[OSList] OST / Gaming

Sat Oct 19 15:37:08 PDT 2013

Hello chaps,

I admit, I took a break from the digest arriving in my inbox, but I have
been drawn back to the list by the lovely Mary O¹Connor, who pointed me at
this thread. And very timely it is for me, too, in terms of OST and gaming
and such. (Apologies for un-threading this post.)

Harrison said:
>> Some people refer to the ³Game of Life,² but it is scarcely a game you choose
to play (or not). [...]  OS for me is not a process we choose to do or not do 
quite simply it is what we are -- Self organizing, and OS is only an invitation
to be ourselves fully and purposefully. <<

For me, both OST and gaming are precisely about choice: about making
choices.

I should say that I¹m seeing Œgame¹ and Œgaming¹ as different things, here.
A game has a pre-determined structure, rules, goals etc. ŒGaming¹ is about
people making choices within a given structure, and  crucially  that
structure does not have to be a game. Not as we traditionally perceive
Œgame¹, anyway.

In my work making theatre, I¹ve been exploring new ways to engage an
audience. Essentially, we are performing work in Open Space  although we¹re
not quite, yet. We still haven¹t introduced it as that, exactly. But it
follows the principles and Law, and  for me  the essence of choice that
lies in the self-organisation of OST.

The audience comes into what we¹re calling a Storyworld: a big space, of
exactly the kind in which you might open space, set out in a similar way 
initially one collective space, then divided into smaller spaces  and here
they¹re introduced to the way in which the story will be told.

The characters effectively call the sessions, playing scenes in those
smaller spaces (which we set out with furniture appropriate to whatever
rooms fit the story), and the audience then behaves exactly as they do in
open space.

It¹s very fluid: the audience can also call sessions, because they can talk
to the characters from the start, and we introduce them to the main story
arc from the start. More than talk to them, we try to build an environment
in which members of the audience (I like to call them audients) can form
relationships with the characters if they want to.

We encourage emotional engagement with the process by following a very
simple narrative which has plenty of room to be inflated and explored in
open space. Our core narrative is effectively the governing theme of the
process, with a strong narrative question established that will guide us
through. The business of the audience is to engage with us in telling that
story, and the issue for them is how these characters get to that final,
inevitable conclusion which we know they must reach by the end of the story.

So here¹s the crossover I¹m talking about, between how people engage with
the process in OST, and gaming, and this kind of theatre. A guy called
Andrew Glassner wrote a great book called ³Interactive Storytelling² which
is essentially about how storytelling is evolving within the world of games.
(Actual games.)

In the book, he observes what he refers to as the Œgame loop¹. (Although not
the programming kind of game loop, Harold!) This is a basic description of
what people do in the process of gaming.

1. Observe the situation
2. Set goals 
3. Prepare 
4. Commit and execute
5. Compare result to the plan
6. Evaluate the result for self
7. Evaluate the result for others
8. Return to step 1

In football, for example: you have the ball at your feet and it's your move.
You look at where your teammates are, and how close to the goal you are.
Then you decide to kick the ball to Bob. You prepare by tensing and putting
your weight on the correct foot. Then you make the move and kick the ball.
Immediately, you look to see if the ball is going in the intended direction,
and then you evaluate whether or not Bob got it and is doing something
useful with it. Then you check that everyone else around you is responding
to your move in the way you thought they might, both your team and the other
team. Then you observe where Bob is going, and decide on your next move.

It also works with chess: look at the game, make a plan, pick up the piece,
make the move, evaluate the move, look at the fear on your opponent¹s face,
and so on. It works with any game, pretty much.

It also works in Storyworld theatre. An audient looks around the room. They
decide to follow a character who amuses them, so they turn and head that
way. When they get to that scene, they might hover to see if this session is
actually one they want to join. Other people seem to be here too, and are
also finding this moment funny, so they stay for a while. Then they hear a
song being sung across the room, and they look, set a goal to go over there,
and use the Law of Two Feet to execute a move across the room.

For me, the great joy of Storyworld theatre is that I have freedom of choice
to engage as I please: I can speak in a session, I can just listen, I can
bumblebee and butterfly. It¹s the same when I am gaming: I observe, set a
goal, prepare, commit and execute, compare result to planŠ and all in my own
good time.

I¹m not talking about playing Monopoly. I¹m talking about making my move in
Monopoly. The former has big rules and limitations. The latter just offers
me a structure within which I am free to choose. Whilst making my move, I
can butterfly as I watch other people discuss the game. I can announce a tea
break, and bumblebee between a conversation at the sink and another back at
the table. I can even move my little Top Hat illegally onto the pile of
Community Cards and state that this move is a new one I¹ve just invented,
which allows me to give every player a card simultaneously instead of moving
to a new square. (Because  well, why not? The game can¹t stop me. The other
players can be prepared for surprise, or use their two feetŠ)

That is me, gaming.

And also me being in Open Space.

And also me living.

So Harrison, don¹t feel bad about not liking games! Games are often about
winning or losing, and when it feels like it¹s either one or the other 
well, for me, that¹s not a great game. Gaming, on the other hand, if you¹re
talking about it as above, is just about process. As is OST. In the moment
of actually *playing* a game, when you are making your move, what you have
is complete freedom and agency to pursue your own choice of goals. You can
even break the rules, if you want.

The massive online games to which Jane McGonigal refers are, I think,
Storyworlds. It is in such venues that I began the journey which brought me
naturally into Open Space and now sees me exploring Storyworld theatre. (For
the Trekkies on the list, we privately refer to it as Holodeck Theatre.)

I find Open Space addictive. At least, I see it and feel it and am in it
always, and everywhere, and each time a little OST bell rings in my life
(and there are a lot of them, like tiny wind chimes) I get a tiny kick which
feels strangely like achievement. Those gaming moves ring similar bells for
me.

Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplay Games, or MMOs, require a specific
kind of writing: you need to shape a whole world clearly enough that people
can imagine themselves being a part of it, playing a person within it, and
making journeys there, but also leave enough freedom for people to be anyone
they want, and make any number of different journeys, with as much potential
for bell ringing as possible.

In fact, as much potential as real life offers. That¹s the power of story,
and it¹s not like real life is story-free. OST is a running narrative in my
Life-Storyworld.

And there are some glorious days when I feel like I¹ve levelled up in it :-)

Jen x

Jenifer Toksvig
www.acompletelossforwords.com

The Copenhagen Interpretation
www.thecopenhageninterpretation.co.uk

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20131019/745098d6/attachment-0007.htm>