How do I define this?

[clehrich]

Over in The hard question Jesse brought up an anecdote that really hit me over the head.  Let me start by quoting it, for those who didn't go through that whole thread:

The other day I was talking to my girlfriend about Sorcerer and I mentioned that I think a difficulty some of our players have is realizing that Sorcerer not only asks you to player your character but to be art director and stunt coordinator for the environment around them.

Players don't summon demons in Sorcerer because in their brain they don't know what demons they CAN summon; as in what demons already exist out there in the setting for them to contact. Rather than imagining a demon and then acting like it's been out there for their summoning the whole time. On top of that they are used to thinking that magic and what it looks like is something that exists outside their character so creating all the color details of what a ritual consists of, what the air smells like, how the world contorts when a demon enters it and so on feels awkward.

I mentioned all this to my girlfriend and she said "I don't understand why. It's MY demon after all." You see my girlfriend was not a gamer when I met her. To her, on a natural gut level instinct, she not only owns her character but everything that is IMPORTANT to her character. Her character's appartment belongs to her, the player, because it is an extension of her character. Her character's sister belongs to her because that too is an extention of her character. She takes ownership and authorship very easily of anything she feels is important or an extension of her character concept.

She does this very naturally and yet when I started describing GNS to her she self identified as a simulationist because "plot logic" is very very very important to her but she's very much a Narrativist because her character and her character's issues (Premises her character embodies) are the focus of her play. In fact I was very Simulationist focused when we first started playing and the games were very frustrating for her because she kept talking about how her character was being underminded all the time. By that she meant everything that was important to her character concept was being swept aside in favor of the current "adventure" or "scenario" at hand.

Now when I read that, I found myself bobbing my head, because I just this evening had a conversation with another gamer and it seems to me he's grappling with exactly this issue.  

The thing is, Jay Loomis [coxcomb] then pointed out that control has nothing to do with CA as such.  Arrgh!  Back to the drawing-board.

Okay, so basically here's what my friend wants from gaming:
1. His character has to have a "thing," a "shtick," whatever
2. That shtick can't be taken away from him or bent or spindled or mutilated: it's his shtick
3. When he chooses to step into the spotlight, it's because he can see a way that what's happening here is or could be about his shtick
4. If it's not about his shtick, he doesn't want to have to be in the light

In effect:
5. He has total control over shtick-related things
6. He cedes control over all situations -- but
7. He doesn't want to feel railroaded, because that in effect makes his shtick into somebody else's tool

Now at some level, this is incoherent.  But I think Jesse is onto something in saying that in some way, this guy -- like Jesse's girlfriend -- wants Narrativism but thinks he wants Simulation (sort of).

As I read it, my friend wants
1. His shtick to be his personal Premise
2. Which he gets to address
3. And which he can't be Forced on
4. And he wants this to come from system

My immediate reaction was, "Try Sorcerer."  His reaction, from the description, was, "No, that's exactly 100% the opposite of what I want."

And reading Jesse's post, I was reminded of the time I tried to discuss the Jack The Ripper game (now Shadows in the Fog) with him, and he said he wanted some magic ability.  Fine, I said, like what?  I don't know, he says, what's available?  What do you want? I asked.  What is there? he asked.  If you want it, you can have it, so long as it isn't fireballs at 30 paces, I said.  No, he said, you have to give me some way that I can invent a shtick that will be mine, and that I can feel powerful with, and that I can explore and play with, and I want total inventive control and everything but I want a list of options.  (Well, that's how I heard his final response.)

Now without spewing on and on (more than I have, I mean), can anyone pinpoint this complex?  I feel like this guy has a quite coherent vision of what he wants and doesn't want, and that in some sense it has to be doable, but I just can't quite grasp it clearly because I don't think this way.  More to the point here on this forum, I am convinced that this is a specific subtype of CA, which I think is a Narrativist subtype, but I just can't put my finger on it -- and until I do, I can't clearly see how to make him happy in a game.

Chris Lehrich

[coxcomb]

IMHO, this is still part of play preference and not necessarily an issue with GNS.

It sounds to me like something I have been calling context, which is a way of connecting the player and the character. Before I learned of this site and GNS, I was thinking hard about the things that players want and need to tether them to the imaginary space, which this "shtick" sounds like.

I think that it's on the same level as preference about resolution mechanics, narrative control, etc. That is, it's more procedural in nature than it is agenda-related.

So what you have in this player seems to me like someone desperate for some context and in need of some ownership in the game. I'm curious, is this player relatively new to the hobby, or an old hand?

<edited to actually answer the question>

[clehrich]

Good God, Jay, you're a mind-reader:

It sounds to me like something I have been calling context, which is a way of connecting the player and the character.

My pal used very similar words, though he didn't have the term "context."  But the player-character link was central to his concerns.

IMHO, this is still part of play preference and not necessarily an issue with GNS.

I'll be very interested to see whether others read it so.  Somehow, I have this subtle, strange feeling that this is something that GNS should be able to handle, whether it currently does so or not.  But I'm no GNS master.

So what you have in this player seems to me like someone desperate for some context and in need of some ownership in the game. I'm curious, is this player relatively new to the hobby, or an old hand?

Oh, quite an old hand, really.  Fifteen or more years.  Lots of GMing as well as playing, if that helps.

[Callan S.]

*snip*
And reading Jesse's post, I was reminded of the time I tried to discuss the Jack The Ripper game (now Shadows in the Fog) with him, and he said he wanted some magic ability.  Fine, I said, like what?  I don't know, he says, what's available?  What do you want? I asked.  What is there? he asked.  If you want it, you can have it, so long as it isn't fireballs at 30 paces, I said.  No, he said, you have to give me some way that I can invent a shtick that will be mine, and that I can feel powerful with, and that I can explore and play with, and I want total inventive control and everything but I want a list of options.  (Well, that's how I heard his final response.)
*snip*

My ill informed opinion of this is that it is what I call hard gamist, with credibility issues. By issues I mean that he feels a win is credible when it is done within the system, rather than the win being credible because peers think its cool when done within the system. Total inventive control really means 'I get this because of my choices, not because of any compromise with the GM on the power'. Never mind that since you were writing the rules (if I've read correctly), it would still be a type of compromise.

By hard I mean he wants this thing his PC can do to come out naturally from system generated events. Again, its not credible to say, fly over an obstacle, if that obstacle was put there so he could show off the power. It would have to be part of a system effect. It's hard to get at, but if he were playing monopoly and his pawn somehow had the 'get out of jail always' power, he would get no thrill from someone (with GM like powers in monopoly)  putting him in jail so he can enjoy the use of the power and get out. He'd have to end up there with 'no force' on anyones part bar the systems, to enjoy getting out. Mmm, yeah, 'no force'. Sounds narrative, but really just can't trust a direct GM challenge enough to master it with credibility enough to enjoy it.

As I said, this is my ill informed opinion.

[Valamir]

This isn't really that hard to understand, I don't think.

The guy has a desire to have the Exploration dial turned up higher than you do.  He wants the creative contraints of having more things pre defined to enhance his ability to choose what he wants from a list of set options, so he can see how the options he chooses relates the other options that are available.  

Noon, could be right and he's doing this to support a Gamist agenda, but I think one could write a similiar description about the other agendas also.  

As you note it could be in support of a Nar agenda.  Nar with an emphasis on Exploration is not that uncommon.  The danger is when the Exploration aspect gets over prioritised and you wind up with Ouiga Board sim.  I don't think that's a danger her because by demanding a Schtick that he's intended to use to power his play, he's basically given notice that he intends to be quite overt about "moving the planchett" when that schtick is involved.

I'm tempted to suggest its a form of Narrativist Niche protection where he's defining his Premise turf; but that's a bit of a leap from the limited information given.

[Walt Freitag]

To me this sounds like he wants his character to be an active particpant in an immersive imagined world, but he as player wants to do as little as possible to make that shared imagining happen. This isn't necessarily laziness; it could be that any contribution he makes to the imagined world makes it seem less objectively solid to him. In any case, having an objectively solid-seeming imagined world presented to him for his imagining is his highest priority.

This is technically a type of Simulationism by default, because in the absence of a desire to actively pursue a Gamist or Narrativist agenda the only focus is on exploration. It's also precisely what I've termed zilchplay. I once described a typical zilchplayer's behavior this way: "imagine the elements the GM is describing and trigger my standard character behaviors at the expected times." With a possible quibble on the word "expected," that's exactly the aspect of his play style that you find most striking.

What you appear to have here is an unusually honest and conscious preference for zilchplay. As I said, it's technically Sim, but I believe it really it's no CA at all. That's why the responses to your question have been all over the map: Narrativist, Gamist, Simulationist, and "CA is not applicable here" all in a few posts. Kind of like the answers you'd get if you asked what color the walls are, in a completely dark room.

- Walt

[Jason Lee]

Heh, I'm chuckling here.  I am Jesse's girlfriend (no, I don't mean that literally).  Based upon the information given, I don't think there is much of a correlation between Jesse's girlfriend and your friend (different exploration element at work).  But you know your friend, so I'm just going to rant and ramble for a little bit.  You can see if anything jumps out at you.

*****

As far as Jesse's girlfriend goes, I think you've got rather natural behavior there.  Way back when I started gaming it didn't even occur to me that the familiar/family/house/etc of my character would be played by the GM.  That approach seemed pretty dumb (still does, actually).  She just hasn't been beaten with the Actor stance stick, plus some Nar|Setting with high Situation/Character causality requirements.  Control over Setting is necessary to explore it, and Director stance helps preserve causality of Character/Situation by structuring character stimuli.  It's pretty coherent.

I self identified with Sim too, for the couple of years it took me to fully grasp Nar.  To be bluntly honest, this is because the causality definition of Sim is broken.  Hell, her personal perspective might lead her to the same place as me, which is that Sim doesn't exist.  The Sim stuff isn't the point here, though.  Take it as the opinion of the dissenting minority, and do with it as you will.

For my own personal reasons, I wonder what level of abstraction Jesse's girlfriend tends to think at.  Big picture?  Detail oriented?  Anyway, not the point.  This is a 'Bigger Lego Block' sort of approach.  In our group we refer to the 'bubble'.  Some players have a larger bubble, they require a larger 'space' of ownership around their character.  Players with a smaller bubble control less around their characters.  Mucking with things inside the player's bubble will cause conflicts, but you must touch the surface of the bubble with the situation for it to protagonize the character.  This means that, irritatingly, those with a very small bubble are less proactive.  You have to drop things directly in the laps of their characters before they'll do anything.  They simultaneously complain about not having enough to do, while refusing to create conflicts for their characters.  Ok, I'm really starting to rant.

And reading Jesse's post, I was reminded of the time I tried to discuss the Jack The Ripper game (now Shadows in the Fog) with him, and he said he wanted some magic ability. Fine, I said, like what? I don't know, he says, what's available? What do you want? I asked. What is there? he asked. If you want it, you can have it, so long as it isn't fireballs at 30 paces, I said. No, he said, you have to give me some way that I can invent a shtick that will be mine, and that I can feel powerful with, and that I can explore and play with, and I want total inventive control and everything but I want a list of options. (Well, that's how I heard his final response.)

One thing that does seem similar, at least with myself, is the above.  If I was having the problem it would be because a frame of reference was lacking.  If I don't get the genre and setting, I have trouble building a character.  'Build a D&D character' isn't sufficient - I need to know where my character is supposed to come from.  Maybe he wasn't clear enough on the feel of magic to make a decision?  Is it actually the list he needs, or is it just that the list would provide examples that he could structure a frame of reference from?

*****

If after my ranting and rambling you think Jesse's girlfriend, myself, and your friend are similar I've got more advice (which will probably all boil down to allowing the desired ownership and consciously preserving player intent in Situation).