Soft Play.
I’m back!
Summer has been going well. Ribbon Drive is nearing publication. My garden is doing fairly well. And I got back from Go Play alright. Go Play helped me realize something about my play preferences – a shift I’ve made in the past two years.
We sometimes talk about this mode of play that is goal-focused, situation-driven, poweful, assertive, emotionally aggressive, testing and meaningful. It’s a subset of Story Now play, and I’ve heard it described as “playing passionately,” “story by the throat,” and the less flattering “face stabby play.” And I used to be all about this. Yeah! Let’s play close to home, and let’s be really INTENSE about it! So there’s this spectrum that runs from easy/safe/light play to demanding/vulnerable/intense play. Basically, “light-hearted play” vs “intense play”.
There’s a second axis that I find doesn’t get much attention. It’s that of quiet/subtle/downbeat play to loud/obvious/gonzo play. Basically, “soft play” versus “thunderous play”.
Most of the time, when “intense play” gets discussed, it’s assumed we’re also talking about “thunderous play.” A lot of newer games support emotional violence, pushing really hard on character/player goals, centralizing conflicts (the phrase “push to conflict” being a common one) and rewarding powerful and tense moments. Stabbing your mother to protect your forbidden love = awesome.
The shift in my play preferences is that I no longer like this combination. I’m cool with combining “light-hearted play” and “thunderous play”. In this combination, there’s a focus on getting the most fun out of a moment of play, of having actions sound cool, and of building upon any and all suggestions (ie, not filtering). This kind of play works well with Dungeons and Dragons or Danger Patrol or Inspectres. Firing your rocket gun while jumping out of a flaming zepplin = awesome.
I’m fine with “light-hearted play” and “soft play”. This kind of play focuses on appreciating little character quirks, working together, figuring out what you want, and having fun. Breaking the Ice does this really well; the endgame mechanics are: look at the relationship you’ve created. Decide whether or not you want it to last. A thoughtful end to a feelgood game about trying to make something nice work out. Playing out the simple dialogue of two quirky people in a supermarket = awesome. Maybe. Perhaps this cross-section is a straw man – I don’t really know this type of play well at all.
I’m most interested in mixing intense play and soft play. This is the kind of play where things hit home, but they do so slowly. There’s room for subtlety. There”s also room for abrupt, sudden violence. The difference between this abrupt violence and that of “thunderous play” is that when play is soft, we watch the violence shake itself out. We see repercussions, we follow the downbeats after the action. Play utlizes pregnant pauses, focuses on difficult decisions and transitional moments, and makes us think about what our characters really want.
I’m working on two games right now. Ribbon Drive and Perfect. Ribbon Drive is a game about everyday people on road trips, learning to let go (and sometimes giving up on their dreams). Perfect is a game about committing crimes in a Victorian Dystopia, and facing the punishment and brainwashing that follows if you get caught. I started working on them both in earnest months ago. Ribbon Drive is ready to print, whereas Perfect has a lot of writing left. Part of the reason is that Ribbon Drive is a simpler game. A bigger part is that Perfect is intense/thunderous, whereas Ribbon Drive is intense/soft; my interests have shifted and its hard to bring them back.
I don’t see a lot of support for intense/soft games. The techniques are less explored – utilizing pauses and silence; mechanically codifying ambiguity or indecision (how would this work?), or even signalling it for that matter; delaying important decisions without escalating them; using character avoidance without it being a form of player blocking; asking hard questions; reincorporation over time; downbeats; de-escalation; backing down (this is explored in some games, like Dogs in the Vineyard, but still fairly virgin territory for most); and compromise.
I’ve seen some games that do this – Breaking the Ice can do intense/soft as well as light-hearted/soft. Roleplaying poems and stuff written by Jackson Tegu are often really meaningful and powerful but also really quiet and introspective. But there’s something of a void still existing. I’m excited to be nearing completion on Ribbon Drive – I think I’ve done a really good job of exploring some techniques for play that’s both intense and quiet. But I’m still searching for other games that do this well.
Posted by mcdaldno | 7 comments
Willem
Assuming I understand you sufficiently (I feel I do), I’d like to say I really like this kind of play too. I’ve had the intense/thunderous overwhelm my storyjamming sessions consistently (like Polaris, for example), and I have this quiet insistent voice saying “pull back…pull back…throttle down…slower…notice more…pay attention…” ever since I started playing story games.
On first reading of Matthijs’ 2nd ed. Archipelago, it looks like it may support intense/soft play too. In fact I had intense/thunderous overwhelm a few sessions of Archipelago (to my tastes, anyhow) too! I like Matthijs play prescription:
“This game works best if you play it slow. Sometimes, the best thing to do is wait a little and see how things unfold. Ged stayed with Ogion for years, learning about the old language, the names of flower petals and bugs. There’s time to let the characters evolve.
Breathe in. Breathe out. Take your time.”
David
Thanks for posting your thoughts on this; I was trying to think of what was so pleasant about playing Smoke Dream, and I think this captures part of it. I have some work to do now… this is an interesting avenue to explore.
jefgodesky
Welcome back! I missed you!
And Yes! I’ve so often characterized the play I want as “intense,” referring to the gap I feel between that and the emotional superficiality of, say, D&D, that I, too, never noticed that soft/hard axis. I think I also prefer the intense-soft quadrant. I realize what I’ve started working with on the Fifth World generally leads me in that direction.
@#
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzpCcNdhy5w&feature=related
Julian Michels
This is my favorite kind of play as well.
I have even realized of late that I actually really struggle with any play that isn’t both soft (attentive) and intense (relevant to personal themes). I do not really want to do this kind of play, and I think that now that I pretty much only do attentive, personal play, I’ve actually forgotten how to do other kinds the way that I used to: the way that players of other agendas would ask me to.
@Willem, I am sorry that the game of Archipelago that we played together did not end up being soft, intense play. I don’t think everyone in that group was that kind of player, and more to the point given the time constraints and the nature of that game’s system (almost anthropological, rather than thematic, it seemed to me based on limited exposure), I think that maybe soft, intense play was especially difficult to reach.
Daniel
Seems worth pointing out the probably fairly obvious: that movement along these axes is possible within a game, and that I doubt they require the same long-term alignment that something like Creative Agendas seem to.
In terms of movement I think it’s interesting to contemplate how easy it is (for me) to imagine a satisfying game that moves along one axis (so a soft/intense & thunderous/intense game; or a thunderous/light and thunderous/intense game), whereas shifting on both axes seems incoherent (a game that is both soft/intense and thunderous/light, or thunderous/intense and soft/light.)
buriedwithoutceremony
Cool, Daniel.
I think that’s interesting to think about. In our games, can you think of an example of really solid axis shift?
Was there a game that shifted one axis well? Was there a game that tried to shift both and collapsed?