thesis : the two approaches to RPG player enjoyment goals

[Ron Edwards]

My bleeding eyes ...

Narrativism: Story Now
Gamism: Step On Up

Neil, you are on the right track, although look out - there are plenty of folks around here who bring that metagame level to Simulationist play too. Nod and smile at them. As far as historical approaches to Simulationist play are concerned, you're on it.

You might as just sit around the room and talk about gaming (which is a lot of fun) but to actually call that the game itself. Whoa. Totally NOT a mode I'd ever prefer.

Perhaps you might consider that you are reacting to the idea based on your accustomed preferences, not to the actual range of possible approaches to play. For example, I used to consider dedicated Gamist play to be "space alien" activity, and the kind of Illusionist Sim that you're describing, I considered to be the most heinous abuse of others' imaginations possible. Part of this entire dialogue, and the point of my essays, is to learn where others' preferences are coming from, and one of the side-effects of understanding seems to be to expand one's own.

Furthermore, your image, "sit around the room and talk about gaming" is interesting - it's slamming that "metagame" concept all the way over to 11, to the point where no one is imagining anything. The term for this is synedoche - mistaking one way to play (in this case, Simulationist with a strong emphasis on Theme, Story, and Actor Stance, I think) with role-playing itself.

For more about synecdoche and GNS, see GNS and Other Matters of Role-playing Theory. It's a very useful concept.

As far as proposed behavior changes are concerned, I strongly recommend reviewing the Big Model section in Narrativism: Story Now. Properly, that concept should begin any reading of my material (and it will, eventually). When you read that, with any luck you'll see that all play is embedded in the Social Contract. This means that "behavior changes" are not going to be conducted by negotiating about the ephemera and techniques of play, but rather among the people for personal reasons. You have to be able to communicate what you want at that level.

System matters as an expression of Creative Agenda, not as the means to shape it.

Is any of this helping at all?

Best,
Ron

[Andrew Norris]

Now I've got to figure out how GNS proposes behavior changes, rather than just analysis.  Is there a specific part of the articles you'd suggest I re-read... since you seem to indicate that GNS is intended to help fix dysfunctional games... and by that I would assume it gives suggestions for behavioral changes to enact.

I know Ron's covering this, but here's my take on it as someone who's been following the discussion for a few months. (I claim no guarantee of accuracy.)

From what I've seen of GNS's use to help dysfunctional games, it is descriptive rather than prescriptive. You don't do anything because the model tells you to. Rather, the model may help you understand why two good friends who game together might experience deep frustration during the actual act of play (because their Creative Agenda priority is different but they don't realize it.)

Let's take a hypothetical example. We'll say you, Neil, have a player with Narrativist leanings, and wants to be able to set up scenes in which his character could explore a moral premise. Maybe they'll propose, during the game, a scene between two NPCs that leads to a crisis, and have his character walk in on the scene at that moment.

Now that's Narrativism in Author stance, but from what you've said, you might very well describe that as "talking about roleplaying" -- not playing at all. My guess would be that you'd be unlikely to take this player's suggestion. Frustration ensues, even though neither of you are wrong, but there's a disconnect between modes of play there. You're not sure why he's wanting to break immersion so blatantly, and he's not sure why you won't let him do this cool scene he'd like to have happen.

The GNS model doesn't fix that kind of situation at all, but it makes it pretty explicit where the disconnect lies. That, hopefully, means it's easier to discuss and iron out between the human beings involved.

[Doctor Xero]

Let's take a hypothetical example. We'll say you, Neil, have a player with Narrativist leanings, and wants to be able to set up scenes in which his character could explore a moral premise. Maybe they'll propose, during the game, a scene between two NPCs that leads to a crisis, and have his character walk in on the scene at that moment.

Now that's Narrativism in Author stance, but from what you've said, you might very well describe that as "talking about roleplaying" -- not playing at all. My guess would be that you'd be unlikely to take this player's suggestion. Frustration ensues, even though neither of you are wrong, but there's a disconnect between modes of play there. You're not sure why he's wanting to break immersion so blatantly, and he's not sure why you won't let him do this cool scene he'd like to have happen.

The GNS model doesn't fix that kind of situation at all, but it makes it pretty explicit where the disconnect lies. That, hopefully, means it's easier to discuss and iron out between the human beings involved.

I know this was aimed at Neil, but I just wanted to thank you for clearing up something about G/N/S modelling.

I'm used to Narrativists who take me aside before a game and tell me they would like that sort of situation to occur, and I'm used to Simulationists who discuss the genre conventions with me outside of game, and since neither of them violated immersion they both appealed to me as simply fellow roleplayers.  From your example, I imagine Gamists who did not violate immersion (such as bringing in extra-game bullying) would also not offend me as powergamers -- I've probably had such players and simply perceived them as tactically savvy roleplayers.  Now I understand that it's the breaking of immersion not any G/N/S approach which specifically bothers me.  Thanks!

Doctor X

[Doctor Xero]

Frustration ensues, even though neither of you are wrong, but there's a disconnect between modes of play there. You're not sure why he's wanting to break immersion so blatantly, and he's not sure why you won't let him do this cool scene he'd like to have happen.

Someone once asked me about the volatile roleplayer/powergamer divisions of the 1970s/80s.  Using Andrew Norris' language, I can encapsulate a large issue in that nasty war.

Roleplayers/dramatists were pro-immersion.  Meta-gaming considerations of tactics were therefore condemned as disruptively vulgar.

Powergamers/tacticians were anti-immersion.  Sacrificing tactics for the sake of theatre was dismissed as self-indulgently effeminate.

As you can see, each side became more extreme in reaction against the other side.  (And nasty gender slurs and class warfare entered into it at times as well.)

I think that division may be one reason for some G/N/S problems as well, both the approaching G/N/S within that roleplayer/powergamer dichotomy and the leftover negative vibes from that nastily divisive time.

Doctor X
cross-posted http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=10052&start=15

[RDU Neil]

Whoa... HERE is Andrew.

Ok... this thread is being quoted in a similar thread in the GNS forum.  My brain is splitting, but I think I'm following it.

Over in that thread, I said something very similar to Doctor Xero (man, he and I have a lot in common :) )

I said that those "I want this kind of scene..." discussions take place all the time "before and after" the game... not during.  Just like DX noted here.

So, to that extent, I have no problem with Narrativist/thematic desires by the players... but I'm uncomfortable with them breaking immersion during a game.  Once in a while, ok... but I'd rather it come out "in charcter" with the player speaking about "character intent" and leaving "player intent" to be discussed over pizza, later.

Right there with ya, Doc!

[greyorm]

If I got that right, then no wonder I'm confused by Nar play. You might as just sit around the room and talk about gaming (which is a lot of fun) but to actually call that the game itself. Whoa. Totally NOT a mode I'd ever prefer.

Which is not what happens in Narrativist play, though, I suppose, it could...er, maybe. Anyways, case in point: my 3E (yes, 3E D&D) game is Narrativist...the players approach their chosen premises, and making moral decisions is the highlight of play. And from the outside, it's just like regular D&D play! We just make Narrativist decisions.

That's probably blowing your mind, and you might be wondering how that, "um, works," but seriously, it isn't some weird, alien mode of role-playing involving sitting about doing roundtable fiction writing, discussing metagame content...or performing weird occult rituals with chickens for that matter.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

I think you guys will find this thread interesting: thoughts on why immersion is a tar baby, including the threads linked inside it.

Best,
Ron

[Andrew Norris]

Ron, thank you for those links. I'd be interested in hearing Neil and Xero's responses to the thoughts there.

I'm going to summarize a discussion I just had with my players, because it seems to raise the same points about prioritizing immersion.

In prepping our next session, I was discussing Author stance vs. Actor stance with them and I encountered a lot of resistance to Author stance in the name of immersion. The reason this surprised me is that I've already introduced limited Author stance and had it well-received. Players are allowed to spend a metagame resource ("Plot points", 3 per session) to narrate the outcome of an event. I'd allow them to apply this to narrate the duration of the scene, but they've exclusively used them for a round's worth of action at most. Still, I've had players do things like shoot the supports out of a shelf to collapse it on an enemy during a firefight, or have a NPC fall onto a landmine that hadn't been previously mentioned. That seems like pure Author stance to me.

What I realized in continuing this conversation about immersion was that while the players have used this rule for both Gamist and Sim rewards (victory over an enemy in one case, thoroughly establishing a particular NPC as incompetant in the other), they still considered this "breaking the rules" and so were only comfortable with it as a limited resource.

I suggested the possibility of extending Author stance to describing the outcome of entire scenes (for instance, introducing a minor NPC as a foil, in order to play out a scene illustrating one aspect of their PC's character). Two of my players immediately said this broke immersion and they didn't like it. (They also made comments like "It's okay, man, it's the GM's job to set up scenes for us. We don't want to step on your toes.")

So my question, which I'll ask my players as well as Neil and Xero, is this: Why is it okay to introduce ideas for new characters and scenes outside of play, but not during play? If the answer is "That's my preference", that's fine. If it's "That's how you're supposed to play", I have to question that. (I mean this in a "What do you mean, I want to understand" fashion, rather than a "How dare you say that" one.)

I do have to admit that I almost exclusively GM; I've been a player in only a handful of games in the last decade. For me, that's meant that I've never myself sought out immersion. I'm not sure if that's just a statement about me, or if it means that people who've enjoyed a lot of Sim / Exploration of Character play (in Actor stance) bring that preference with them when they GM.

[Mike Holmes]

Still, I've had players do things like shoot the supports out of a shelf to collapse it on an enemy during a firefight, or have a NPC fall onto a landmine that hadn't been previously mentioned. That seems like pure Author stance to me.

To be precise (and forgive me if this seems pedantic) some of this is actually Director Stance. The landmine, for instance.

I think that what you might be seeing are players who are willing to take on Director Stance, moreso than Author Stance. Meaning they're willing to play GM for a short time, more or less, but not with regards to their own characters. This would be consistent with their immersion claims.

Mike

[Doctor Xero]

So my question, which I'll ask my players as well as Neil and Xero, is this: Why is it okay to introduce ideas for new characters and scenes outside of play, but not during play? If the answer is "That's my preference", that's fine. If it's "That's how you're supposed to play", I have to question that. (I mean this in a "What do you mean, I want to understand" fashion, rather than a "How dare you say that" one.)

In my experiences as to why my players have not wanted to do so in game (and why I don't enjoy it in game, either), I have a simple answer: immersion.

During a superhero game, I am the universe interacting with Captain Powerbolt, The Amazing Run-Really-Fast Man, Lady Lemuria, and Dr. Magickus.  Outside of play, I am the guy who game masters this campaign talking with my friends Lisa, Jordan, Brian, and Anita.  It makes sense for Brian to tell me that he'd like his character to discover her daughter works at an abortion clinic, and it doesn't jeopardize immersion, because outside game we're simply two friends discussing a shared storytelling/simulation/gaming hobby.  However, it does not make sense for Lady Lemuria to suddenly turn to the universe and say in a man's voice, "Hey, Xero, wouldn't it be cool if I was surprised by finding out my daughter is the doctor at this clinic?" unless either I want to violate immersion or I'm running a surreal game with breaking of the fourth wall as a technique.

Now, not everyone wants this level of immersion.  But most of the time, my group does.  Part of my RPG background is this: the majority of my players have been theatre people who discovered after high school that they had enough skill to impress their friends but not enough to pursue theatre as a career, so we enjoy our theatric talents in RPGs and community theatre.  However, community theatre takes too much time for a student in university, so during spring and fall semesters, RPGs are the only available outlet for the theatre impulse.  Breaking immersion also breaks the creative flow for us.

An easy example: Jordan's player-character is finally meeting the father who abused him as a child after not seeing him for ten years.  We've been building up to this for about ten games now.  Part of this is an exploration by Jordan through his character about whether forgiveness is possible for even cruel parents.  Tears in Jordan's eyes as well as in his character's, he confronts the father, whom I play out as best I can.  Just as Jordan starts to tell his father off, Brian helpfully points out that it would make more sense if Jordan's character were out of superhero costume.  We all agree he's right; however, the moment has been blown, Jordan has been forcefully torn out of the immersion in his character, and we never recover it.  What happens?  For the next three years of that gaming group, no one remembers what happened; we only remember how much could have happened if Brian had not cancelled immersion.

Something like the above actually happened in a game I was running about fifteen years ago, and when I see my old friends and our reminiscing turns back to gaming, the remembered frustration over that ruined opportunity still crops up every time.

Now that I think about it, I would wager that this is one of the reasons we don't enjoy shared game-mastering.  The game master is the member of the group saddled with the chore of forsaking immersion for the sake of running the game.  No one wants to give up the immersion, so no one wants to share the game mastering.  For us, a GMless game is one in which everyone loses immersion.  The game master sacrifices that sense of immersion for his or her players, and that is how the game master gets to be heroic as well.

Doctor Xero

[Doctor Xero]

As for what immersion is . . .

Well, we usually define it, from the theatre perspective, as method acting.  We find it similar to the concept of "flow" as explicated by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi in his book, *Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience*.  However, I would not begin to attempt a definitive definition of the term; I haven't studied it that much, to be candid.

Doctor Xero

[Valamir]

The problem with modeling your immersive experience on a theatre performance, is that in roleplaying you don't have rehearsals.

In any game there is going to come an opportunity to make the experience better, to make the climax more powerful, to make the denouement more moving, to make the build up more suspenseful.  But doing so requires communication amongst the participants.

This is no different than a theatre rehearsal when a scene isn't clicking and the director calls the cast together for a pow wow on why.  Its even more visible in movie making where the director can call cut and then call an actor over and give tips for how to change the performance.  Many actors and directors will even collaborate on rewriting part of the script or changing the portrayal of a character...because in a movie with top quality cast and crew, the opinion of the stars and directors and producers can help make a good script better.

By refusing to break the wall with immersive roleplaying, you lose this opportunity to tap the collective creative energies of the play group in ways that can't be captured through mere in character portrayal.  In this sense I find (as I have said before) full Immersion to be an inherently selfish play style because it puts the personal desire and enjoyment of "staying in character" ahead of the enjoyment of everyone else at the table.  By this I mean things like having an opportunity to set up a truly powerful and moving scene for another player, but to pull it off would require OOC commentery.  IMO any player who refuses to engage in that OOC commentery because doing so would "break immersion" is making a selfish decision.  Further there are many things that go on in a player's mind about his character;  things that cannot be or wouldn't make sense to be portrayed with in character acting.  But these things can often be portrayed simply and easily and not overly disruptively with OOC comments or exposition.  Refusing to engage in such comments robs the other players of the ability to enjoy the deep development of your character that is going on in your head.  Again, what I feel to be selfish behavior.

Having the OOC discussions with each other in between sessions can help mitigate alot of this, especially if sessions are short and well foreshadowed, but I think its impossible to realise the full creative potential of a role playing session without using both IC and OOC tools.  I also find that most people in my direct experience who expressed a preference for immersion, were largely doing so by habit.  I've encountered numerous people who edited out comments they would have liked to make because they thought it "wasn't allowed" or that it was a sign of "poor roleplaying" because that was the way they'd been taught.  But freed of such concerns they found they could enjoy the immersive experience of their character and yet still enhance the game overall by occassionally stepping out of character to creatively interact with the other players.

IMO, Immersion should never be allowed to get in the way of making good roleplaying better.

[clehrich]

So my question, which I'll ask my players as well as Neil and Xero, is this: Why is it okay to introduce ideas for new characters and scenes outside of play, but not during play? If the answer is "That's my preference", that's fine. If it's "That's how you're supposed to play", I have to question that. (I mean this in a "What do you mean, I want to understand" fashion, rather than a "How dare you say that" one.)

During a superhero game, I am the universe interacting with Captain Powerbolt, The Amazing Run-Really-Fast Man, Lady Lemuria, and Dr. Magickus.  Outside of play, I am the guy who game masters this campaign talking with my friends Lisa, Jordan, Brian, and Anita.  It makes sense for Brian to tell me that he'd like his character to discover her daughter works at an abortion clinic, and it doesn't jeopardize immersion, because outside game we're simply two friends discussing a shared storytelling/simulation/gaming hobby.  However, it does not make sense for Lady Lemuria to suddenly turn to the universe and say in a man's voice, "Hey, Xero, wouldn't it be cool if I was surprised by finding out my daughter is the doctor at this clinic?" unless either I want to violate immersion or I'm running a surreal game with breaking of the fourth wall as a technique.

I think this makes far too absolute a distinction between Immersed and Non-Immersed.  Director and Author-Stance Techniques need not be couched in this sort of language.

For example:
Non-Immersed, GM-Validated: "Hey, Xero, wouldn't it be cool if I was surprised by finding out my daughter is the doctor at this clinic?"
Versus: <Lady Lemuria arrives at the clinic, and...> "My God!  Karen!  What are you doing here?  And why are you wearing that stethoscope?"

Note that in the second version, two things (at least) have changed.  First, the alteration to the game-world need not be validated by the GM; for this, it's helpful to have System mechanics that make it relatively difficult for the GM to overrule this sort of invention.  Second, the invention comes in-character, in-game, and in some sense apparently Immersed; that is, there is no break in narrative flow entailed by the invention.

Again:

...Tears in Jordan's eyes as well as in his character's, he confronts the father, whom I play out as best I can.  Just as Jordan starts to tell his father off, Brian helpfully points out that it would make more sense if Jordan's character were out of superhero costume.  We all agree he's right; however, the moment has been blown, Jordan has been forcefully torn out of the immersion in his character, and we never recover it.

Brian need not have done it this way.  All he needed to say was, "I look down at my threadbare suit, absently picking fluff off my pants and wishing Father could see me in my real suit."  Here the invention was not something likely to be overruled -- the scene made more sense with Jordan in ordinary clothes.  So Brian could simply have made some reference to his ordinary clothes and everyone who had been thinking of this as Jordan in Super-Suit would revise comfortably.  No blown flow, no loss of effect.

The essential difficulty in these examples, as I read it, is that the players are not comfortable making certain kinds of inventions without the GM's explicit validation.  This has nothing to do with narrative flow or GNS; it's simply a question of comfort with certain Techniques.  Given the way your group likes to play, I'd recommend that people actually sit down and think about widening their range of Techniques available.  I think if Brian had been explicitly aware of the possibility of inserting his "correction" without needing to break frame to confer with you, you would all remember this scene very differently.

InSpectres is a lovely example of these sorts of mechanics.  First of all, the non-Immersed inventions are given a special mechanic, the Confessional, which allows them to occur in-character without disrupting narrative flow much; your group might dislike Confessionals, actually, but once you get the hang of them they don't disturb the flow.  Second, the Immersed (or close to it) inventions happen every time someone aces a roll, because the player is required to narrate events for a moment.

Now that I think about it, I would wager that this is one of the reasons we don't enjoy shared game-mastering.  The game master is the member of the group saddled with the chore of forsaking immersion for the sake of running the game.  No one wants to give up the immersion, so no one wants to share the game mastering.  For us, a GMless game is one in which everyone loses immersion.  The game master sacrifices that sense of immersion for his or her players, and that is how the game master gets to be heroic as well.

I see this, and am sympathetic, but there are ways around it.  If everyone has the power to make statements without validation, given certain ground-rules (one of the big reasons System Matters, after all), then the GM can go right ahead and immerse in another character.  That player does have to sacrifice his immersion sometimes, when there really is a need for someone to arbitrate, but much of the time such arbitration is simply a matter of consulting charts or whatever.  Let's suppose 3 players are really into a scene, and a fourth doesn't have a lot to do.  Let that fourth player be the arbiter; he'll be paid for his sacrifice by the fact that next scene, he'll be big and somebody else will cover the arbitration.

The use of Director and Author Stances (I've never been great at distinguishing the two, actually) does not require an overt break in the narrative flow, nor that players speak out of character if that's not desired, nor does it entail having or not having a singular GM.  Every time somebody says, "I whip around with a high roundhouse kick, knocking him down the stairs, where he bounces against the brass bannister" is a use of such Techniques, most especially if there was no previous mention of a bannister (or even a stair!).  This is, incidentally, one of the reasons that these Techniques are not absolutely tied to particular Creative Agendas (GNS modes).

Chris Lehrich

[John Kim]

...Tears in Jordan's eyes as well as in his character's, he confronts the father, whom I play out as best I can.  Just as Jordan starts to tell his father off, Brian helpfully points out that it would make more sense if Jordan's character were out of superhero costume.  We all agree he's right; however, the moment has been blown, Jordan has been forcefully torn out of the immersion in his character, and we never recover it.

Brian need not have done it this way.  All he needed to say was, "I look down at my threadbare suit, absently picking fluff off my pants and wishing Father could see me in my real suit."  Here the invention was not something likely to be overruled -- the scene made more sense with Jordan in ordinary clothes.  So Brian could simply have made some reference to his ordinary clothes and everyone who had been thinking of this as Jordan in Super-Suit would revise comfortably.  No blown flow, no loss of effect.

The essential difficulty in these examples, as I read it, is that the players are not comfortable making certain kinds of inventions without the GM's explicit validation.  This has nothing to do with narrative flow or GNS; it's simply a question of comfort with certain Techniques.  Given the way your group likes to play, I'd recommend that people actually sit down and think about widening their range of Techniques available.  I think if Brian had been explicitly aware of the possibility of inserting his "correction" without needing to break frame to confer with you, you would all remember this scene very differently.

I don't see this.  It's true that given the right system, Brian can jump in and speak as Jordan's character.  But that doesn't make it any less intrusive and immersion-breaking, in my opinion.  Immersion is not simply a matter of speaking in-character or describing a scene. Rather, it is a mental state --  thinking and feeling in a way that matches the character.  Another player can easily break immersion by adding new information that majorly shifts the imagined space.  i.e. Saying in-character "Why are you wearing that clown nose?", for example.  

The Forge usage distinguishes between what they call "actor stance" and "author stance" -- both of which can be done with purely in-character dialogue.  Usually "actor stance" is taken to indicate portrayal but not plot-altering decisions, while "author stance" includes taking control of either the shared imagined space or the plot.  

Interestingly, this is quite different from Kevin Hardwick's original narrative stances from rgfa.  There we distinguished between "in-character stance" and "actor stance", but had no equivalent to "author stance" (there was only director stance which was explicitly OOC and audience stance).  So here actor stance included both portrayal and plot control as long as they were meta-game conscious, while IC stance included plot control as long as it was thinking in-character.  

I think it is a pretty tricky.  I doubt that there is any technique which lets Brian jump in and bring up Jordan's character's clothes without intrusion -- and certainly framing it as Jordan's character's thoughts doesn't make it any less intrusive.  (Indeed, such a technique seems much more intrusive to me as a character-immersive player.)

[clehrich]

I just re-read Xero's post, and it occurs to me that John's reading one way and I'm reading another.  Furthermore, he's reading right and I'm misreading.

I was thinking that Jordan was Brian's character, you see.  I thought the point here was that Brian asked whether it would be okay for his character, Jordan, not to be in-suit.  Re-reading, I find that Jordan and Brian are both players.

Ooops.

As Willy Wonka said, "No, wait.  Stop.  Reverse that."

Chris Lehrich