Thanks! These are some dang good examples. But, as is so often the case, I want to quibble. I figured I’d do it here, on your turf, where you’re more likely to tell me to shut up (and where I hopefully won’t derail profitable directions of coversation). Also, this is going to be pretty pushy, for which I apologize. So, without further preamble.

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

This… strikes me as a terrible definition. I think you know what you want to say, but I don’t think this is the way to say it, and here’s why: Push interactions can also be directed attempts to generate collaborative buy-in and input. Not solicitations, at least not in the regular sense, but all that other stuff in your definition? Push can do that too.

In some games I have the authority to push using characters you care about deeply. I can push in such a way that I’m primarily focused on getting you to buy into the story and add something of your own.

Personally, I think it makes way more sense to talk about pull as being tied to authority as well. The definition you have above just strikes me as ambiguous…

Does that seem right to you? It seems totally intuitive to me, but then again it’s taken me four months to figure out what I think about your idea.

(Oh, I’ve just been assuming that you saw my formulation of the distinction yesterday, but I figured it would probably be smart of me to double-check. Assuming you have, what is it about your broader, non-authority-based definition of pull that you think makes more sense than my definition?)

Thomas

I think that a whole lot of what you’re talking about as Pull interactions are just unstructured Drama-resolution, using largely unexamined kinds of currency related to social relationships between players. There is power there, getting used by the Pull-er, it’s just not a kind of power that’s acknowledged by formalized mechanics. I question whether it is really useful to talk about this kind of subtle, covert authority as NOT being authority, or as somehow the OPPOSITE of authority.

Where, oh where, do I explicitly divorce authority from Pull? Where oh where, do I explicitly divorce collaboration from Push? Just because I am defining what Push and Pull must be does not mean that it can’t be more.

I was asked to provide a base definition, not say everything that needs to be said.

Stop reacting to what you think I am saying and read it again like you’ve never heard of the concept before. Then go and reread C+P and the original posts.

Note to everyone: Just because I posted this over here to make sure those following Push/Pull who are not on Storygames can keep the continuity, does not mean I won’t Godmod the hell out of this thread. It’s not an invitation to circumvent Andy’s requests.

I tried to make it clear I wasn’t challenging your definition - I think it’s a good one, and the concept obviously is meaningful to a good many people. It just doesn’t mesh with my own understanding of what happens when we play.

I’ve been fully engaged with the Push/Pull discussion since the beginning, and I don’t think that I’m disagreeing with you because I don’t understand what you’re saying. I disagree with you because I don’t find what you’re saying useful to me, and I’ve been trying to find a way to acknowledge the AP that informs it in a way that IS useful to me. I’m glad that others DO find it useful.

To clarify something. The word “authority” is in the definition of push and not of pull because to push you absolutly must have a least enough authority to make the statement and have it stick. Without that, you can’t push functionally. It is not in the pull definition because even without authority you can try to get other people to buy in.

That doesn’t mean you can’t pull with authority, or that push needs overwhelming authority to work. It just means that in the bare bones definitions of them the word gets used because it’s clearer than leaving in a blank “Push in an individual assertion.”

Mark,

’s cool man. You’ve been around the block a few times, for sure and you and I have really gotten to know each other mostly because of this discussion. (Which, btw, I’m glad of.)

But let me ask you a question, now, if’n you don’t mind. You seem pretty clear at this point that push/pull isn’t useful for you — and I personally have no problem with that. I never found most realist philsophy useful to me, so I can totally get not finding a way of looking at things useful.

So, with that in mind, why is it important to you to still be in the discussion? I mean, if it isn’t giving you anything, but is giving something to others, why not let them talk about it while you focus your energy on things that will be useful for you? Do you still think that you might get to a point where it will be useful, or do you think that isn’t going to happen for a while?

You can email me about this, if’n you don’t want to talk about it here. thebrand at gmail dot com.

No apology necessary, the note in bold was just to ward off future badness, not to yell at either of you.

If you don’t find the discussion useful to you, that’s cool.

The reason I said go back and re-read was not because I wanted you to capitulate and agree, but because you were disagreeing with points that I did not make (that pull could not contain authority, that pull did not have power).

Honest question… What does the following mean?

“I’ve been trying to find a way to acknowledge the AP that informs it in a way that IS useful to me.”

I’m NOT saying that you need to centralize power in your discussion, or that you have ignored/disavowed it. I’m trying to link up my own interest in power/authority with the discussion.

Okay, I’m also trying to problematize Pull. But mostly for my own thought process. Sorry.

No prob.

Do let me know how it turns out when you reconcile it.

Consider this: when Pushing, you’re not soliciting. You can be adding something that everyone likes, or helping collaborate to the direction everyone else is going- but there’s no solicitation in it.

When Pulling, you can solicit whether you have authority or not. If you don’t have authority, (”I’d like your thief to steal my ring”), you are asking the person who does. If you do have authority, you’re asking for input that will affect your authority, or perhaps, even giving authority over.

Push is defined as such because if you have authority- you don’t need to ask. Pull is defined as such, because it doesn’t matter whether you have authority or not- you’re asking for something. This is why authority alone is not the hinge by which these two swing- it’s assertion and solicitation.

Naturally, in group effort, we’re talking about the difference between areas of authority and consensual negotiation and p/p are applications of how that works.

Aha! That makes sense. I’ll have to think a bit more on how I want to reframe my understanding of push/pull now. Thanks. (Oh, and thanks to Mo too!)

Thomas

Hope it is useful and maybe even on track.