Immersive Story Essay

[John Kim]

I've only read your essay once, so I may have missed something, but... to your point above... wouldn't it be the player's responsibility to do BOTH in an immersive RPG play session?  Similar to the the reality of players being both author and audience in an RPG... shouldn't the player do both, express their own PC's issues outward AND help other players with their PC?  Be both protagonist and supporting cast (and in some games antagonist) all at once.  

Well, not as you express it.  That's because (within this model) the PC is not the protagonist to anyone except for her own player.  So you are not trying to project your PC as a protagonist outwards to anyone.  So inwardly you must invest in the PC's story as protagonist, but your duty outwards is as a supporting cast member in other players' stories.  I know its a kind of short conclusion (and really could use another essay), but the ending is:

For you the player to have emotional engagement, you must delve into the personal issues of her own PC. This does not mean mentally contemplating the character, it means taking actions which are personally meaningful to the character. By playing through the consequences of your choices, the story develops meaning for you.

You are also a participant in other players' stories. However, this is not projecting your story to them. Rather, pieces of your story are the background and supporting pieces to their story.

You also have a more general issue about what "immersion" means.  The article as it stands uses the label of "immersion", but never talks about mental state -- only about narrative structure.  You ask:

All these modes of thought require at least a piece of the players mind being in a distanced and analytical position to look at the "whole story" being created... which to my mind is antithetical to true immersion.  Wouldn't true immersion be "getting into character" so much you forget you are a character, and thus, just as in real life I don't think to myself, "How will my next action reflect a dramatic foil to my coworker" I would never think that while in an immersionist game?  

I disagree that these narrative roles necessarily require conscious thought about them.  Your logical here could also be used to dismiss method acting -- by suggesting that since it is gestures and facial expressions which communicate to the audience, the actor should concentrate on those instead of on the character's internal thoughts.  By the same token, written authorship should be scientific consideration of principles rather than unregulated inspiration.  

But I don't agree with that.  While structure exists and plays a role, it is definitely second fiddle to inspiration.  For example, simply by getting into  a character which contrasts with another player's, you inherently are being a dramatic foil.  I think consideration of structure should happen in designing the game, setting up the campaign, and creating PCs.  But it doesn't have to be in mind during play.

[RDU Neil]

John,
  You wrote:

it means taking actions which are personally meaningful to the character.

But isn't that projecting your character to them?  Good books and movies don't "tell" they show.  So a protagonist acts, and through her actions we understand her character.  How is this different?

And to the point of being a participant (i.e. a dramatic foil) for other players' stories, if you act in any way "in character" while being that foil, aren't you still projecting your character?  

Did I miss something where you are using this priority schtick from GNS, and implying that only the one you are prioritizing is the real role?  That seems unnecessary in this case.  I see no reason why both couldn't be going on at the same time... acting as foil, but also demonstrating "projecting" your own character.   Why the seeming need for such absolute division?

[John Kim]

it means taking actions which are personally meaningful to the character.

But isn't that projecting your character to them?  Good books and movies don't "tell" they show.  So a protagonist acts, and through her actions we understand her character.  How is this different?

Well, I consider it different because you might understand why your character is taking those actions, but it may not be clear to everyone else -- at least not to the depth that you envision it.  The two are certainly similar and help each other, but they are not identical.  

As I discussed this to my friend Bill, what happens is a whole story for the individual player -- but that story mixes both expressed and unexpressed imagination.  So other people only see half the story: the externally expressed half.  Half a story is certainly very similar to a whole story, and you can say a lot of things which will apply to both.  But it isn't the same thing.  

The storytelling view tends to characterize purely internal experience as "waste".  Put another way, anything imagined but not expressed is wasted -- which idealizes the case where player's imaginations roam no farther than exactly what is said in session.  That is because it is viewed that the shared space is the product, and that there is only a single product and single story.  The internalized stuff is valueless daydreaming.  

However, the immersive story model values and uses internal conceived story.  The product is not what is said at the table, but rather the sum of the individual internal experience.  i.e. If everyone in the table has a deep and interesting experiences through the game, that is the goal -- even if the written transcript of what was said doesn't reflect that depth.  The point is that the analogy of books and movies fails to capture what is different about RPGs.  Because they have no separate author and audience, RPGs have no separation of conceived story and perceived story.  

And to the point of being a participant (i.e. a dramatic foil) for other players' stories, if you act in any way "in character" while being that foil, aren't you still projecting your character?  

Did I miss something where you are using this priority schtick from GNS, and implying that only the one you are prioritizing is the real role?  That seems unnecessary in this case.  I see no reason why both couldn't be going on at the same time... acting as foil, but also demonstrating "projecting" your own character.   Why the seeming need for such absolute division?

Not at all.  I don't talk about prioritization at all in the essay, and I agree that real games don't need to be categorized into one or the other.  Inherently be defining differences in models, each are defined as absolutes -- but real games don't have to fit in that.  It might help to define a middle position, like "partial immersion".

[RDU Neil]

John Kim wrote:

As I discussed this to my friend Bill, what happens is a whole story for the individual player -- but that story mixes both expressed and unexpressed imagination. So other people only see half the story: the externally expressed half. Half a story is certainly very similar to a whole story, and you can say a lot of things which will apply to both. But it isn't the same thing.

This got my brain firing away... and excuse me if this is thread drift, but I'm taking this back to your essay, and the diagram about author/discourse(text)/reader = perceived story.

It occurs to me, if the question is "What is the text of the RPG" i.e. what is the discourse... might we say that the "character" is the text?

Hang with me a second on this.  In a literaly model, the author envisions a story... creates a text to communicate the story... the reader reads the text and this conjunction is the discourse... but the END product is the interpreted/imagined story in the readers mind, generated by the discourse/text.

Ok... if I've got that right (and I may not)... then how about this...

Each player is an author to some extent... and they have an imagined story going on in their heads, and they use their character as the text... the discourse being the interaction of characters/players.

Now, just like a literary author can't force a reader to interpret the text exactly as the author intended, nor can a player expect others to interpret their character exactly as the intend.  They can only set forth their character (describing actions and dialoge and even telling what internal thought the character might be having) as a text to be interpreted by the others.  

The final product is a multi-faceted "Imagined Story"... a facet for each player (GM considered a player) as each has their own... just like each reader of a novel has their own imagined story as the final product.

This works for me, and incorporates both the "deep internal" stuff each player imagines, AND the shared text/discourse created by all.

John Kim wrote:

The storytelling view tends to characterize purely internal experience as "waste". Put another way, anything imagined but not expressed is wasted -- which idealizes the case where player's imaginations roam no farther than exactly what is said in session. That is because it is viewed that the shared space is the product, and that there is only a single product and single story. The internalized stuff is valueless daydreaming.

Seems a bit extreme to say it is "wasted" but I would agree it is of less value.  I'm not a big fan of the solipsitic type of play that emphasis on internal experience can create... but I'd never say it's wasted.  It's just meaningless to anyone but that person, so it IS kind of valueless, by definition, to anyone but that person.

Because they have no separate author and audience, RPGs have no separation of conceived story and perceived story.

But there is.  My conceived story is that of my character, and the perceived story is that of the discourse/text... which is all the characters/players interacting.  

But then, I am saying that conceived story means "intended" and perceived story  is "actual" as it plays out... and yes, the perceived/actual story is different for every player... but I don't see that as any different than multiple readers interpreting the same text of a novel.

Yeah... from your description, I'm much more in the storytelling camp than immersionist, that is for sure.

[clehrich]

might we say that the "character" is the text?
....
Now, just like a literary author can't force a reader to interpret the text exactly as the author intended, nor can a player expect others to interpret their character exactly as the intend.  They can only set forth their character (describing actions and dialoge and even telling what internal thought the character might be having) as a text to be interpreted by the others.  
....
But then, I am saying that conceived story means "intended" and perceived story  is "actual" as it plays out... and yes, the perceived/actual story is different for every player... but I don't see that as any different than multiple readers interpreting the same text of a novel.

I suspect that I'm turning Neil's points into true thread-drift, and this should really be taken up on its own thread, but a brief couple of points here:

1. What you (Neil) are describing here is essentially a normative conversational model, not a textual one.  The ordinary situation of conversation is that we "intend" a meaning, express it in words, and then have those words interpreted, producing a new conception in the listener.  This then goes back and forth, but ultimately the intended meaning and the final interpreted conception have no direct link, and thus only approximate to each other.  The primary value of reading this situation in textual terms, a la various post-structuralists and whatnot, is that it recognizes that (a) the intention and the expression are not directly linked, and (b) there is a tendency to assume that the final interpreted conception matches the intention; both of these characteristics are obvious in text, because of the physical externality, i.e. the physical distance between author and text.  I don't know if that helps or makes this just more complicated, but it seems to me that what you find most useful about this textual model is the way in which it can be bent to fit something other than text!

2. If we are going to retain the textual nature of this model, and I think that has value, then the important thing to focus on is the externalized text, not the intention (if any) that stands behind it.  I think this was your point about the "solipsistic" focus on internal experience, but I'm not sure I'm reading you right.

From Neil's points, as I read them anyway, and as I've said before in a different context, I am leery of a textual model for RPGs if the purpose is to construct and analyze the intentions and experiences standing behind play.  Whatever gains may be made by textuality as a model, and they are certainly many, they do tend to entail a necessary loss of this dimension of experience, because people are not (in a simple sense) texts, and vice-versa.

[contracycle]

However, the immersive story model values and uses internal conceived story.  The product is not what is said at the table, but rather the sum of the individual internal experience.  i.e. If everyone in the table has a deep and interesting experiences through the game, that is the goal -- even if the written transcript of what was said doesn't reflect that depth.  The point is that the analogy of books and movies fails to capture what is different about RPGs.  Because they have no separate author and audience, RPGs have no separation of conceived story and perceived story.

Ah OK, I understand this better now.  Fair enough, its an interesting perspective: one might even make the case that given the close proximity of the players personal protagonist character, they might largely or only interpret other character actions in a supporting cast light.

However... lets say I had a highly intense game going on with multiple players by email; there may be no strict need for them to communicate amongst themselves.  Would they even need to know of each others existance, and if not, wouldn't it be innapropriate to say we were all playing the same game?  Sure its an illogical extreme, but I feel there is a part of the shared experience of play missing from this model.  One might say, things are more fun when others around me validate the fun-ness of what we are doing, whatever that may be, by their own expressions of enjoyment.  I feel I do have an audience-interest in the others players protagonist characters.

But I do agree that your model is a strong counterpoint to the use of story to refer to the SIS.  I would suggest that there may well be 1 more story than than there are players for any given game - one experienced by each player (including a GM) and one which exists in the SIS.  Five players then would produce six stories.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

To the Dramatist, the Immersionist may seem to be rejecting story as a goal. However, Immersionist play will produce a series of fictional events -- often with deep characters and intricate interactions. Is this not a story?

My disconnect with all of this is right here because my answer is no. This is based mostly on my perception of story as an art object. A series of events is a story in the sense of "What's the story with this cellular phone bill?" but not in the sense, as Ron had said elsewhere (paraphrasing)"If it were written as a script and taken to Hollywood, we'd make a million dollars."

Also, if I'm understanding the concept correctly, it is simply life we're talking about. We each in our own lives experience life in our own heads and others don't always get to know what goes on inside. I may be missing a key element here, but for this experience, we don't need an RPG. That's fine and all, but I'm looking for stuff we do need and RPG for.

[John Kim]

The storytelling view tends to characterize purely internal experience as "waste". Put another way, anything imagined but not expressed is wasted -- which idealizes the case where player's imaginations roam no farther than exactly what is said in session. That is because it is viewed that the shared space is the product, and that there is only a single product and single story. The internalized stuff is valueless daydreaming.

Seems a bit extreme to say it is "wasted" but I would agree it is of less value.  I'm not a big fan of the solipsitic type of play that emphasis on internal experience can create... but I'd never say it's wasted.  It's just meaningless to anyone but that person, so it IS kind of valueless, by definition, to anyone but that person.

OK, I don't agree that focus on internal experience is "solipsistic".  To my mind, the focus should most certainly be on internal experience, because unless you are videotaping the session, the internal experiences of the participants are the only products that result from the game.  That is my criticism of the using performance/storytelling as a model -- that it creates play which is focussed on creating an objective story, like creating a movie that will play for a mass audience.  To my mind, a good story should fire the imagination, drawing one to dream up pictures which go far beyond the literal words on the page.  But you label the very thing which I consider a successful product (i.e. imagination beyond what is said) as waste.  

To the Dramatist, the Immersionist may seem to be rejecting story as a goal. However, Immersionist play will produce a series of fictional events -- often with deep characters and intricate interactions. Is this not a story?

My disconnect with all of this is right here because my answer is no. This is based mostly on my perception of story as an art object. A series of events is a story in the sense of "What's the story with this cellular phone bill?" but not in the sense, as Ron had said elsewhere (paraphrasing)"If it were written as a script and taken to Hollywood, we'd make a million dollars."

Right.  And I think I address this in more detail in my essay.  The whole point is about how immersive story in RPGs is structurally different than story in static media.  And you're right, I don't view the transcript of the game itself as a complete art object.  This is what I see as a weakness of the storytelling/performance paradigm -- that it treats the transcript as the product.  That is because the traditional structures are based on the idea of conveying the story to non-authors through static media (like books and movies).  

Also, if I'm understanding the concept correctly, it is simply life we're talking about. We each in our own lives experience life in our own heads and others don't always get to know what goes on inside. I may be missing a key element here, but for this experience, we don't need an RPG. That's fine and all, but I'm looking for stuff we do need and RPG for.

I don't see where you get this.  You're right, there are similarities between what I describe of as immersive story and life.  But that doesn't mean they are identical.  There are also similarities between traditional stories and life.  The immersive structure that I describe isn't described in detail (being just a short essay), but it has very distinct features:  that each PC will function as a protagonist to the corresponding player, but only as a supporting cast member to the other players.

[RDU Neil]

John Kim wrote:

Well, I consider it different because you might understand why your character is taking those actions, but it may not be clear to everyone else -- at least not to the depth that you envision it.

and contracycle wrote:

I feel I do have an audience-interest in the others players protagonist characters.

And this is where I'm struggline with this Immersive theory.  While I totally agree that each individual will create their own story inside their own heads... I don't see how this is contradictory with enjoying being the audience to another player-characters actions.   Just as when readinga  book or watching a movie, I can only interpret and make connections with a protagonist in my own way, based on my own perceptions.  Of course this may not be to the depth of the writer of that character, I'd never expect it to be, but it has a depth of it's own.  In fact, those moments in a game where every player and the GM are focused on one character in a crucial moment... everyone else playing support to that character... that is often the most effective parts of the game for every player, not just the focus player.   In a good game, every character will get their "spotlight moment" and assist and audience others in theirs.  

Now, I think I know what you mean by prioritizing that kind of play, valuing those internal moments most... and I do see that in other players... but to tell the truth, that tends to drive me crazy.  Players doing their own thing, ignoring others, not expressing their moment or their enjoyment to others... basically not sharing and totally "me" focused.  

It's not enough to pay attention to others and play supporting cast, but you need to want and APPRECIATE others as audience... to put forth effort to show them what is going on inside your and your characters mind.  If the PC is struggling and confused, it is up to the player to convey that to the rest, not just immerse themselves in their own mental world.  

Now, yes, I'm stating this in absolutes, and I don't mean to say it that way, so I'll rephrase.   How does the Immersion model deal with the responsibility of the player to project their character to the others and include the others as the audience of their personal story?

[John Kim]

And this is where I'm struggline with this Immersive theory.  While I totally agree that each individual will create their own story inside their own heads... I don't see how this is contradictory with enjoying being the audience to another player-characters actions.  

It's not contradictory.  You are audience to other PCs' actions.  The difference from a storytelling/performance model is that the other PCs do not function as protagonists to you.  Within the immersive model, the drama from your point of view has your PC as the protagonist, but the other characters play vital roles as well.  You keep trying to characterize this as solipsistic, but that's simply false.  The villian of a piece is still a role which requires expression and interaction.  But it's not the same as playing a protagonist.  

In fact, those moments in a game where every player and the GM are focused on one character in a crucial moment... everyone else playing support to that character... that is often the most effective parts of the game for every player, not just the focus player.   In a good game, every character will get their "spotlight moment" and assist and audience others in theirs.  

Now, I think I know what you mean by prioritizing that kind of play, valuing those internal moments most... and I do see that in other players... but to tell the truth, that tends to drive me crazy.  Players doing their own thing, ignoring others, not expressing their moment or their enjoyment to others... basically not sharing and totally "me" focused.  

Well, I can't say for certain what is going on with those other players -- but I know that some other players have expressed similar opinions about me.  In turn, I was often annoyed at their play.  From my point of view, they keep pushing to make the story more shallow -- i.e. with everything on the surface and no sense of as-yet-unexplored depth.  Indeed, structurally a single story with five different protagonists is IMO inevitably shallow -- though with greater breadth of issues than a single-protagonist story.  

It's not enough to pay attention to others and play supporting cast, but you need to want and APPRECIATE others as audience... to put forth effort to show them what is going on inside your and your characters mind.  If the PC is struggling and confused, it is up to the player to convey that to the rest, not just immerse themselves in their own mental world.  

Now, yes, I'm stating this in absolutes, and I don't mean to say it that way, so I'll rephrase.   How does the Immersion model deal with the responsibility of the player to project their character to the others and include the others as the audience of their personal story?

It's not a responsibility.  Like an actor, the player is responsible for projecting their character.  A major supporting character like the villian must be believable and emotional.  However, they need not be sympathetic, and they do not need to express a complete personal arc.  Not every character in a drama can and should be completely opened up.  

You don't and indeed can't see the full story of my character during the game.  For me to do that would weaken both my character-story and yours.  My character-story would be weakened because I have to condense everything down to the projected Cliff-notes version, rather than feeling it.  Your character-story would be weakened by having me take time away from your story to parade my own -- when I could have spent the same time acting as a support to your story.

[RDU Neil]

John Kim wrote:

From my point of view, they keep pushing to make the story more shallow -- i.e. with everything on the surface and no sense of as-yet-unexplored depth.

But if the depth is only apparent to you, the player of that character, why should they care about it?  This is what I'm saying about responsibilty.  If you want to be able to plumb the depths of your character, you need to make the others care about your attempts.  You don't need to project exactly what is going through your character's mind, but you need to project that SOMETHING is going on... provide SOMETHING for the audience to react to... even if they don't understand it perfectly.  I'm not looking for perfect understanding, just CONNECTING... trying to make the others care about your charcter, and caring about theirs.  You can do this (and should, IMO) IN character... it's not breaking out into exposition... but if your internal world is full of drama, an RPG should be about how you share that drama with others, and grow that drama beyond what would exist if you were just imagining it by yourself.  

I really think I've got a player in my group just like you.  At the table, half the time it appears as if he is not paying attention or not interested in the game, but in one on one conversations, it is clear that a deep and meaningful internal story is happening for him, but he never shares it with the others.  He is easily overlooked and it can be very frustrating for all of us, because miscommunication and worse happens because he's so internally focused, and not really connecting with the others (player or charcter.)  Your model helps explain why he role plays at all, because sometimes I'm very confused since he doesn't seem to "get it" like the rest of us.  If he is such an immersionist, then what he is getting is likely external stimulous (the game and other players) that help generate an interesting and deeper internal fantasy life.

Yes, I have a tough time not being emotional about this, because it seems selfish and solipsistic, because that player doesn't give back to the others, nor give them reason to care about him.

Wow... if I'm reading this right, this really helps explain some dynamics in my own game.  I've got a lot to think about.

[John Kim]

But if the depth is only apparent to you, the player of that character, why should they care about it?  This is what I'm saying about responsibilty.  If you want to be able to plumb the depths of your character, you need to make the others care about your attempts.  You don't need to project exactly what is going through your character's mind, but you need to project that SOMETHING is going on... provide SOMETHING for the audience to react to... even if they don't understand it perfectly.  I'm not looking for perfect understanding, just CONNECTING... trying to make the others care about your charcter, and caring about theirs.  You can do this (and should, IMO) IN character... it's not breaking out into exposition... but if your internal world is full of drama, an RPG should be about how you share that drama with others, and grow that drama beyond what would exist if you were just imagining it by yourself.  

OK, you're continuing to argue against a non-existant position here.  You continue to characterize "supporting cast" as "characters who do nothing, display nothing, and do not interact".  Obviously, that is completely false.  Supporting cast are all about interaction.  So let me try again at explaining.  The two positions we have here can also be thought of as "serial protagonists" and "simultaneous protagonists".  

"Serial protagonist" can be metaphorically thought of as a roving spotlight.  When it is one PCs turn in the spotlight, then she is supposed to function as protagonist for all the players.  The other players, then, are supposed to emotionally identify with the spotlight player as audience.  If called upon, they may act through their own PCs as well -- but must do so while still emotionally identifying with the spotlight character.  This is inherently a tabletop mode since it only works well if there are a relatively small number of players.  Even if it works, the result is still a fragmented story which jumps around as the spotlight roves.  Note that in this ideal, it should be possible for someone to be perfectly satisfied simply sitting and watching the game, since each spotlight period strives to be entertaining to an audience.  

"Simultaneous protagonists" means that there is an attempt to have a consistent protagonist for each player -- i.e. that player's PC.  The result is not fragmented, in that there is continuous identification, but it is chaotic because there are N stories going on at once for N players.  As Eero noted, this means that scenes which do not involve or potentially impact my PC are going to feel flat.  A spectator viewing only common material would have the same reaction.  The ideal, then, is near-constant interaction and intersection of the character-stories.  This doesn't mean that every PC has to be constantly active.  By parallel, note that the protagonist does not have to be in every scene of a movie or play.  However, nearly every on-screen act should have significance for all PCs.  

I really think I've got a player in my group just like you.  At the table, half the time it appears as if he is not paying attention or not interested in the game, but in one on one conversations, it is clear that a deep and meaningful internal story is happening for him, but he never shares it with the others.  He is easily overlooked and it can be very frustrating for all of us, because miscommunication and worse happens because he's so internally focused, and not really connecting with the others (player or charcter.)  Your model helps explain why he role plays at all, because sometimes I'm very confused since he doesn't seem to "get it" like the rest of us.  If he is such an immersionist, then what he is getting is likely external stimulous (the game and other players) that help generate an interesting and deeper internal fantasy life.

Yes, I have a tough time not being emotional about this, because it seems selfish and solipsistic, because that player doesn't give back to the others, nor give them reason to care about him.

OK, if it is true that his preferences are like mine, then the solution is to involve and interact on a character level.  He is not interested in other player's PCs independently parading their issues for him to watch out of character, but he is interested in events through the lens of his own PC's issues.  He may not realize that interaction is the key to involvement.  My recommendation is that as GM you could set him at odds with the other PCs to a limited.  If his goals and issues intersect with others, then interactions will sharpen both his story and theirs.

[John Kim]

...(double post deleted)...

[Russell Impagliazzo]

John's essay was really true to my own experience as a role-player. The crucial aspects of the story to me are often my character's uncommunicated experiences of the events.  For years, I never tried to portray my character to the other players, but instead tried to stay in character.  These are very different things.  These days, I do worry more about acting for the benefit of other players, but its often at the expense of having less connection with my character.  

For example, in one of the first games I really enjoyed, I played a male Amazon (a random result of background tables, not a conscious  decision.)    The highlight of playing this character was his viewpoint on gender roles.   While he loved the personal freedom he got in non-matriarchal societies, he couldn't help feel that some things just weren't natural about them.   We had a pair of warrior PCs, male and female, and if the woman got injured, she would insist that the party return to baseand heal up.   My character would be thinking, ``What a wimp!  Sven is twice the woman Silke will ever be!''.  But the character would be trying to HIDEthe thought, not communicate it.  So acting in character meant NOT portraying the parts of the character that mattered to me.  

I think Brother L. is the best example of this.  Brother L. was my most sick and twisted character ever.  Not exactly evil, but paranoid, secretive, and power-hungry.  He believed knowledge was power, and became a monk of a sect which venerated truth in order to get access to secret knowledge.  The first adventure,  we were all strangers wandering down a road when we were beset by strange creatures.  Since he had never
encountered similar creatures, after the monsters were defeated, Brother L. healed them, in order to interrogat them later and possibly perform some vivisection experiments.  The other PCs jumped to the conclusion that Brother L. had some extreme pacifist morality.  I decided that Brother L., being paranoid and secretive, would want the party to stay deluded.   When he learned that the goal of the most powerful PC was to obtain a magical gem, he decided that he needed to maintain the pacifist ruse in order to slip under the PC's guard and kill him before he could get the god-like powers of the gem.  On many adventures, Brother L. acted like a pacifist, while secretly plotting betrayal.  It was somewhat dull to play such a stereotypically benign monk, but I had fun with Brother L's secret plans and revenge fantasies.  Since he had little combat power, pacifism wasn't much of a strategic sacrifice, and he had enough skills to keep himself useful.  Finally, the gem came into our reach.  Brother L grabbed it before the others had time to react. The GM said, ``Normally, using the power of the gem causes you to go insane, but since Borther L's motives are so pure, he gets an exception...''  He found it hard tobelieve me when I said, ``Actually, I'm using the gem to kill the rest of the party".  I had to point to where it said ``paranoid'' not ``pacifist'' on my character sheet several times before he got it.     In this case, I eventually portrayed his true nature, but that wasn't necessary for me to experience being a twisted monk for months.

[contracycle]

I tyhink a complication is added with a conventiopnal players-and-GM structure.  That is, I-as-GM, represent all the NPC's and whatnot as well.  If a player character is conflicted, but this conflict is not expressed, I cannot have any NPC notice that and respond to it - even if they have Notice Distress at high levels.

I don't dispute the idea of the personal story at all, nor a proposed structure which tries to work on that basis, nor drawing attention to this possibilitiy in players.  But I do say that if a detail is not expressed, as far as the othyer players are concerned it didn't happen.  That may be unimportant, or it may be very important, if your versions of the SIS become more divergent.  But I think players, like writers, must poroduce more than their own dialogue, they must produce thenthings I see and smell and touch as well.  If Bob's been despondant, Bob's player should alert me to the fact that Bob is behaving that way, otherwise I may well proceed on the assumption that Bob is grooving on the same things I am.