jen can choose to push on Yoshi's untrustworthiness about these things, or ignore it. In this example, the Push is much stronger and more present than the Pull, because the horde of enemies is much more pressing than the emotional issues between the characters. However, the issue of the horde could not be both a Push and a Pull. The reason why your example can be Push or Pull is because you can interpret it in different ways with different things at stake.

    So I guess I would summarize as, I don't think a Push and a Pull can coexist about the same issue at the same time, but the same narrative action can refer to multiple issues and evoke some of them in Push ways and some of them in Pull.

    As for intentions, I don't really think I have a good answer to that. For me, at least, a Pull or Push depends more on how the recipient feels about it than how I intend it. If someone feels that they have no choice but to deal with the things that I'm putting forward, that's Push - even if I thought I was Pulling. If someone decides to do an aikido on my Push and turn it into an optional-response Pull, then it's a Pull - my attempt to Push failed. This is one of the things that makes it really useful to me, because it gives me a way to think about how players are socially and emotionally responding to things that I initiate (either as a player or a GM).

    Does that answer your questions? Maybe it just opens up a bag of new ones, but hey, that's what these boards are for. :)

    --Jess
    • CommentAuthorMark W
    • CommentTimeMay 15th 2006
     # 26
    Jess, Tony, et al --- is it commonly the case that ANY introduction into the fiction doesn't at least potentially demand a reaction from other players? I think that's one of the ways this is getting muddy.

    If I introduce something into the fiction, it looks to me right now -- based on the response to Tony's Horde example -- that it can either be a Push or it can be irrelevant. Pull-i-ness is entirely subjective, based on social expectations, prior experience, etc.... if the other player feels they have a choice of not just HOW to respond, but WHETHER to respond at all, then it might be a Pull. If they feel in any way constrained by my input, it's Push.

    Can anyone show me an interaction in which one player introduces something into the fiction that is external to their own character that clearly IS a Pull WITHOUT stipulating anything about the prior social contract or character states of mind?
    •  
      CommentAuthorkleenestar
    • CommentTimeMay 15th 2006
     # 27
    Hmm, Mark, I'm not sure I even entirely understand what you're saying, but I will think about it. In my understanding, push and pull are social entities, which happen to be instantiated in narrative in this case (but can also be instantiated in other social interactions), so I'm not sure I understand why you're defining things as "Push or irrelevant." Push is just as subjective and socially mediated as Pull.

    I would actually say that Pull provides, precisely, constraints - while Push provides conflict. In Pull, you're defining something that exists but not declaring how it is immediately important for the other person to respond right away. It's like saying, "Oh, hey, look at this thing! Neat!" In Push, you're not only defining that thing but also saying, "Cope with this or else; you're going to have to make me back down if you want this changed." (And for the record, I'm not sure that both parts of that statement are really necessary for it to be a Push, but that's a different story.)

    My AP example of Pull is what I briefly mentioned earlier, but I can go into it a little more. I'm running a Nobilis game and one PC is serious about the Code of Heaven. I established that there's a council which is responsible for keeping the official histories of the world, and the Heaven representative died. A friend of the PC put his name forward for candidacy on the Council. Now, at this point I could have Pushed or Pulled. A Push in this situation would have meant bringing this opportunity into the character's immediate world that he can't turn away from - for example, getting his worst enemy to be his rival for the position, which I considered. Instead, I tried Pulling, by giving the character an opportunity to get involved (his friend putting his name forward) but when the character didn't follow up, leaving it be instead of trying to put the issue into the character's face or have it bite him in the butt. I thought it was an interesting subplot, but the player didn't - and since I was considering it as a Pull, that helped me decide when to let it go, since the player wasn't going to take the bait of "Oh, cool!"

    Does that help?

    --Jess
    • CommentAuthorMark W
    • CommentTimeMay 15th 2006
     # 28
    Yeah, that helps/ In your example, is the player AWARE that he can ignore the input "safely"?

    That's really the heart of the confusion, I think. An awful lot of the Pulls I've seen described seem like they're not really different in content from a Push, only in intent and reception. Likewise, a Push seems like it's a very "one drop" kind of thing - if any force is perceived at all, it's a Push, and any intended Pull component (as in Tony's example) is washed away.

    It makes more sense to me to think of Tony's example as containing both Push and Pull at the same time - I'm trying to understand why/when an assertion of fact poisons the well and makes Pulling impossible.
    •  
      CommentAuthorkleenestar
    • CommentTimeMay 15th 2006
     # 29
    Well, she was concerned that she was missing out on an opportunity - but that's a different kind of worry (and "unsafe-ness") from feeling like she had a metaphorical gun to her head. She couldn't see any immediate reason to follow up on it, neither to protect herself from the consequences of a Push nor to go with the tempting opportunity of Pull I was giving to her. But you're right, it did require a certain amount of trust between us, for her to realize that I wasn't trying to trick her or get her screwed over by failing to follow up on this.

    I don't think an assertion of fact makes Pulling impossible at all. I think that it's the way in which that fact is asserted. In Tony's example, the inter-character Pull stuff is a whole lot less important than the people who are about to try to kill them, which is the Push in that example.

    I can imagine a situation where the two were reversed (a weak Push with a strong Pull) in the same example. Imagine that Yoshi had said, "Look at that horde of wolf-riders back there! I know it looks like they're far away, but I think they're going to catch up to us, so we should run away." That's not the most artful character speech ever, but it clearly offers an opportunity for Jen to scoff at Yoshi's fearfulness (a strong Pull) while creating a weak Push (the character has established the wolf-riders as something that has to be dealt with, but they aren't an imminent threat).

    Again, YMMV, since I'm me and not Mo, but this is how I've been using this stuff fairly fruitfully.

    --Jess
    • CommentAuthorTonyLB
    • CommentTimeMay 15th 2006
     # 30

    Jess, a quick question before we delve further into this ... are you still talking about Push and Pull strictly by Mo's definitions?

    For instance, when you say: In Pull, you're defining something that exists but not declaring how it is immediately important for the other person to respond right away. It's like saying, "Oh, hey, look at this thing! Neat!" In Push, you're not only defining that thing but also saying, "Cope with this or else; you're going to have to make me back down if you want this changed."

    ... are you saying that those follow logically from Push and Pull as Mo has defined them? Or are you talking about your own, different, sense of what the terms mean?

    •  
      CommentAuthorkleenestar
    • CommentTimeMay 15th 2006
     # 31
    It's my interpretation of Mo's definitions; not being Mo, it's as close as I can come. :)

    --Jess
  32.  # 32
    This was supposed to be a whisper, sorry.

    Thomas
    • CommentAuthorTonyLB
    • CommentTimeMay 15th 2006
     # 33

    In my mind, an action can contain both Push and Pull, but only insofar as it refers to different narrative or social stakes.

    Okay, Jess, there's suddenly ... y'know ... a lot to wade through. I hope you'll be patient with me as I try to absorb things.

    I think that I get what you're saying here. If you look at an action from a certain perspective it looks like Push. If you look at it from a different perspective it looks like Pull.

    Have I got that right?

    •  
      CommentAuthorkleenestar
    • CommentTimeMay 15th 2006
     # 34
    Yes, that's exactly what I'm trying to say. And I have lots of patience, particularly when I'm procrastinating on writing things I should be writing. :)

    --Jess
    • CommentAuthorTonyLB
    • CommentTimeMay 15th 2006
     # 35

    Cool! Glad I can help you with the vital task of procrastination.

    You're saying (I think) that there cannot exist a set of Stakes from which the same action can be both Push and Pull. That for any given set of Stakes the action will be clearly either Push or Pull. Is that right?

    'cuz I don't think I'm on-board with that yet. For instance, "Do we stay with the peasants or flee?" is the set of stakes I would roughly have asigned to that scene. It seems to me that in declaring the Horde closer I am (a) asserting my authority to impact those stakes and (b) soliciting Jen to respond in a way that will impact those stakes. Am I missing something?

    •  
      CommentAuthorkleenestar
    • CommentTimeMay 15th 2006
     # 36
    Well, given your analysis of what you're doing in declaring the Horde closer, I think we're diverging at the idea that response = Pull. In fact, Jen HAS to respond to the Horde being closer, which is precisely what makes it a Push, in my mind. If she doesn't respond, the implication that I'm getting is that the Horde is close enough to really screw up her character. You want her to respond - in fact, you're making her response mandatory. That's Push to me.

    I don't see Push vs. Pull as authority vs. response. It's "I am using my authority to MAKE you respond, because if you don't, there are Consequences" versus "I am using my authority to offer you an OPTION to respond, if you feel like it, but if you don't, no harm no foul."

    I also think I should be careful in using the term stakes; you said "perspective" above, which I like. "Issue" might also be good. Stakes has a very specific meaning from Dogs etc., so I don't want to confuse the issue. But yes, I'd say that for a given act viewed from the perspective of a particular issue, the action must be either a Push or a Pull, not both (though it can be neither). Clarity I can't promise, given how much discussion the issue has generated. :)

    --Jess
    • CommentAuthorTonyLB
    • CommentTimeMay 16th 2006
     # 37

    I don't see Push vs. Pull as authority vs. response. It's "I am using my authority to MAKE you respond, because if you don't, there are Consequences" versus "I am using my authority to offer you an OPTION to respond, if you feel like it, but if you don't, no harm no foul."

    Okay Jess ... we're still using Mo's definitions though, right?

    • Push is an assertion of individual authority
    • Pull is a directed solicitation for collaborative buy-in and input

    Are you still cool with that?

    •  
      CommentAuthorkleenestar
    • CommentTimeMay 16th 2006
     # 38
    Tony: short answer, yes. Longer answer is probably necessary to explain how I'm getting to my exegesis from the original text, but I really must go to bed, as the boy is wearing a seductive look and winking violently at me. (Or he might just have something in his eye.) More coming in the morning.

    --Jess
  39.  # 39
    ...I just read this whole thread. Two things:

    1. I'm with Tony, so far.

    2. This doesn't mean I haven't taken something valuable from trying looking at things in this way, at this level. Because I have.

    Thanks, all.
    • CommentAuthorCharlesS
    • CommentTimeMay 16th 2006
     # 40
    Levi,

    On what are you with Tony?

    That push/pull can be combined in a single action, or that push/pull isn't a valid/effective theory?

    If it is the first one, I think the question doesn't hinge on much more than a technicality, thus Mo's answer that one transaction can encompass multiple social interactions, one of which can be pull while another is push - does that mean push/pull are combined or that they aren't? This is where Mo said she and Tony were very close to understanding each other. Jess put it differently, explaining that on balance, a particular transaction is going to be predominantly either push or pull (or at least so I understood her). I don't think Jess is wrong on that (to my eye, it's both true and important), but I think that Mo's formulation, that we should look at what part of the action pushes and what part pulls, rather than trying to weigh the action to see if it is more pull or more push, is more likely to be productive as a tool of analysis ("how does this push? how does this pull?" rather than "is it a push? is it a pull?").

    If it is the other half (push/pull isn't a valid/effective construction), that is a position I don't really understand. Does push/pull describe something that is already well described by Forge theory? It doesn't seem to me that it is, although I certainly can't claim to be a serious Forge theory maven. If someone could explain to me what existing theory explains (and contradicts) the push/pull concept, I think that would help me (and maybe others) understand what it means when people say they disagree with push/pull (not don't understand what is meant by push/pull, but disagree that push/pull describes something real).

    Also, if anyone could explain why the question of simultanity/combined push/pull seems to be a very important sticking point, that might also be helpful.

    Charles S (alephnul on lj)

    ps: Levi, The Ennead (specifically, Sarah Kahn) says hi!
    •  
      CommentAuthorAdam Dray
    • CommentTimeMay 16th 2006
     # 41
    I'm confused.

    Let's say that push and pull are very subjective things that depend on how a person interprets another player's action. That means that one player might think a particular action is a pull and another might think it's a push. In this light, actions cannot be categorized objectively as one or the other.

    In order to have push and pull categories that have any meaning to design theory, don't we need to be able to objectively define them? A lot of this thread has been pounding away at agreeing on these objective definitions.

    Don't objective definitions more or less ignore subjective interpretations of them? Basically, "I know it might feel like a push to you, but it's really a pull; You're misinterpreting it" versus "I can't tell if you think it's a push or a pull; either is a valid interpretation but it's a pull to me."

    I don't think the subjective, contextual definitions of push and pull are useful to design theory. They are probably useful to social theory, of which game theory is a part, but I can't see how to design with it. It still is useful fodder for making games better as players though.

    As for existing Forge theory, this falls into the broad category of Force. This is all about using Force to establish facts in the SIS. With both push and pull, as I understand them from Mo's definitions, there is Force involved. Push forces a situation onto a player and requires a reaction. Pull forces facts into the SIS. Both create paths to conflict. A pull offers a conflict to a player but creates no consequence for ignoring it. A push forces the conflict onto the player with consequences that cannot be avoided.

    If people accept those redefinitions, I think it clearly demonstrates how push and pull are mutually exclusive. One cannot have situation that both offers a conflict that can be ignored and forces a conflict that cannot be ignored.
    •  
      CommentAuthorBrand_Robins
    • CommentTimeMay 16th 2006 edited
     # 42
    Hey all,

    Don't know if you all will find this useful, but it seemed fitting to the discussion: Push and Pull at the Moment of Crisis. I think it may propose an answer to some of the confusion here.
    • CommentAuthorbankuei
    • CommentTimeMay 16th 2006
     # 43
    Hi Adam,

    In order to have push and pull categories that have any meaning to design theory, don't we need to be able to objectively define them?

    if you read the definitions Mo has come up with, they are definitely NOT subjective. I mentioned on Mo's blog, but here again: Push requires authority, Pull can use authority OR not- so Force is not the place to look. For instance, asking "Can I get a scene with the King?" in a game that doesn't normally allow player scene framing is a pull- even though the player has no "authority" to do so.
    • CommentAuthorTonyLB
    • CommentTimeMay 16th 2006
     # 44

    Brand, that's a cool article. I still sort of have the same question, though ... can one actual action be a Push for one "moment of crisis" and simultaneously be a Pull for a different one?

    Like, in the AP of this thread: Yoshi giving in to terror and begging to flee the Horde, that's a moment of crisis. Khaidu affirming his dedication to defend the helpless peasants, even if it means facing the Horde, that's a moment of crisis. Does positing that the Horde is close (as in the AP) Push the first and Pull the second?

    •  
      CommentAuthorBrand_Robins
    • CommentTimeMay 16th 2006 edited
     # 45
    Tony,

    I'll have to think about that, okay? I'm going to Ottawa in like 2 hours, and won't be back until Saturday night. I'll get back to you about it when I'm home, if'n that's okay by you.

    Also, I may have more questions. I know, I'm annoying when I get asking a million questions, but I want to be clear on what we're saying.
    • CommentAuthorTonyLB
    • CommentTimeMay 16th 2006
     # 46

    Hey, you're talking about spending days and days contemplating (at least occasionally, for a second or two) my little question? Hell yeah that's alright by me!

    Sheesh ... now I feel like I shoulda asked something more worthy, y'know? :-)

    •  
      CommentAuthorkleenestar
    • CommentTimeMay 16th 2006
     # 47
    Uh, hi, sorry. Sleep and work have interfered with the posting, but I'm back. :)

    Tony, you asked about whether I'm still using Mo's definitions. I've definitely applied my own exegesis to them, but yes, I am.

    * Push is an assertion of individual authority
    * Pull is a directed solicitation for collaborative buy-in and input

    I think it's easier to see how I'm getting my understanding of Pull, so I'll start with that. I read Mo's definition of Pull as the social act which is occuring. A Pull does not have to come in the narrative form of a question, but it does ask, implicitly, whether the player is interested in participating in the event being proposed. You could say, "Hey, do you want to go find out what the King is up to in his spare time?" You could also say, "Your brother mentions that he saw the King wandering around the castle. Isn't that weird?" One of those uses a question, one uses narrative authority, but both proffer an opportunity to go get involved in this plot as opposed to a definite need to get involved in the plot.

    For Push, I read Mo's definition, again, as a social act. "If you don't do something about it, I get to have things this way." I actually think Mo's definition here is incomplete ... not every assertion of authority is a Push. It depends on what you're asserting that authority to do. However, from the examples, it seems clear to me that the authority of Push is used to 'up the stakes' and force narrative elements into the forefront. "The captain of the guards orders you to find out why the King is wandering around the castle at night, and if you fail he'll throw you in jail." That's establishing facts, but that's not really the point. You're throwing your authority behind "finding out about the King" being a narrative element that you MUST follow up on or else suffer consequences.

    Tony, I've explained how I think your example is a strong Push and a weak Pull, and shown how I think you could turn it around to make it a weak Push and a strong Pull. Before I start trying to consider other ways of divvying the issues up (as in the example you're giving Brand), maybe I can hear whether the analysis I gave makes sense to you.

    Adam, I'm really sorry, but I can't even address your points right now - I have a limit to how many arguments I can keep track of at a time. I definitely agree with the last paragraph of your analysis, but I have to ponder the Force thing that you bring up. But I'll be thinking about it when I get a chance!

    --Jess
    •  
      CommentAuthorAdam Dray
    • CommentTimeMay 16th 2006
     # 48
    Lemme link it back to Mo's definitions for you.
    * Push is an assertion of individual authority

    Push is use of Force to get what you want directly.

    * Pull is a directed solicitation for collaborative buy-in and input

    Pull is use of Force to set up an opportunity for someone to help you get what you want.

    Or something like that. My problem with Mo's definitions are that they don't seem mutally exclusive. Like Tony, I feel that I could assert individual authority in a way that is directing solicitation for collaborative buy-in and input.

    To clear that up for me, the definition of push would have to tell me what I was asserting individual author over. If the answer is "any social situation!" then I think there's still plenty of room for that push to also be asking for buy-in.

    In Verge setup, for example, a player can add something to the network map just by spending a token during his turn and writing it down on the big piece-a-paper. That's push. There's no way to stop him from doing it within the rules. He's established individual authority over the fiction. At the same time, though, he needs the other players to connect other stuff to it and cast their votes for it as a "cool element" by ratifying it. Otherwise, it remains a useless piece of material. That's pull. In that example, I see one action, not two; and I see push and pull at the same time.
    • CommentAuthorTonyLB
    • CommentTimeMay 16th 2006
     # 49

    I actually think Mo's definition here is incomplete ... not every assertion of authority is a Push. It depends on what you're asserting that authority to do. However, from the examples, it seems clear to me that the authority of Push is used to 'up the stakes' and force narrative elements into the forefront.

    Okay, Jess ... shall we call this something other than "Push" then?

    I mean, yeah, maybe it's what Mo would have written if she'd thought to write it that way, but (unless Mo chooses to revise her definitions) that's not for either of us to know, right? Given how much confusion there was before Mo made her definitions I am, personally, pretty skeptical about redefining her terms.

    Tony, I've explained how I think your example is a strong Push and a weak Pull, and shown how I think you could turn it around to make it a weak Push and a strong Pull. Before I start trying to consider other ways of divvying the issues up (as in the example you're giving Brand), maybe I can hear whether the analysis I gave makes sense to you.

    It may, but I don't want to assume. I'm going to try to rephrase what I think you mean. This is fraught with the potential for me to be wrong, wrong, wrong. If I am, I hope you will correct me, and not attribute to malice the errors that arise solely due to my confusion.

    "Push" and "Pull" can only be defined in reference to an issue/perspective regarding what's going on.

    In the AP case, if you choose to look at the event through the filter of the issue "Are we safe?" then Tony's actions are a Push ... he asserts on his individual authority that the Horde is close enough to be a danger.

    If you choose to look at the event through the filter of the issue "Are we heroes?" then Tony's actions are a Pull ... he solicits Jennifer to have Khaidu be heroic (aiming at the flag raised by the barbarian's "Key of Conscience").

    The Push case is strong if "Are we safe?" is an issue that the people around the table care strongly about and pay a lot of attention to. The Pull is weak if "Are we heroes?" is an issue that the people around the table care little about, and pay little attention to.

    Conversely, with the same choices and actions, the Push case is weak if "Are we safe?" is an issue that the people around the table care little about, and pay little attention to. The Pull case is strong if "Are we heroes?" is an issue that the people around the table care strongly about and pay a lot of attention to.

    How does that sound to you? The "strong" and "weak" terms are still a little vague for me, and that's where I've done most of my blue-sky guesswork. Did I get it right? Close, even? I hope it's at least close.

    •  
      CommentAuthorkleenestar
    • CommentTimeMay 16th 2006
     # 50
    Don't worry, Tony, I'm with ya here. :)

    Even better, I think you hit it on the nose in terms of what I meant. You're absolutely right that I mean 'strong' and 'weak' in terms of group/player commitment to the issue, particularly relative to other issues that may be on the table at the same time. Now I'm curious to hear what you think of it!

    As for Mo's definitions - well, she's said to me that she thinks I get what she means with Push/Pull, despite some early confusion on my part. I also think I stuck pretty close to both the basic definition and to the cast of examples provided by Mo in my interpretation, but obviously Mo didn't put it precisely the way that I put it. Unfortunately, I think it would also be really confusing to introduce a third term into the discussion, so can we just say that since you're talking to me, you're talking to my understanding of Push/Pull, which is pretty close (and possibly identical) to Mo's? If necessary, we can clear things up with Mo when she gets back from her trip.

    --Jess
    • CommentAuthorTonyLB
    • CommentTimeMay 16th 2006
     # 51

    Well, Jess, I'm not thrilled about the prospect of talking about a whole new model. I'm pretty sure (personally) that, even if Mo says your model is getting at the same observations as hers, the model itself is not the same as Mo's definition. But maybe the difference won't matter for our discussion. Here's hoping, huh?

    So, anyway, I'm glad I got lucky on the whole "strong" / "weak" thing. As to what I think of it ... wellll ... let me approach this with some delicacy, because I've got a fairly strong opinion on it, and I don't want people to think that it's a knee-jerk reaction. So I'm gonna define a few terms, and make a few observations/opinions before I fire off my main thoughts, 'kay?

    First, I'll coin a term. Two terms, in fact: Push-tential and Pull-tential. A given action has Push-tential if there exists an issue/perspective for which the action could be viewed as a Push. Likewise, an action has Pull-tential if there exists an issue for which the action could be a Pull.

    There is no such thing as Strong or Weak Push-tential or Pull-tential. If the issue exists then the question of whether a given action is Strong Push, Weak Push or no Push at all is a question of whether the group is paying a lot of attention, a little attention or no attention to the issue. Push-tential and Pull-tential are binary: an action either has them or it doesn't.

    It seems to me that the vast and overwhelming majority of actions in roleplaying have both Push-tential and Pull-tential. With the exception of actions wherein you literally contribute nothing of your own (which cannot be Push) and actions wherein you literally accept no response of any kind (which cannot be Pull) everything else could be a Push or could be a Pull ... it's all a matter of how you look at it.

    Have I lost anyone so far? That's my foreword.

    My thoughts, given that, are as follows: Push and Pull are not at all connected to what you do. They are purely about what you notice yourself doing. You've been asserting yourself and soliciting feedback forever. But when you notice yourself doing that it becomes Push and/or Pull. Which is cool, as far as it goes. Paying attention to those things gives you all these benefits:

    • Realizing how you contribute to the game
    • Realizing how you draw other people to contribute to the game
    • Learning how to more effectively focus your contributions on an issue that interests you
    • Learning how to more effectively draw out others on an issue that interests you
    • Realizing when others are contributing, or in turn are trying to draw you out

    Now those are great things. They're worth paying attention to, if you don't already. But I honestly worry that the way Push/Pull is described is concealing the vast and complicated sweep of those things, rather than revealing them. There is a deep-grained pattern here that says "When you've diagnosed something as Pull you no longer have to think about how it is Push (and vice-versa)."

    I've seen it many times just in this discussion: I say "Why do you think this action is not Pull?" and the response is "Well it's obviously Push." I have to say "Yeah, it's Push ... but how about if it's also Pull?" That, right there, is someone grabbing the first labelled viewpoint that comes to mind, and then being blinded to everything else.

    So, Jess, I think that your "Strong Push/Weak Pull" thing is a bit limited. I'm pretty sure that we had at least three distinct and simultaneously important issues that were being strongly pushed (the danger of the Horde, Yoshi's cowardice, Khaidu's position of leadership) and at least three more that were being pulled (Khaidu's conscience, the character of the refugees as a group, the nature and tactics of the Horde).

    Wow. That's a lot of writing on my part. Yikes. How's that all sit with you?

    •  
      CommentAuthorkleenestar
    • CommentTimeMay 17th 2006
     # 52
    I think we're on the same page here, with a little modification:

    They are purely about what you notice yourself doing

    Instead, I would say, They are about what you and others notice about your narrative and social actions in relation to a particular issue.

    That may not make things any clearer to you, but to me, it means the difference between "Push and Pull are all in your own head" and "Push and Pull exist in the social space of the game, between you and the other participants." But hopefully that's a livable difference. (Not that this has to end with our agreement, by the way. I mostly just want to show you why this is meaningful/helpful for me.)

    Nonetheless, I think that we're pretty close up to that point. I particularly think we're on the same page with things not just being Push or Pull, but with the same action having possible multiple meanings, depending on what issue people are attending to.

    Also, you're right, strong vs. weak is definitely limited - I just threw it in there because it seemed relevant to my understanding of what was going on. I haven't thought it all the way through yet.

    I'm pretty sure that we had at least three distinct and simultaneously important issues that were being strongly pushed (the danger of the Horde, Yoshi's cowardice, Khaidu's position of leadership) and at least three more that were being pulled (Khaidu's conscience, the character of the refugees as a group, the nature and tactics of the Horde).

    Hmm, see, I think I disagree with you on the specifics, even though we seem to be getting close to each other in an understanding of the general case. I agree that the danger of the Horde was a big push. But in my mind, the Yoshi thing isn't really a push. Yoshi was showing her cowardice, but it wasn't becoming a narrative issue that the players had to deal with. Her cowardice was the "how" of the narrative being deployed, not the "what" of what was going to be dealt with. (And if that makes sense to you, I'm giving you some kind of award. I've got to think and see if I can come up with a better formulation.) I'm not sure what I think about the Khaidu-leadership Push; I think my answer to that would depend on the social context of what was going on with Khaidu and his leadership arc. Was Yoshi's action really a direct challenge to his authority in a way that forced him to respond Or Else? I can't really tell, since I wasn't there.

    In fact, as far as the example goes, you were there and I wasn't - so I imagine you have more insight than I do into what was being Pushed and what was being Pulled. It sounds like we're somewhat on the same page in terms of the theory, though, and that's a good thing.

    --Jess
    • CommentAuthorCharlesS
    • CommentTimeMay 17th 2006
     # 53
    Tony and Jess,

    To my mind, weak and strong push and pull are relevant and important, but not in the sense of evaluating whether a particular action was weak or strong push or pull, but whether a particular pull or push from a particular action was weak or strong.

    So declaring that the horde is almost on top of us is a strong push, because it is a push that relates to something that has been acknowledged as being very important in this particular scene and the pull on Khaidu's sense of responsibility is a strong pull (one you can't imagine the other player not responding to, even though it isn't something they have to respond to).

    The other pushes and pulls seem weaker (although, as Jess says, Tony is the only one here who can really judge, since it was his AP), as suggested by the fact that Tony didn't even mention them in the original description of what pushes and pulls he saw (except Yoshi's cowardice, which feels to me more like it was a weak push that was mainly intended to enhance the pull on Khaidu's sense of responsibility).

    To my mind, one of the important aspects of weakness and strongness of pushes and pulls is that is something that I definitely see as being related to system and mechanics. The TSoY keys in this example were useful in marking for both of the players which pull was intended to be the important one (if Khaidu had had a key that related to a fear of having his leadership challenged, then the leadership related pull/push would have become much more important). Systems of play (formal design or informal) can provide support or impediments to various kinds of pushes and pulls, can emphasize the pushes or emphasize the pulls.

    And Tony, I can very much see why you would have a particular problem with the idea that actions are either pushes or pulls, as you seem to have repeatedly provided AP examples in which you were pulling as well as pushing, and keep getting told that since you were obviously pushing strongly, that you must not have been pulling. I think it is pretty clear that while you have a reputation for pushing hard in play, that that doesn't mean that you don't make extensive use of pulls as well.
    • CommentAuthorEmily Care
    • CommentTimeMay 17th 2006 edited
     # 54
    I think it is pretty clear that while you have a reputation for pushing hard in play, that that doesn't mean that you don't make extensive use of pulls as well.

    Makes sense. Capes does both hard & well and intermingled.
    • CommentAuthorTonyLB
    • CommentTimeMay 17th 2006
     # 55

    Jess wrote: Instead, I would say, They are about what you and others notice about your narrative and social actions in relation to a particular issue.

    Well, Jess, I think I'd need to be convinced of that. Here's the question that I don't yet see your answer for:

    Suppose I know that I am offering Jen an opportunity for Khaidu to show his conscience, and Jen doesn't know that I'm offering it (hypothetically she misses it somehow). That means that the Pull is not something that both I and others notice. Does that mean it's not a Pull?

    Clearly it has Pull-tential, right? There is a viewpoint from which it is a Pull, and indeed I am occupying that viewpoint. The fact that Jen doesn't share the same viewpoint doesn't mean the viewpoint doesn't exist.

    In fact, in past examples I've seen this listed as a "failed Pull." It is a Pull (because I recognize the opportunity it offers Jen) but it fails to have an effect (because my knowledge is not shared with her). Does that make it a Pull, not a Pull?

    And that's without even getting into the real complexities. Remember Mo's Pull Example #1, where she sets out an opportunity and then does the whole "wink, wink, nudge, nudge!" bit to make sure Brand can't fail to notice it? I could write a whole little micro-essay about the levels of "Mo knows there's an opportunity" and "Brand knows that Mo knows" and "Brand knows that Mo knows that Brand knows that Mo knows" and how they all have slightly different impacts on the social context. But I won't. I'll just say "Man, this whole "What everybody knows" thing is a sticky wicket ... are you sure you want to go there?"

    CharlesS wrote: I think it is pretty clear that while you have a reputation for pushing hard in play, that that doesn't mean that you don't make extensive use of pulls as well.

    Well, see Charles, my take on it is that everybody makes extensive use of both pushes and pulls (or at least moves with Push-tential and Pull-tential). So I'd be much more comfortable with the phrasing "While you have a reputation for being aware of Pushing, that doesn't mean that you aren't simultaneously aware of the many ways in which you are Pulling as well."

    Does that seem like a meaningless semantic difference to you? I get the feeling that I'm not quite getting across how important (to the mentality of the person thinking about it) I think that distinction can be.

    •  
      CommentAuthorkleenestar
    • CommentTimeMay 17th 2006
     # 56
    Clearly it has Pull-tential, right? There is a viewpoint from which it is a Pull, and indeed I am occupying that viewpoint. The fact that Jen doesn't share the same viewpoint doesn't mean the viewpoint doesn't exist.

    Well, if you tell Jen a joke, and she doesn't think it's a joke, is it still a joke? I think the answer is very similar.

    I think the thing that I didn't make clear, above, is that not every action is Push or Pull - which is why I actually like your Pu*-tential terms. Push and Pull are terms for a way of invoking plot or social interaction. So if you did your thing meaning to get Jen to react in specific ways, then great, it's a Pull - even if you fail, it's just a failed Pull. But Push and Pull are techniques, which is why I think we can talk about the Push-tential and Pull-tential of an action, but the degree to which they are actually a Push or a Pull depends on social knowledge and intention to some extent.

    Replace "making a Pull" with "telling a joke," above, and see if that helps it make any more sense.

    Does that make sense to you?

    --Jess
    • CommentAuthorTonyLB
    • CommentTimeMay 17th 2006
     # 57

    Jess, what you are saying makes sense to me.

    Do you see how what you are saying also undermines (for me) your suggestion that Push and Pull are about what "you and others" are thinking? If you recognize the Pull-tential in an action then you, personally, have made that into a Pull. You are conscious of taking that action in refernce to the issue for which it is a Pull ... so it's a Pull. It's Pull-tential has been fulfilled by your attention.

    See, now I'm just repeating myself with slightly different phrasings. That's probably a bad sign. I'm gonna step back and ask: What do you think? Agree? Disagree? Have questions?

    •  
      CommentAuthorkleenestar
    • CommentTimeMay 17th 2006
     # 58
    Jess, what you are saying makes sense to me.

    Score!! :)

    Yes, I see what you mean about Push and Pull, except that I think that you can unconsciously Push or Pull. (Have you ever said something that you thought was totally normal, and had everyone else at the table crack up at your 'joke'? That's the kind of thing I mean.) Maybe the way to include both of our thoughts is that I think you can make the Pu* argument from the point of view of the initiator OR the receiver of the Pu*. If you're taking the perspective of the initiator, then your intentions make it a Pu*, but the receiver's attitude determines failure or success. If you look at it from the point of view of the recevier, a Pu* exists when you notice there's a Pu*. You might be able to look at it from the perspective of the whole group's social context, but I'm not sure how you'd do that ....

    Anyhow, I don't think it's bad that you're repeating yourself - sometimes you have to say things a few times before you say it in a way that makes sense to other people, as I've periodically been reminded. :)

    I have to do some more thinking about what you're saying, but I'll give a tentative "Yes, that makes sense," and take some time to ponder whether I have questions for you. Again, I like the Pull vs. Pull-tential distinction, which seems analogous to the difference between "a consciously intended/recognized technique" and "a possible, theoretical way of reacting to this statement in a particular context."

    --Jess
    • CommentAuthorTonyLB
    • CommentTimeMay 17th 2006 edited
     # 59

    Cool. I have an observation and a question for you. 'kay?

    Observation: The distinction between "intent" and "noticing" seems (to me) less important that the words make it sound. If I notice as I contemplate having Yoshi flee the Horde, that the action is a Pull on the issue of Khaidu's conscience, and then (having noticed that) I take that action ... that's pretty much the same as intending that Pull, right? I would say that, for either initiator or receiver, the equation is "It's a Push/Pull if you notice that it's a Push/Pull."

    Question: Is there anything else to it? If the only difference between "This is a Push" and "This is not a Push" is "You notice that it's a Push," then isn't the act of noticing it actually the technique?

    • CommentAuthorlumpley
    • CommentTimeMay 17th 2006
     # 60
    I have an opinion on the subject: Six straightforward examples.

    I'm amenable to being told to piss off, if that's what's called for.
    •  
      CommentAuthorkleenestar
    • CommentTimeMay 17th 2006
     # 61
    Hmm, Tony, I see why you're getting that logically from what I said, but I don't agree with it, and I can't quite articulate why. I think that it has to do with the fact that Push/Pull is a SOCIAL act as well as a concrete play technique, and so it relates to what you mean to do to other people, what they think of it, what your group norms are, etc. But I can see that some of the stuff I just said doesn't really emphasize that aspect of things.

    Let me think about it for a bit and get back to you, okay?

    Vincent, I think your examples and exegesis (my new favorite word!) are really useful, but again, I gotta do some thinking before I can really integrate this into my prior understanding. :)

    --Jess
    • CommentAuthorTonyLB
    • CommentTimeMay 17th 2006
     # 62

    Jess, that totally works for me. Take your time. I anticipate really good stuff!

    Vincent, cool post. I'm following up over there, but I can talk about the high points over here too, if you'd like.

    • CommentAuthorCharlesS
    • CommentTimeMay 17th 2006 edited
     # 63
    TonyLB


    "While you have a reputation for being aware of Pushing, that doesn't mean that you aren't simultaneously aware of the many ways in which you are Pulling as well."


    I'm comfortable with that, although I think I'd make it somewhat stronger in that I think that you are not merely aware of the ways that your play has pull-tential and pull, but that you are skilled in doing your play so that it has effective and powerful pulls.

    I'm thinking about how to better talk about the effectiveness and powerfulness of pulls, and about the aspect of noticing pushes and pulls, but I need to go off to work.
    • CommentAuthorIso
    • CommentTimeMay 18th 2006
     # 64
    (Apologies aforehand if I cover old ground--there is a *load* of stuff which I may not have entirely assimilated).

    So you want Derrida, well, you're (what, you don't want Derrida? sheesh--people today...)--

    Seriously, I think some of this has to do with some natural 'behaviors' of oppositional distinctions. In many cases, one side of the opposition is rooted in a more 'fundamental' element that resembles it and so results in a great deal of ambiguity.

    More specifically: at the most basic level, *every* social action is a sort of pull, a call for someone to respond and 'buy in.' If someone walks up to me and punches me in the face, they have asked me (not so politely) to pay attention to them. On the most absolute level, acting towards someone is solicitation, opening yourself to them. They can always frustrate you on some level.

    Now, that being said, that *isn't* the level which Mo and Chris seem to have been talking about. The terms they developed refer to a 'secondary' level, one rooted in describing social action (fundamentally 'all pull') more carefully. Of those social actions, some function by the 'clearing' of a social space for another person to act and the other functions by someone entering a social space and trying to claim it as their own. We can go a step further with the distinctions.

    Push 1 (by invitation): the pusher enters a space that has been offered to them, often by someone else 'pulling.' This is what occurs when Khaidu 'steps into' Yoshi's pull. When responsive, the push doesn't feel like aggression but cooperation, support.

    Push 2 (by force): This is a 'classic' push where the pusher makes their way into a space or creates the space by force. There is a room here, there is a hoard mere moments away. This is what would happen if Yoshi tried to thump Khaidu on the head and run away--she creates a space for her action by asserting her own authority against another's.

    Pull 1 (withdrawal): the puller withdraws from the conflict entirely, creating what is, in essence, a vacuum. They pull by not doing, a sort of demand for another to occupy their space. Imagine Yoshi doesn't respond at all, goes catatonic--she doesn't do anything, but sort of drives Khaidu to do for her.

    Pull 2 (invitation): this is the 'classic' pull, where the puller 'pulls' away in order to let someone else act--they open their social space to them and ask them to move within it, to take up the possibilities within it. If the pulled does not respond, then the possibilities they have been invited toward remain untapped.

    I take it that Mo wants to design more games that work on Pull2-Push1 structures where plenty of games (esp. those 'dysfunctional' games described by Chris) function by Push2-Pull1--I push until you run away or go turtle-y or (if you're a feisty young Jess) you punch me (push back--some fun games being Push2-Push2 competitive).

    Those sorts of actions *are* discrete--you are either clearing a space for me to act or you are taking actions away from me. Now, you might clear space by taking someone else's, but that is a push takeover followed by a pull.
    • CommentAuthorTonyLB
    • CommentTimeMay 18th 2006
     # 65

    So, Isbo, what's your opinion on the Actual Play?

    • CommentAuthorIso
    • CommentTimeMay 18th 2006
     # 66
    Ah, good point--I meant to get back to that.

    Ok--here is where we get to a question of scale, of the duration of the act under consideration. Taken as a 'whole act,' you are pulling--i.e. 'why don't you play strong man to me?' Jennifer can take or leave that invitation. If she takes it, she enters the space you provided. If she doesn't, she can do so in any number of ways--by pushing back ('you're a coward, they aren't nearly as close as you think'), by setting up another pull ('run away you coward, I'm standing and fighting'--i.e. giving you an out to play the coward card even more).

    Taken in more limited chunks of time, you have a push ("the hoard is close") which you follow with a pull ("let's run away"). The second example (you run, I stand) follows the same structure as your example--pull considered as a piece, digestible into a pull and a push.

    Think of it like chemistry--you can talk about the atomic or the molecular--the atomic elements joining together to form the molecular and behaving differently as a 'whole' than they do as individual pieces. You can't talk so easily about water being the additive behavior of 2 Hydrogen + 1 Oxygen but about the synergy of their interaction.
    • CommentAuthorTonyLB
    • CommentTimeMay 18th 2006
     # 67

    So how is "The Horde is close" not a Pull?

    Seems like a Pull to me. I know it gives Jen an opportunity to show Khaidu's Key of Conscience. Jen knows it gives her that opportunity. I know that Jen knows and Jen knows that I know, and Jen knows that I know she knows.

  68.  # 68
    How about this:

    "The horde is close" already determines that the Horde is close; it doesn't seek input about that, doesn't give opportunity to work with that particular piece. The other person can't say "No it isn't" because you asserted your authority that the Horde is close.

    "Let's run away" allows input. You can say, "No, let's not," or "Yes, let's." THAT's the part that gives the opportunity to show the Key.

    Because you could have kept pushing: "The Horde is close. You run away. The next day, blah blah." See how "The Horde is close" without "Do you want to run away" is not giving any opportunity whatsoever?
    • CommentAuthorIso
    • CommentTimeMay 18th 2006
     # 69
    "The horde is close" already determines that the Horde is close; it doesn't seek input about that, doesn't give opportunity to work with that particular piece.

    In short, exactly my feeling. By the time you get to the "Jen knows, I know" discussion, you are in the 'molecular' frame and not the atomic--the whole that is bigger than the part.

    Because you could have kept pushing

    I think this is less important--the keep pushing could just lead to a full blown 'molecular' push just as a pull might be a set-up for a 'molecular' push. What 'could' follow does not in itself determine anything.

    I'm thinking about starting a thread that takes the talk back to game design--namely, what sort of rules facilitate extended pull exchanges, what ones tend to encourage sort of 'batter up' exchanges (pull, leading into push, Push, PUSH), and so on. That may clarify some of the actual play questions, too...I'll smoke that in my pipe a little before jumping
    • CommentAuthorTonyLB
    • CommentTimeMay 18th 2006
     # 70

    No, Christian, I actually don't. I see how "The Horde is close" + "I make your decision for you" is not allowing any opportunity.

    I don't see how "The Horde is close" alone doesn't give that opportunity. If I'd stopped there I wouldn't have gotten my Cowardice XPs (which woulda been a shame) but I still would have offered Jen the opportunity for Khaidu to show off his Key of Conscience.

    Do you disagree?

  71.  # 71
    We are intermixing two things here.
    a) How you put the first fact into the fiction; and
    b) How you open up the space for the other player.

    "The horde is close" is a push because it doesn't allow input about that specific fact. "What do you do" is a pull because it allows input about the specific fact of what the reaction is.

    Think of it this way: "The horde is close" could have been a suggestion of yours instead of a statement. You could have pulled about that specific fact by allowing input about that specific fact. "Is the horde close? What do you guys think?" Or maybe "I'll give you 5 drama points if you put yourself in a position where the Horde is closing in and you have to sacrifice someone." But you didn't do any of these. You asserted your authority about the specific fact that the Horde was close.

    So first you push. You set up the situation, sure; you're enabling the following pull. But the important analytic difference here is that you could have enabled the following pull with a pull first! You could go from pull to pull, from "So what should be the setup for the scene" to "Now how do you react?", instead of "This here is the setup" and then "How do you react?" Compare a collaborative Primetime Adventures scene-setting with a Sorcerer GM-only scene-setting to see the difference.

    Point is: setting up a situation that is great for a pull is not part of that pull. It's either a push or a pull in its own right, and the difference matters.
  72.  # 72
    I should probably say: the difference matters to me. It allows me to weigh whether a game I design should contain more or less venues of collaborative input, or whether I include reward and positioning mechanisms that allow the players to pull each other. It also allows me to weigh, in games I play, which parts I want to push and which parts I want to pull. If as a GM I feel it's necessary for some things to definitely be true for the game to be fun, I'll push them in. If I feel ike input could help, I'll pull; see Dogs for the part where the GM says, "I think there'd probably a well here, what do you guys think?"

    If all that's not helpful to you at all, then of course the difference doesn't matter to you, and you might just have a completely different ontology regarding authority and collaboration in play.
    • CommentAuthorTonyLB
    • CommentTimeMay 18th 2006
     # 73

    "The horde is close" is a push because it doesn't allow input about that specific fact.

    Every entry into the SIS asserts authority about itself. Does that mean that it is impossible for anything narrated in the SIS to be a Pull?

  74.  # 74
    Not if you solicited input about the entry instead of just asserting your own authority.
    • CommentAuthorTonyLB
    • CommentTimeMay 18th 2006
     # 75

    Like what? "The Horde is close ... unless you guys would rather that it wasn't..." Something like that? 'cuz that doesn't seem to have hit the SIS yet, to my eye.

  76.  # 76
    Vincent:

    You've just carried me from "I can't see why you can't do both at once" and "this may be valid, but it doesn't seems useful", to "I get this. It's useful to me."

    Thanks.

    ---

    Charles:

    It was the first. But I think I've got it, now.

    And, please tell Sarah and the others "Hi!" back for me.
  77.  # 77
    It hasn't, but by the time it will, you DID solicit input.

    Better examples are those where you try to make something happen that another person has authority over, like in the examples of offering rewards or suggesting certain things. What if the player said to you, "Hey Tony, I think it would be cool if the Horde was getting so close that we'd have to make tough decisions." And then you put that in. Don't you see that as in some way different from you making that decision on your own?
    • CommentAuthorIso
    • CommentTimeMay 18th 2006
     # 78
    Tony--

    I'm withdrawing my previous ascription of push to your action in the game. I read back over it, went to lunch, had a little walk, and realized that I was wrong. You are entirely right to call the assertion that the horde is close a pull. The way in which you framed your action was pull all the way through. Let me explain:

    You introduced the whole process through your character and not at the level of making something happen 'for real' in the game. You had determined nothing because you left the door open for Jennifer to shrug off everything you said--she could consider the 'horde being close' to your character's cowardice and not to 'real' change in what is going on in the game. It isn't push-pull at all, but one steady pull, a pull that 'sweetens' the deal by allowing her to respond with a pull of her own--i.e. I'll tell you to do something, giving you the opportunity to do something you wanted, but which you could still do otherwise.

    The cool thing is, you both responded to each other's pulls, so you each get to respond with a push that 'fulfills' the pull.

    --Ian
    • CommentAuthorTonyLB
    • CommentTimeMay 18th 2006
     # 79

    It hasn't, but by the time it will, you DID solicit input.

    Christian, I need some help here. I don't see how to connect that answer to my original question of "Does that mean that it is impossible for anything narrated in the SIS to be a Pull?"

    Your answer involves you ... not narrating something into the SIS.

    If you say "Tony, wouldn't it be cool if the Horde were close?" then I'll buy that you're Pulling, but you're also not the one putting things into the SIS.

    If I respond "Cool! The Horde is totally on top of us," then I'm clearly putting things into the SIS, but I don't think (from what you've said so far) that you'd say that I'm Pulling, would you?

    Do you think it's possible for one person to be Pulling and directly impacting the SIS at the same time?

    • CommentAuthorTonyLB
    • CommentTimeMay 18th 2006
     # 80

    Ian wrote: You introduced the whole process through your character and not at the level of making something happen 'for real' in the game.

    Uh ... okay. Nobody showed any inclination to doubt that what Yoshi described was 100% accurate. We just assumed that she'd said it because it was true. Does that change your opinion, Ian?

1 to 80 of 110

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. >