Player Illusionism

[Gordon C. Landis]

OK, Logan mentioned (in one of the GNS/Dramatism threads) that Illusionism is usually a GM "tool".  I'm putting this here in Theory, even though it involves Actual Play, because it's the Theory implications I'm most interested in  . . .  here goes.

D&D/Fantasy type game with your standard "adventuring party" kind of a model.  We're investigating the kidnapping of a local boy - looks like he's been snatched by some sort of local goblin-faerie group, dragging him into their mound for foul sacrificial rites at the next sunset.  I don't remember what all the clues were, but it became clear that this was NOT as strait-forward as it appeared - the local stories didn't all jibe, the faerie mound had been the site a mostly-good wizards' abode until 30-40 years back . . . and we had a "fae" party member who thought the claim that this was any kind of faerie mound was bunk.  Anyway . . . we end up in a stand-off with the inhabitants, who are some sort of small golem-like constructs.  No sign of the boy, but we caught them in the middle of the "coronation" of their new leader.  Who was wearing a large talisman of some kind around his neck.

I (the player) think I've figured it out: the golem-things were created by the mostly-good wizard, and they have no real self will - they need a human-blooded type to lead them.  They've snatched the boy and put the talisman on him to "turn" him into their leader (turns out, I'm basically right).

So, in a classic Sim-Character fashion, I do not blurt out "the talisman is turning the boy into one of them!" or the like (though I do take a bit of secret, Gamist joy in knowing/thinking I've figured it out).  Rather, I ask myself: "has my CHARACTER figured it out"?  But what thinking about Logan's Dramatism/Illusionist stuff made me realize is I also considered things like: "hmm, I've figured it out - but is the GM ready to resolve it now?  Are the other players ready?  Should I give them some time to figure it out themselves?  Are they enjoying this scene and so it should continue for a bit?"

The way I decided to resolve this was, again, basically Sim-Character - I started rolling a twenty sider and adding my Wisdom/Intellgence bonus (or something) periodically, waiting until I'd accumulated, oh, 50 "points" to indicate the character had the same revelation I'd had.  It worked out well - there was a good 15-20 mins of roleplaying this tense situation, and then my (rather anti-social, impolite Rouge) interrupted with a sternly toned "Remove the necklace from your new 'king' - now!"

So . . . I'm thinking, this is Player-generated Illusionism, and for all the Sim-Character trappings, it is in fact a demonstration of Logan's statement that a Dramtist player is expected to not ALWAYS think "what would my character do?", but should also support the creation of the GM's story.  When push comes to shove, the Sim "explore character" priority was overridden by the Sim "explore GM's story/situation" priority.  Which might also be phrased as "explore the scenario/module designer's story/situation" .  . . interesting possible subtleties in that distinction.

[Aside:  I think this is one of the issues with Dramatism and GNS, and perhaps GNS in general - there are lots of these kind of tradeoffs within Sim explore-options, just like there are between G and N and S in general.  This comes off as a bit odd - there isn't a similar phenomena within G and/or N, only S.  I may develop this further in another thread. . . . ]

Like the GM-focused Illusionism we've discussed before, this is tricky - what if I'd been wrong about what was going on?  In fact, I compensated for that chance by phrasing my "confrontation" in such a way that if I was wrong, the GM could cover (and my gruff character personality meant being wrong wouldn't invalidate/deprotagonize him), but . . . I can still see why this is NOT as complete a solution to story-creation issues as "real" Narrativism is - except for those that can't bear to give up some other aspect here - the GM control, the players' more (if not fully) "immersed" state, or etc.

However, there is a lot of "shared" power to create the experience of living the mostly pre-established story available in this.  

I've got a few more thoughts I could add - but that should be enough to get the discussion going.  At least, I hope people find this interesting enough to discuss - dive in.  If I've got something that just don't seem right in here, from either a GNS or Dramatist perspective . . . go ahead, be brutal.  I can take it.

Gordon

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Gordon,

Brutality ensues ... this has to do with your aside about the apparent diversity within Simulationism relative to the "unity" within each of Narrativism and Gamism.

Bluntly, I think this perception is thoroughly wrong. I am astounded that anyone would retain this perception after even a moment's consideration.

Narrativism breaks up into the sources of the Premise, whether setting, situation, or character, which changes everything about what a "character" is from the get-go; as well as into the astounding range of sharing-power, from Vanilla (very traditional) to bizarrely GM-full.

Gamism also demonstrates vast variety. Consider the range among the venues for competition, as listed in my essay; these games differ in "feel" and "point" as widely as do the variety of games currently embraced by Simulationism.

Best,
Ron

[Gordon C. Landis]

Ron,

Brutality over the ASIDE?  That's easy to take!  Surely you can do better than that . . . :-)

Seriously, that thought hadn't developed far enough for me to be attached to it.  I agree COMPLETLY that G and N *have* large variety in play, it just seems (again, incomplete thought) that the way GNS lets us talk about that variety is quite different for them than it is for S.  Particularly when we talk about what distinguishes sub-groups of play style (Dramatism/Sim-Situation and etc.)

Really, that's a separate thread/issue - if and when I start it, I'll be sure to keep your thoughts in mind.  'Cause nothing in your post seems "wrong" to me, so whatever I say BETETR be able to include those facts . . .

Gordon

[jburneko]

Actually, I just had a thought about this.  I agree there is a percieved notion that Simulationism seems oddly diverse compared to the other two.  I think I know why that may be.

In the other two there is a foundational 'core' behavior that is easily identfiable.  If you look at a game of SOAP and you look at a game of Sorcerer, I'm sure they will look very different.  Except it's obvious that underneath both of the them is the same foundational mindset.  That's what my Narrativist Mindset essay is.  It's an attempt to get at that core foundational mindset.

Similarly, if you compare a game of D&D to a game of Once Upon A Time (mixing apples and oranges a bit, sorry) again you'll see vastly different elements but the same foundational mindset.  [To some extent I've already written this essay as well, although I wrote it before discovering GNS and it was my 'inner Gamist' lashing out at Simulationists.  It was called: "Why Do Bishops Only Move Diagonally and Other Stupid Questions."]

However, if you look at a Vampire LARP compared to Call of Cthulhu compared to a game of those, "you can't use that, it's not a long bow arrow" people, you'll see vastly different behaviors but with a less identifiable unifying mindset.  I agree that Ron's essay has pegged the core unifying component [Prioritization of Exploration] of Simulationism but unlike the other two it's very difficult to sum up in a few words the foundational mindset that derives pleasure from 'exploring a given element.'

As a personal example, I 'get' Situation Exploration such as Call of Cthulhu and enjoy those kinds of games A LOT.  However, I don't 'get' Character Exploration at ALL.  LARPS and sessions of Castle Marrach bore me to tears.  Why?  I'm of the opinion that if the core mindset is the same then I should still enjoy both.  I might vastly PREFER one over the other but I should, when faced with the lesser enjoyable of the two, be able to retreat to the basic core unifying mindset behind them and derived at least a mild pleasure from that.  But I can't.

Unlike a Gamist who need only identify win/loss conditions [in the loosest sense] and the limiting factors [in the loosest sense] to derive pleasure from a game.  He may prefer the conditions and limitations of D&D to those of Once Upon A Time but at least in this situation the Gamist has a baseline mindset to retreat to.

I can identify a similar base for Narrativists.

Jesse

[Gordon C. Landis]

So much for Player Illusionism . . . (false-melodramatic sigh)

Yup, Jesse, that's a good start on what I was thinking.  A few thoughts - first, a quibble:

Similarly, if you compare a game of D&D to a game of Once Upon A Time (mixing apples and oranges a bit, sorry) again you'll see vastly different elements but the same foundational mindset.

I know what you mean here - but mention "D&D", and you need to be careful.  Yes, there is a major style of D&D play where you could easily see the shared foundational mindset.  But there are LOTS of folks (some in my various overlapping play groups) who have "drifted" D&D far enough that you wouldn't see it - probably 'cause it's not there. D&D may not be great for Sim or Nar games, but peple do play them with it.

And then an emphasis:

I agree that Ron's essay has pegged the core unifying component [Prioritization of Exploration] of Simulationism but unlike the other two it's very difficult to sum up in a few words the foundational mindset that derives pleasure from 'exploring a given element.'

This is the kind of thing I was getting at with the "the way GNS lets us talk about the variety is different" comment.

Someone should start a "Top Ten mistaken understandings of GNS" thread . . ..

Gordon

[jburneko]

Sorry, Gordon, I didn't mean to hijack your thread.  I agree with you about my use of D&D.  I only meant D&D in it's 'traditional' style of play without any drift.  Obviously, if it has been drifted then there is a different mindset at work.

Jesse