Gaming On Purpose

[The GM]

Aight, here's a follow up to my other thread.
Basically, I felt like it wasn't getting anywhere, even though there were some nuggets of info that made me think 'aaaah, right.'
Long story short, Matt was frustrated by what he called games in identity crisis, and we as a group were frustrated by his apparent unwillingness to settle down to one game.
So, we had a gaming come to Jesus meeting last night and hammered some of this stuff out.
Couple of key issues:
We found out that Matt's preferences aren't at all objectionable to us as a group. In fact, we agreed that some of his techniques for narrativism (ie, asking the moral question) could lead to better games and less indecision about whether or not a particular choice was 'in character.' Instead, you return to your premise question (ie, is this worth dying or killing for?) to make choices.
We fully discussed the concept of trailblazing, and what that means to Matt. (Note, I didn't say what it means to you, or to the Forge, just to Matt.) We talked about how it doesn't fit his exact preference and why.
Then we talked about a concept that Matt called 'bangs' and how that relates to a director's stance. Here, he gave concrete examples of how that would go in play. We were all like, 'Cool, that rocks, let's do it!'
Now, throughout all of this, a lot of examples were used. I repeatedly asked, 'ok, in this scenario, I as the GM say this. What happens then?' This was very instructional for me and the group as well, because now we could all see what Matt was talking about without trying to learn piles of Forge language. He went into specific scenarios of what he likes to see, and what he doesn't like to see, and gave clear reasoning about the why of his decision.
This, I could wrap my brain around, and in retrospect, some of what he was saying about  how past games had gone and how the dynamic of the old school group vs his own wasn't meshing was right on.
Cool.
So, where do we go from here?
We've made a conscious decision to 'game on purpose.' IOW, making sure that everyone is on the same page to begin w/ rather than waiting for a 'waming' period to take place. For instance, a lot of the 'instinct' gaming that the old school group does, doesn't work for Matt because he's not in on the vibe. So, essentially, we're creating the vibe right up front, and everyone knows what that is.
Here's the deal:
Next week, we're going to sit down together and re-make characters for the newly started Hunter campaign as a group. Matt talked about specific techniques for doing this and how it's a benefit to every one, GM included.
We're going to come up w/ our moral question. It'll probably go something like this, "Would you sell your soul to the devil to defeat him?" or something similiar. The verbage still needs work.
Another thing that we didn't talk about specifically, but I thought of as I went to bed was a question for me as the GM. Call it a mission statement. Maybe my question as I think of 'bangs' should go something like this, "How can this scenario be used?" Note, not neccesarily used by me, but used by the group. Is there potential for 5 or 6 different things to happen? Is there enough room for players to go out and actively create their own story, independent from something that I would do as a GM? How can I give the players the 'ball' in this situation? I think that a mission statement for me as a GM is critical to keep from sliding back into instictive play. This way I can make decisions based on what we've decided to do as a group.
I still have very real objections to some GNS stuff. However, that doesn't matter. What *does* matter is that through concrete examples, communication, and a willingness to compromise, we've created a solution that works (or I guess we'll see next Tuesday if it works) for us.
Questions, comments, croutons?

Warm Regards,
Lisa

[Valamir]

Fantastic!  What a great and functional session.  Its not always necessary to be so formal about expressing these things, but sometimes it just makes sense to get everyone's cards on the table.  I look forward to seeing some Actual Play reports from you letting us know how this all falls out in practice...especially regarding the likely rough patches and how they get dealt with.


Some side comments I do have however:

I still have very real objections to some GNS stuff.

Thats perfectly acceptable, but I sincerely ask you to either 1) express an interest in learning GNS by starting a thread highlighting your serious objections in some detail so we can actually address them, or 2) if you'd rather not go there at all, please refrain from comments like this all together.  Stateing "I have real objections" without offering what those are is rather unfair as it leaves us in no position to address them.  So if you'd rather not have us address them, please just don't wave the flag like that.  On the other hand, if you do have an interest, many of us would be more than happy to discuss it.

I final couple of points.

1) Many of your comments on your last thread demonstrate that you haven't really grasped what the theory is saying and instead several of the objections you were expressing there were objections with your own inaccurate assumptions.  Whether you're interested in pursuing those issues further or not I'll leave up to you, with the simple request that if you decide you'd rather not, please avoid expressing ideas of "what GNS says" or "according to GNS", because at this point you've got much of it wrong, and I'd prefer not to have the theory misrepresented.

2) Matt's role in the conversation you had with your group didn't just spring whole cloth from his head at that moment.  That he was able to provide concrete examples and translate the issues into terms everyone understood without resorting to jargon is a testament to his communication abilities; but that session that you are rightly proud of is pretty strong proof of the practical application of GNS theory in action.  So whatever your remaining objectives may be to it...the theory seems to be working for you, and that's far more important than quibbling over details and definitions.

[The GM]

>>I'll leave up to you, with the simple request that if you decide you'd rather not, please avoid expressing ideas of "what GNS says" or "according to GNS", because at this point you've got much of it wrong, and I'd prefer not to have the theory misrepresented.<<

Ah, agreed. Here's my pov on it. I'm interested in technique, specifically, techniques that improve gaming. This is what I call 'where the rubber meets the road.' What Matt did last night was pointed to specific methods that make a certain type of game occur. I get this.
When we start talking about 'theory', now we're discussing conjecture based on a set of priciples that are assumed to be true.
But what if those principles aren't true, or aren't true to the situation that my group is in? When I point this out, people leave helpful comments like, 'Your scenario proves nothing, while my oppposite scenario proves XYZ'. Fabulous. That sort of thing doesn't address my concerns with 'theory' gaming vs 'technique' gaming (for lack of better terms.)
Matt says I should see GNS as a lexicon of terms. Ok. That's great, because now we have a name to give all of this gaming stuff. However, GNS is not presented as a lexicon, it's presented as a theory, w/ all of the baggage that theories can have. And so I read GNS commentary, where there seems to be a lot of absolutes, and I scratch my head and think, 'that isn't the way it works for us,' and that's the point at which I disagree.
Make sense?

Warm Regards,
Lisa

[Valamir]

Here's my pov on it. I'm interested in technique, specifically, techniques that improve gaming. This is what I call 'where the rubber meets the road.' What Matt did last night was pointed to specific methods that make a certain type of game occur. I get this.

Quite.  GNS is all about techniques.  What the theories outlined here do is give a common framework of priciples and terminology to provide a context for discussing those techniques.  Raw discussions of technique occur all the time all over the net.  9 times in 10 they amount to little more than anecdotes of what worked or didn't work for a particular group in a particular game.

What GNS does is provide the tools to critically look at that and try to identify why a technique that proved fabulous for one group was a disastor for another.  Were there different player goals? Did one game's mechanics facilitate or provide a barrier to those goals?  Are there underlying social issues between the groups' members?  These are all aspects of successful play that are addressed at various levels by the theory.

The entire theory is generally simply referred to as GNS, but it encompasses far more than those concepts.  Its often likened to boxes within boxes.

The biggest box is the Social Contract, the social dynamic that colors all interpersonal interaction.  Inside that is Exploration, the activity that distinguishes roleplaying from other forms of social interaction.  Inside that is GNS, which are different Creative Agendas that players bring as an overlay to the act of Exploration.  Inside that box are the various Techniques that players and GMs use to address their Creative Agendas during Exploration.  Inside that are Stances which describe how a player is using his character to interact with the game world at any given moment.

(A search on any of those capitalized terms will bring up volumes of discussions on them)

There's alot of stuff going on here that has been developed over several years by several dozen regular contributors and several hundred more casual contributors.   Buts its still very much a living breathing and developing work and its tenets are constantly being questioned and challenged and refuted and defended in an on going process that has seen and continues to see the theory evolve (sometimes subtly, sometimes dramatically).

When we start talking about 'theory', now we're discussing conjecture based on a set of priciples that are assumed to be true.

Well...no...we aren't.  I can't really comment on whatever defensive triggers get fired for you when you hear the word "theory", but GNS is not some froofy, naval gazing excercise in esoteric academic mumbo jumbo.  The single most important thing to discussing this theory is actual play.  All of the principles and ideas are rooted in actual play as experienced by the hundreds of people who's comments have influenced the development of the theory.

We aren't armchair roleplayers here.  

But what if those principles aren't true, or aren't true to the situation that my group is in? When I point this out, people leave helpful comments like, 'Your scenario proves nothing, while my oppposite scenario proves XYZ'. Fabulous. That sort of thing doesn't address my concerns with 'theory' gaming vs 'technique' gaming (for lack of better terms.)

I'm not sure what comments you're referring to here, so I can't address this specifically.  But, in general, in discussions here its best to be pretty concrete.  For instance (just to take this paragraph as an illustration), if this were the start of a new thread it would be important to know exactly what priciples you see and why you think they're not true and what the specific situation is (complete with the overall social context of that situation) that you think it doesn't apply towards.  It becomes especially important here to either copy and paste quotes from the thread or article you read which led to you understanding of the principle you're questioning, or give fairly specific references.

This last point (which is basically that when one says "According to GNS" one should cite where they got that from) is especially important because the theory is a living one.

Its entirely possible that 1) you were reading an older thread or article and the germ of the idea expressed there has developed further into something you'd be much more comfortable with if you saw it in its later versions, 2) the idea is outdated one that has since been discarded, 3) you're misinterpreting or taking the idea out of context but now that we see your source and the conclusion you drew we know better how to respond to your point directly, 4) You understand that particular idea but aren't applying it correctly to a given situation, 5) You're applying the idea correctly but are not aware of several other layers and facets that when used in conjunction with that idea actually do address your concerns, or 6) you've actually hit upon some new ground that the theory hasn't adequately addressed yet which will make for several heated discussions as we try to hammer the issue out further.

I hope you can see why (after years of labor and effort) that we aren't willing to skip all the way to #6 without first exhausting possibilities 1-5.  If a theory is to have any credibility at all, it can't change with every gust of wind.  

Please understand that much of the flak you perceive you're getting is not an antagonistic defensiveness or dismissal.  But rather the process that has to be gone through.  Before the theory changes to accomodate something (and change it has) we have to be pretty convinced that the ideas being expressed aren't actually already dealt with through a proper application of existing concepts.

By being as precise as you can with the issues you raise, and being fairly dilligent about specifying exactly what it is you think GNS says and where that came from, this process can actually go pretty smoothly and easily.  The more vaguely an issue is expressed the more...messy...the resulting thread gets.  Alot of that is basically fact finding to try and fill in all the pieces that weren't included in the initial post.

It can all get pretty dense, and I can certainly understand if its not a process that holds any interest for you, but hopefully over the next several weeks of actual play with your group and its new focus you'll see the benefit of the end result of it all.

And so I read GNS commentary, where there seems to be a lot of absolutes, and I scratch my head and think, 'that isn't the way it works for us,' and that's the point at which I disagree.

Perfect, except I think you'll find there really aren't any "absolutes".  Or to put it more precisely, there are some fairly firm absolutes for an individual variable, but there are so many variables that the end conclusion is anything but.

For instance, the idea that any one player can only give primacy to one and only one GNS mode in a given instance of play is a pretty firm absolute.  Alot of electrons have been spilt argueing over that idea, because alot of people took that concept and erroneously expanded it to say "a player only ever plays one way", "or 'but during a game I change my mode so this is wrong'", or other such things.  The thing is, those objections are objecting to what the reader THOUGHT was being said, not what was actually being said.  What was being said applied to a very specific variable (an instance of play) not to a player's entire play history.

If you read some commentary that makes you scratch your head.  Great.  Throw it out there and ask "what do you mean by this, cause it seems like you're saying X, but in my experience its more Y".  But don't simply assume the theory is wrong because you disagree with what you think it says.  Its a pretty robust theory.  And there are alot of people here who can testify to the improvements it made in their enjoyment of actual play.

At the end of the day, the enjoyment of actual play is what its all about.

edit some grammar and punctuation type stuff

[Mike Holmes]

Hey, the techniques approach is a more than valid way to go. That is, in agreeing to what techniques work for everyone, you etablish the GNS by default with near certainty (I think it's certain in your case). So I would stick to that tactic. Seems like it's working.

On the whole "Thematic Question" front, consider either not having a single question at all. That is, it's entirely possible to have one question per character, or even to let the questions develop from play. Just so that they develop if that's interesting to you. Even if you do go with a single overarching question, try to make it general enough so that each character can have a unique approach to it. That is, if the overall question is "What would I do for power?" for a particular character that can be refined to "Would I give up my family for the Sword of Doom?"

Just a thought.

Mike

[Ben Lehman]

"Would you sell your soul to the devil to defeat him?" or something similiar. The verbage still needs work.

BL>  Just wanted to say "Damn, that's cool, and a great way to say exactly what I've been trying to do for years."  Look the nature of Evil in the mouth!  Go!  Go!  It's your birthday!

yrs--
--Ben (a leetle punchy tonight, it seems.)

[The GM]

Valamir said lots of good stuff, including:

>>The thing is, those objections are objecting to what the reader THOUGHT was being said, not what was actually being said. What was being said applied to a very specific variable (an instance of play) not to a player's entire play history.<<

I concede that you may be right here. There are certainly scads of threads on this topic, and as I have a life away from the pc, even a few months of browsing isn't enough to catch up on it all. So, I'll freely admit that I've hit the highlights and then tried to keep up w/ current threads the best I can.

>>By being as precise as you can with the issues you raise, and being fairly dilligent about specifying exactly what it is you think GNS says and where that came from, this process can actually go pretty smoothly and easily. The more vaguely an issue is expressed the more...messy...the resulting thread gets. Alot of that is basically fact finding to try and fill in all the pieces that weren't included in the initial post.<<

So I noted. ;) Incidentally, that was the very reason I closed out my first thread. Lots of words were getting said, but it was seemingly tangled and going in about 12 different directions.  There was still value there, but I thought it best to try w/ one line of thought and stick to that before going to the next.

>>At the end of the day, the enjoyment of actual play is what its all about.<<

Amen.
I dunno how useful it would be go back through every thread I've read, track down questionable quotes, and then bring them to the foreground. It would perhaps be interesting from an academic standpoint, but it's a near certainty that my group (excepting Matt) isn't going to do the same.
That's OK With Me!
They don't have to be interested in GNS specifics to have a good time in a game.
So, I guess what I'd rather read/ talk about is specific techniques that are agreeable for use in our group. I guess what you refer to as little boxes inside the big ones.  Which leads me up to:

Mike said:
>>Hey, the techniques approach is a more than valid way to go. That is, in agreeing to what techniques work for everyone, you etablish the GNS by default with near certainty (I think it's certain in your case). So I would stick to that tactic. Seems like it's working.<<

Yeah, I think so. What I like about techniques talk is that we're now discussing tangible, physical things that occur. For instance, when Matt asked the group what we thought Narrativist play was, no one thought of it the way he did. No wonder the poor guy thought we weren't paying attention to what he wanted. However, rather than giving a definition for the word, he gave examples and techniques of how to do it, to which we all said, 'Groovy, let's do it.'
Well, ok, he did give a definition for it, but followed it up w/ the tangible example. It was the example that we understood, not the word.

>>On the whole "Thematic Question" front, consider either not having a single question at all. That is, it's entirely possible to have one question per character, or even to let the questions develop from play. Just so that they develop if that's interesting to you. Even if you do go with a single overarching question, try to make it general enough so that each character can have a unique approach to it. That is, if the overall question is "What would I do for power?" for a particular character that can be refined to "Would I give up my family for the Sword of Doom?"<<

Good point. Now, does that mean that all NPCs need to have a question too? If so, who makes up that question, me as the GM, or the players?
As a GM, is it helpful to have a question for myself to keep in mind the type of game that we've agreed to play (to keep an 'identity crisis from developing) ?
If so, how should I phrase that puppy?

Ben says:
>>Just wanted to say "Damn, that's cool, and a great way to say exactly what I've been trying to do for years." Look the nature of Evil in the mouth! Go! Go! It's your birthday!<<

Thanks, I've always been partial to the whole 'look into the Abyss' type feel. Fortuitously enough, my fellow gamers think that vibe is cool too.

Warm Regards,
Lisa

[The GM]

Hey again,
I was doing some heavy duty thinking on technique. In fact, I have delayed the start of the new Hunter game that we're going to play to make sure that I, and my group, are on the same page. In this post, I will use GNS and its related lingo as a common lexicon of terms so that people know what the heck I'm getting at.
Let's talk technique, shall we? ;)

Since Narrative play has gotten the go ahead vote, I'm going to focus on it for now. As I understand from reading piles of stuff here at the Forge about this subject, the basic premise of this type of game is the moral theme/ resolution issues. As an example, let's say that we sat down to play Shadowrun. Let's further say that the moral question for a particular character is, "What would I give up in the pursuit of wealth?"

Character creation begins, and the player focuses on a concept that he'd like to see come to fruition that is within the group agreed parameters of the game. Let's also assume for the sake of argument that a game mechanic has been set into place by the group (ie, house rule) to facilitate the reward of the players as they explore their stated moral quandary. (Most of you know, SR has a general karma award system as opposed to something specific like in RoS.) This particular player may or may not focus on gear, tech, or other 'stuff' during the actual act of writing up a character sheet. The important point here is that the player makes character creation choices reflect the aforementioned moral question. So, an actual example of technique here would go something like this?

Player: "I want to make a street kid who wants to hit the big time. He's an orphan, but he has some street pals that are the only family he knows. Those pals are part of a gang, which he doesn't want to join, but peer pressure tries to force him to do so."

GM: "Alright, sounds good. How could this kid be affected by the moral question in a way that means something to you?"

Player: "Maybe because this kid wants to get out of the gutter, which causes friction between him and the people he loves most. We could explore that."

So, is this a good way to tackle narrative character creation? If not, what's a better tack?

Next example. Let's say that character creation is done. Now we're sitting down to play. Now, the player still has his moral question, written somewhere on his character sheet. The player is going to refer to those words when making in game decisions. It might go a little something like this?

Player: "Ok, what I want to do is find someone that can hook me up with a situation where I can score some nuyen."

GM: "Fine. Now you know that your gang pals are going to be pretty unhappy when they figure out that you're doing your own thing instead of joining them?"

Player: "Yep, and I'm going to do it anyway."

GM: "Alright, tell me how you go about looking for someone that can find employment for the kid."

Notice here that I'm playing with GM statements and questions designed to bring the premise back into play. Is this how narrative play runs? If not, what about this dialogue would change?

Let's veer for a second and talk about bangs, and their introduction into narrative play.
As I understand, bangs are a concept rooted in director's stance whereby the GM/ players taking the role of a director, setting a 'shot', not unlike you would see in a movie. So, a bang might go something like this?

Player: "I'm going into the bar to hook up with my new contact that can get a job for me. I take a seat, order a soy brew and wait."

GM: "Your contact shows up, and as you engage in pleasantries, you hear a familiar voice call out your name from across the room."

Player: "Uh-oh. Who is it?"

GM: "It's your gang buddy, Slag. He sees you sitting there, and he recognizes your contact too. Slag wanders over and asks you what you're doing."

Player: "I'm having a drink, what are you up to?"

GM: "Slag says that he's been looking for you, that the boys need you right away. You see your contact begin to shy away from the conversation."

Player: "Crap! I had to work hard to find that contact. I don't want to lose him. I tell Slag to wait outside, I'll be there in a minute."

GM: "Slag wants to know what you're doing, hanging out with a no talent ass clown like your contact. He grabs you by the arm and says, 'c'mon kid, let's go.'"

Alright, so we have a clear introduction of conflict, based on the moral question. Is this the best route to utilizing a bang technique in a narrative style game? If not, how? Also, is this a good place to say "CUT!" and go to another scene with different players in order to heighten the sense of anticipation?

Thoughts? Comments? Bueller?

Warm Regards,
Lisa

[The GM]

BTW, just so you know, in my last post, I structured GM comments based on a set of sales techniques.
In sales, there are a couple different types of questions/statements:

Open: This is a question that the asker has no idea of what the answer might be. In a game setting, an example might be: "What do you want to play?"

Leading: This is a question that the asker knows what the answer is going to be because the asker and answering party have been 'led'  to a particular conclusion through a series of open question dialogue. In a game setting, an example might be: "So you already said that you were going to do XYZ, does it really make sense for you to do ABC?"

Closing/ Confirmation: This is a question that confirms the final decision of the answering party. "You're going to do XYZ, right?"

I see Open and Leading as potential useful techniques, although Open questions might be the most useful for Narrative play. Closing, or confirmation questions probably don't have as good of a fit.

I can hear ya all thinking that this is a negative way to do things, especially w/ words like Leading and Closing. However, I want to know about technique, and so I think this way of conversing has its value. IOW,  using this technique, which is proven as a communication tool to keep a game from wandering off course.
Sales people are some of the most avid role players I know (in a professional sense, not the in entertainment sense.)

I'm open to thoughts about that as well.
Thanks

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Lisa,

It all sounds like phenomenally good creative and social stuff to me, sales terminology included.

One thing to consider, maybe, is at the Techniques level - there are literally dozens, perhaps hundreds of possible combinations, not just a few "Narrativist" ones. So it seems to me that this:

Player: "Ok, what I want to do is find someone that can hook me up with a situation where I can score some nuyen."

GM: "Fine. Now you know that your gang pals are going to be pretty unhappy when they figure out that you're doing your own thing instead of joining them?"

Player: "Yep, and I'm going to do it anyway."

GM: "Alright, tell me how you go about looking for someone that can find employment for the kid."

Notice here that I'm playing with GM statements and questions designed to bring the premise back into play. Is this how narrative play runs? If not, what about this dialogue would change?

... is one way to aim toward those goals you've described, but not the way or perhaps not even a good way for a given group. Or it might be the perfect way for another given group. That's something you guys figure out by doing.

For instance, the GM might have taken a much more direct role in placing the character into a situation like this, giving him the opportunity to go solo in a kind of decide-now way. In that case, the player would have to decide whether to go solo right then while role-playing the interactions. (This is what I call playing "heavy bass" for the GM.)

Or perhaps the player took a similar approach as described, but specifically through describing the character's actions and perhaps feelings, rather than discussing it from a "bird's eye view" with the GM. In that case, his decision to go solo would be revealed only when he speaks to his contact, and would be something of a surprise to everyone else. ("This is what I call playing "atmosphere bass" for the GM, because that's what he or she is doing the whole time the player sets up the conflict.)

So there's a range of technique, and when you factor in system features like order/announcement or the reward issue, then sooner or later the group arrives at how they want to handle that range, for this particular game. It's a very rewarding process.

Best,
Ron

[The GM]

Ron says:
>>One thing to consider, maybe, is at the Techniques level - there are literally dozens, perhaps hundreds of possible combinations, not just a few "Narrativist" ones. <<

Right. What I'm talking about also is *conversation* techniques designed to allow the *play* techniques to be facilitated.
Conversation is the physical act that I occurs when I speak, and then someone else speaks, and then I do etc... Play technique is act that takes place when applying a stance in any given scene.
Both of these parts of the equation have to be in line (from my perspective, YMMV) in order for the game to retain its agreed upon vibe.
The reason that I have choosen to use sales jargon to describe the order of questions is because professional sales people (not the crappy used car sales man) use this type of conversation to *reveal* what is most important to the client. To a professional, the *act of revelation* is more important than the sale. So, I am looking for the very type of revelation that you allude to in your last post. In order to find that, and help my players find that, I look to techniques, which are nice and firm and easy to refer back to. So, two boxes going on here: Conversation techniques, and inside of that Play Techniques. I am interested in learning about both.

Warm Regards,
Lisa

[The GM]

I've given this topic some more thought. I'm beginning to think that using Open, Leading, and Confirmation questions/ statements in conjunction with Actor, Author, and Director stances would give some hard and fast rules to keeping a game within the group agreed parameters. Both techniques are pretty well defined and solid, avoiding messy squishy stuff that can happen to throw a game out of whack. I think that using these two techniques in conjunction with each other really boils down role playing to its essentials. Again, I'm focusing on a Narrative type game here.
Let's use the above SR example to continue. The moral question was about how far a character would go to get rich. Let's start from here:

>>Player: "Ok, what I want to do is find someone that can hook me up with a situation where I can score some nuyen."<<

So using an Actor stance (from the player's perspective) the conversation might go like this?

GM Open: "How do you go about doing that?"
Player Actor: (Checks character sheet, finds appropriate skill and says) "I know a guy, Benny. He's been alright to me in the past, so maybe he'll cut me some slack now."
GM Open: "So you're going to call Benny, and say what?"
Player Actor: "Hey Benny, what's up man? Long time, no see. How's life?"
GM Actor: "Takin' too long. What do ya need, kid?" (Dialogue continues in this vein for a smidge and then...)
GM Leading: "So Benny has said that he'll get you a job, but, you owe him big time. You know what that could mean right?"
Player Confirmation: "It means he's probably gonna call my ass up when I least want him too."
GM Confirmation: "Yep, and you know that Benny is not going to take no for an answer."

Using the author stance in the same scenario:

GM Open: "How do you go about doing that?"
Player Author: "Well, my kid has to know someone.  Let's say that someone is a guy named Benny. I'm going to give him a call because once upon a time the guy was nice to my kid."
GM Leading: "So is Benny a street bum, or more upscale?"
Player Leading: "He's a bum, but he knows everyone."
GM Confirming: "Okie dokie, you go visit him."
Player Author: "I walk into his alley and call out, Hey! Benny!"

Using the Director stance in the same scenario:
GM Open: "How do you go about doing that?"
Player Director: "Alright, I've got a contact, He's a bum that lives off of 42nd in a dead end alley. His name is Benny, and he's a crusty old geezer. Benny took a liking to me because I stopped a mugging in process. Benny owes me big time, and so armed with this knowledge, I march bravely into the trash strewn alley and kick him awake from his booze induced slumber."
GM Confirmation: "He groggily comes to and wants to know what the hell you want."
Player Director: "Benny, the piper has come callin' Get up."

Now, if I as the GM change the order or type of questions, this could change the whole scenario totally from any of these examples. As Ron says, the possibilities are endless. What I'm really getting at, I suppose, is how to structure Open, leading, confirmation dialogue from my end so that the variants of play stay within the group agreed parameters.
Hmmm...
That's the trick of course.
Comments, if any on my sample dialogue?
What do ya'll think of this type of technique?

Warm Regards,
Lisa

(Changed Author example slightly to better communicate the intention of Author Stance.)

[Valamir]

Not a bad concept, but your example of Author is actually a second Director example.

The key to understanding Author is this:

Inside the players mind he must be thinking like Director Stance.
But to everyone else at the table it must LOOK like Actor stance.
(note "fooling" the others isn't what's important, they may be well aware what's going on, or not.  Its the appearance of Actor Stance.)

The classic example is:
Actor: (looks at sheet and notices insomnia trait) "I can't sleep, so I'm going for a walk in the park"

Author: (knows OOC that something big is going down in the park) "I can't sleep, so I'm going for a walk in the park".

Same exact event in play, but in Author the player engineered the event for an ulterior (player driven) motive.

[The GM]

Ah, right! Thanks! I'll have to amend that dialogue to reflect that. Any thoughts on how to structure questions/ statements in such a way as to produce specific in game results?

Warm Regards,
Lisa

[The GM]

Hmm. tried to edit that post, but the text didn't change. Weird. Here's the amendment:

Author example:

GM Open: "How do you go about doing that?"
Player Author: "Well, I know that the street bum Benny has been trying to hire the rest of the group for various tasks.  Let's say that I know that guy and I'm going to give him a call because once upon a time the guy was nice to my kid."
GM Confirming: "Okie dokie, you go visit him."
Player Author: "I walk into his alley and call out, Hey! Benny!"