Thoughts From a Player

[jburneko]

Whoa!  This thread blossomed in the night.  A couple of points.

1) Christopher did a pretty good job of laying out the social context for the Sorcerer character creation session.  I would like to reinforce the idea that Christopher's analysis is definetly the undercurrent brought to the surface for examination and not the surface itself.  I'd also like to point out the player's comments started after two sessions with the weekday group and before the Sorcerer session.

2) I think for this specific player all that will be needed is an adjustment period.  The issue in general however is certainly worthy of further discussion and I've found the insights into such behavior offered so far to be very interesting.

3) I understand John's point of view regarding special GM reward mechanics.  One of the reasons I dislike Drama Dice and Fate Chips and what not is that it results in a lot of character posturing in an effort to get dice from the GM.  Sorcerer makes things much better because the GM bonuses come right at the moment of rolling and thus a well-defined conflict is already in progress.  Even better is My Life With Master because the awarded dice are for HIGHLY specific things, "Intemacy", "Sincerety", etc.  Better still is Trollbabe which is completely self-rewarding.

Jesse

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

Jesse wrote,

I understand John's point of view regarding special GM reward mechanics. One of the reasons I dislike Drama Dice and Fate Chips and what not is that it results in a lot of character posturing in an effort to get dice from the GM.

I understand it too. I think that behavioral mechanics do present some functional options, but the "do your seal trick for an extra die" versions tend to be less fun. I break out this variable in the context of Narrativist play fairly carefully in the essay.

Best,
Ron

[clehrich]

This is all very interesting; on a personal aside, my own current game design makes such approval stuff quite important, and I'm increasingly uncomfortable with the effects.  But that's a side issue.

I think that the original post made an essential point that's slipped out here a bit, which is that the Player In Question (tm) has not experienced stage-fright in the sense that he or she cannot perform; in fact, all of this player's play has been wonderful, despite the discomfort in question.

This makes me think that this player has a somewhat deeper objection to the gaming style than an initial disjuncture or whatever with Narrativism.  I don't think that the thing about selfishness or whatever applies here; again, the player did very well despite discomfort.  So what's going on?

I may be dragging things off-topic, but my feeling is that this player may be experiencing the "short-term drag" that I have also experienced with Nar-style play.  That is, by rewarding story now, up front, ASAP, the campaign seems to downplay long-term development and depth.  I realize that lots of people have counter-experiences with Sorcerer and other strongly Nar-games, but I do feel that such emphases can lead to a push toward a personal revelation and resolution sooner rather than later.  The player may feel that developments which he or she would prefer to happen over the course of many months are being pushed towards happening right now.  This would accord plausibly with the player's interest in very long novels and so forth.

Does that seem even remotely plausible, or have I got hold of the fuzzy end of the lollipop again?

Chris Lehrich

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Chris,

I recognize this as an issue, for sure. Whether it's a deal-breaker sort of issue depends on a lot of things, but my experiences suggest that it's not too big a deal (unless you're in it, of course).

From my Narrativism essay, in the section titled "Minor Narrativist dysfunctions" (five of them):

The final minor problem is to resolve play-Situations rapidly and without developing them much beyond the initial preparatory circumstances: "over before it begins." This typically occurs when people are so floored by the possibility of actually addressing a Premise through play, that they hare off to do so before some RPG god notices and intervenes to stop them. Usually, this sort of play is a short-lived phase as the group builds trust with one another.

Best,
Ron

[Christopher Kubasik]

Hi all.

Well, I re-read the thread earlier today, and then reflected on my memories of sessions of years past and came up with a thought that, in fact, was already expressed earlier...  The games I've played in before really allowed each person to show up and run "their own" show... They just happened to be playing with other people.  If somebody didn't like what you were doing, well.. Fine.  Cause they'd get their chance to play "their" way soon enough.

Now, I don't know whether it's having a Nar premise, group character creation, or what...  But that's just not available as an option anymore.  Everyone knows they're there for everyone else all at the same time.  I honestly don't know ifthis fact causes performance anxiety (though I see how its similiar.)  For me, though, what I feel in this style of play is simply more commitment and responsibility -- Not to "perform" -- but to be present.

Tuning out really isn't an option.  Fantasizing about what my guy might be feeling while another scene is going on really isn't an option.  Just "wandering away" through my PC from the group to finally get some breathing room isn't really an option.  After all, half the time there's no group to leave anymore.  

There's very little taffy pulling wiht the GM and the group for 'screen time'. Nor are there in "in character" arguements about which "strategy" to try (frontal assault? bluff the bastard?) becaue *how* you choose to do something is right -- because the choice is what matters.

The following are some of the behaviors that I remembered this afternoon from years ago.  Some were blunt, some were so subtle (and accepted), I hesitate to call them at all.  And yet, here they were:  "I'm going to ignore you for a while" / "I'm gonna take alll the GM's attention for a while" / "I'm gonna just tune out for a while as I think in my character" / "I'm gonna use my PC to break your adventure" / "I'm gonna use my GM fiat to keep things on track -- just do your little character thing," / "I'm gonna hold information to maybe go off and do something you can't help on because you don't know about it," / and more -- none of it works here.  Even the *breathing* time most RPG sessions provide when the GM gets hooked into a 30 minute fight or the thief's shopping spree.  All the techniques in use for Nar style don't just discourage this kind of stuff.  They practially remove the ability to do it.  If there's no plot to bust, no group to get away from, no tactic unavailabe (because the choice of how you get something done is what the game is about so you're encouraged to do it your way rather than arguing about it via PCs).  You're pretty much just a guy at a table with a bunch of other people -- all waiting moment to moment to find out what's happening next.  It might be a little like being somebody who's used to doing sprint around the block alone for years, and then suddenly you're told, "We're all going on a five mile hike, all five of us.  Come on.  Let's go."  What are you going to talk about?  How can anyone stand just walking along *continuously* that long?  What if you just want to get away, get it over with?  Well, you can't.  You've made a committment to be with *these* people, and there it is.

Anyway.  That's where I am.  This style of play removes the privacy, time outs, and ability simply to drift away from paying attention to others if you don't want to -- and it does it explicitely by shifting the attention from the PCs to the other players.  And this means, once you get this (on the surface thoughts or not), that you know people are going to be paying attention to *you* the same way.  *Not* in a judging way, mind you.  Just willing to stay with whatever you do no matter what you do.  Not to contradict you.  Not to get in a My Guy tussel.  Not engage you in anyway confrontational or competative way at all.

The committment is simply this: "I'm going to pay attention to you.  That's the deal we all made."

That's pretty big if you ask me.  And I can see where that might throw people off.

Christopher