Is taking responsibility for your character really so hard?

[hyphz]

I appreciate the backup but Mike's right.  If what was going through his mind was, "Hey, I swore to protect this girls honor and now I'm at the honor duel portion of the story and we'll according to my understanding of how a Zorro like story flows I'm supposed to win this but I can't, something's wrong." Panic. Panic. Panic.  Then he's being simulationist.  

Really?  That's really confusing to me.  It seems to me that he's acting with story flow at the forefront of his CA and therefore it's narrativist.

I was, however, deliberately trying to keep this GNS neutral because I think one can have ownership and responsibility for the their character regardless of CA.  If you're a simulationist and you're holding up your character to some pre-play set of expectations and standards, that's fine, but acknowledge that that is the case.  Admit that the limitations you've placed are your own and that the choices you make are still wholely YOURS.  It seemed to me as if D was denying that he had a choice in the matter.  In fact he was looking for proof that he had no choice in the matter.

That sounds like what I mentioned above - that it's nothing to do with CA because in practice he was trying to avoid creating anything at all.

I do not fully believe that the "admit the limitations are your own and the choices are make are yours" covers the whole phenomenon, since it doesn't deal with the "I want X to happen but there's no way my character would make it" problem.

[Mike Holmes]

Hyphz, simulationism is looking for the internal cause, the in-game rationale for what the character will do. Especially in situations where the action may produce theme. Narrativism is basing the decision on what happens on the player's choice of what would be cool to see happen.

Yes, they're both player decisions. But to the extent that the player abdicated his chance to put his own notions of what's the statement that he'd like to make in favor of trying to determine what the game thinks should happen, well that's about as practical a definition of the line between the two modes as I can imagine.

Sim isn't "anti-story" it's just not the player making story. It's the player letting the system or in-game rationales make story for him. (I shouldn't have to mention this, but that doesn't mean that narrativism means that the chosen action doesn't seem to come from internal causes, they do. That's just not what the player is looking to primarily to make the decision).

It's the old Samurai example. The PC is in a situation where he has an incentive to do something dishonorable - does the player look to the rules, to see what to do, note his character has a code of honor, and choose to do the honorable thing? Or does he look to what he thinks would be the best statement to make in terms of theme, select the honorable rout, and then use the code of honor if somebody wants in-game justification?

Same situation, same result, different mode of play.

Anyhow, this sounds precisely like what the player was going through to me. It seems that Jesse's player was looking for what the game told him was the right thing to do. Jesse, what's "right" to do for a simulationist is precisely what's right by the system and/or in-game causality. To the extent that the player is unaware of these things, the sim player can't make an appropriate decision. He's not been empowered to do so.

Sim players know that they have choice in what they do, but they also believe that they have to select from the limited set of choices that are somehow supported by something external to themselves. For them to make a decision that's based on what they think alone is to destroy sim play.

In any case, again, was this, or was this not, an extreme example? Does he do it all the time? Or was it just a case of the player having analysis paralysis? Again, the same thing happens to narrativism players constantly. Quite often I present bangs, and players hem and haw, trying to figure out just what it is that they do feel is the best theme to present. Perhaps the question never occured to them before, and they really have to think about it. The same sort of paralysis sets in.

Is it not taking responsibility? No, it's precisely the opposite. It's allowing the imperative of the mode of play to force you to be overly cautious in making the decision in order that you feel that you've done it correctly.

Was the player taking too much time with the decision? Well, possibly. Possibly the decision in question wasn't so important that the research they did was more effort than the result was worth. I know I've made that mistake before. Hemming and hawing about a close decision hoping that something decisive would make up my mind, and taking far too much time with a decision because of it.

But it's not an abdication of responsibility. Rather, if anything, it's an overconcern with something in this case. The irresponsible player would say, "I kill him" without considering the ramifications at all.

Mike

[jburneko]

Hyphz,

I've taken the whole Simulationism Story vs. Narrativism Story to PM.  I don't want that discussing cluttering this one.

Mike,

Yes, the player does this a lot.  And maybe you're right.  It's just there's all these times where he's like going on about what he'd like to do but then whining about how he can't because of x precieved restriction on his character.  And yes, at the table it looks all angsty and painful.  But maybe it's just a CA clash and in a situation where the GM and other players were actually putting him in situations that met his expectations it wouldn't be painful and angsty.

Jesse

[Mike Holmes]

Well this sounds like a somewhat different phenomenon your describing here. In these cases does he take long times to look up the reason why he can't do what he wants to do? Or are these decisions made quickly.

The original example, seems like he doesn't have an idea of what the character would do, and is looking for one. Was that not what you were trying to convey? You didn't mention that he had said in that case that he wanted to do any particular action - just that he went a looking for one.


You know, there's an old solution to this problem that I think is often used abusively, but might be used proactively here. When a situation arises, tell the player that he has not much longer than the character has to make his decision. Count to ten out loud, and if you get to ten, say that the character has hesitated, and done nothing (with whatever appropriate repercussions). The player may hate this, but it might shake things up enough that you discover some of the root causes for what's going on. Or it might "fix" the player. Once he sees everyone accepting his rapidly made descisions, and even enjoying them, he'll change.

Looking back at your observation that the player wants to "look good" I have another (crackpot) hypothesis. Could it be that you're giving dilemmas, and the player doesn't want to lose either side of the dilemma? Could it be a latent gamism gene going into effect, and getting the player to find out a way not to lose either side of the stakes that he has to chose between?

For instance, in the example, the optimum result would be for the player not to kill the NPC, but also not to let him get away. But there seems to be no way out as you've presented it. Either the player has to take the character's taunts, and look cowardly, or he has to fight, and loose, or kill the character in cold blood. None of his options are "win" options. None are what he sees as a "Zorro who always wins" option (never mind that this is not the Zorro from the movies). So he searches for the solution to the puzzle. In the end going with the one option that means that he at least has a small chance of coming out with his optimal solution.

Could it be that the options that he's lamenting not having are ones that allow him to win?

Mike

[Lance D. Allen]

Is it just me, or does anyone else see the "Princess Bride" option? Strike him on the head with the pommel of your sword, make some witty comment (I would as soon destroy a priceless work of art as kill you) take the mask, and escape away to fight another day.

I know that this obviously doesn't help the player, but it's an option; Think outside the box. When you hold the upper hand, you shouldn't ever have to choose a losing option unless you want to.

[komradebob]

from Wolfen:

Is it just me, or does anyone else see the "Princess Bride" option? Strike him on the head with the pommel of your sword, make some witty comment (I would as soon destroy a priceless work of art as kill you) take the mask, and escape away to fight another day.

This strikes me as the best possible option for him that stays true to genre simulation. Would your system ( I'm not familiar with the mechanics you were using) have supported this option? If it would not have then either option A) get ass kicked in duel, or B) Cut bad guy's throat like a murderous thug would both have actually fallen outside of genre simulation. In which case, I can see a genre committed simulationist having a seriously hard time making a decision. I'm not surprised that he decided to stall for time. Did you ask him what exactly he was looking up? Are you sure he was looking for background for appropriate behavior rather than desperately seeking a mechanic that would let him stay within genre expectation?

[Brand_Robins]

This strikes me as the best possible option for him that stays true to genre simulation. Would your system ( I'm not familiar with the mechanics you were using) have supported this option?

7th Sea could support this option, which is why earlier on  I was wondering about why the guy never thought about it.

Of course, 7th Sea is also a bit of a quirky game -- you could pommel strike him or tag him, but technically you could only do so to good game effect if you had the pommel strike and/or tagging skills.

[S'mon]

It sounded like a simple Gamist goal vs Simulationist goal to me.  The player's Gamist goal was to win by defeating the NPC, his Simulationist goal was to play his PC 'right'.  He felt the two goals were in conflict, which caused him to freeze up as he desperately sought an 'out'.  Eventually he went with Sim.

I've seen similar deer-in-headlights from a player of a flamboyant swashbuckler PC who IRL was a walking cringe.  The disconnect between the way he envisaged the character and his own inclinations was just too big.  By contrast a player more comfortable with themself and the game would have settled quickly on one or the other - either 'win' by acting disnourably - thus 're-imagining' the PC as a ruthless pragmatist - or else follow through and play the man who knows he cannot win but yet does the right - honourable - thing.  Personally I love playing these kinds of scenes and I don't feel that if my heroic swordsman PC isn't the best there is, that I'm somehow deprotagonised.  As long as _I_ make the decision, I'm the protagonist.  And the decision to face certain defeat & likely death _for honour_ would be the mark of a true Castilian...

Edit: I guess if that's the coolest option it's the Nar option, eh?  :)

[Mike Holmes]

That's a fascinating observation. The player could be stuck trying to determine the choice that will make his play appear coherent with two or three modes (I'm guessing all three, actually). Given that in certain circumstances, this is impossible - or so the theory tells us - this could just be a case where he couldn't find that solution despite looking a lot for it, and was relegated eventually to taking an action that displayed a singular mode.

Basically the player has set the bar high for each of the modes in question, and the possible actions that are available/plausible all go below one of the bars. So they all seem unsatisfactory.

Hmmm. I bet this is a real phenomenon. And I'll bet it's not too rare, either. Might be a good idea for a new thread.

Mike

[S'mon]

That's a fascinating observation. The player could be stuck trying to determine the choice that will make his play appear coherent with two or three modes (I'm guessing all three, actually). Given that in certain circumstances, this is impossible - or so the theory tells us - this could just be a case where he couldn't find that solution despite looking a lot for it, and was relegated eventually to taking an action that displayed a singular mode.

Yup - I really don't think this is at all uncommon either - "I want to _win_, and I know how, but I know my character ought to do X, and lose".  Most games texts since the late '80s promote Sim play while retaining Gamism as the default assumption of how the game is actually played, so it would be amazing if many players weren't conflicted in practice - and only a player of above average abilities is going to come up with the third option (donk him over head with merry quip) that gives the ideal way out and integrates both goals.  That's the kind of player who's awesome to see in action, but I don't think RPGs should require that high level of OOC coolness from the players just to be playable.

[S'mon]

That's a fascinating observation. The player could be stuck trying to determine the choice that will make his play appear coherent with two or three modes (I'm guessing all three, actually).

I suspect, though I could be wrong, that if the guy was all that concerned with Narratvist or even Dramatist goals he wouldn't have butted in on another PC's scene - at least, not until an appropriate "in the nick of time" moment arrived.  :)

[jburneko]

I agree that the idea of trying to satisfy conflicting CAs simultaneously is an interesting one worthy of another thread.  It might even be what's going on here, as the description of the cringing real world player vs. the swashbuckler image strikes a note of truth to me with regard to this specific player.

After even more thought I did want to add one particular detail.  It occured to me that this player is very very good at posturing.  He is very very fond of presenting descriptions of his character as if they were somehow resolutions to a conflict or problem.

There was no hesitancy as he described his character skulking up to the character in the dark and emerging from the shadows to place his sword tip at his throat.  He then beamed at me with this kind of "ta-da" look on his face as if to somehow suggest that the scene was now over and everything was resolved.  I mean even if I'd had the NPC throw up his arms and surrender in defeat there would still be the question of what to do with him.

I was reminded of an earlier instance where the same kind of thing happened.  The player was trying to have his character rescue some Montaigne Nobles who were being held captive in a military encampment.  He, again with no hesitancy, had his character announce his presence by leaping on top of the cage where the prisoners were kept and shouting something pithy at the soldiers in the encampment.  And then he got all flustered and confused when an actual combat ensued.

Jesse

[Brand_Robins]

He, again with no hesitancy, had his character announce his presence by leaping on top of the cage where the prisoners were kept and shouting something pithy at the soldiers in the encampment.  And then he got all flustered and confused when an actual combat ensued.

I used to have a player like this. He lived for the moment of doing something cool, would get worked up about the doing something cool, would get to do the something cool, and then nothing.

After enough scenes where something like this happened (including things such as mouthing off to Nero in an historical Rome game) and then turned into unhappy scenes with the player stalling, avoiding, and pouting, I waited for the next one and asked the player, "Cool. What do you think should happen next?" in an attempt to figure out what the guy wanted to happen next.

Turns out he didn't have a freaking clue. He had gotten so jazzed in doing this one cool thing in his mind that he had never gotten to the part about thinking of a next step. Not only hadn't he thought about what he'd do if he got in trouble or was going to lose, he hadn't even thought about what he would do if he was so utterly overwhelming that everyone fell on their knees before him. For him that one pose was the whole point of everything.

Is there any chance your player is having the same kind of issues? He is so in love with the image of sneaking up and putting swords to throats and leaping onto cages that he doesn't think about what comes next, and stalls up because the moment that mattered is over and now he's stuck with a bunch of things he didn't think about or want or even consider in any way?

[jburneko]

Brand,

Sounds, EXACTLY, like my guy!  Which is why I hesitate to say this is a CA clash because there is no expectation of what should come next on the part of the player.  It's all: POSE! *beam*, followed by, "Oh shit, you mean the game isn't over?!!"

Jesse

[Brand_Robins]

Sounds, EXACTLY, like my guy!  Which is why I hesitate to say this is a CA clash because there is no expectation of what should come next on the part of the player.  It's all: POSE! *beam*, followed by, "Oh shit, you mean the game isn't over?!!"

Yea, I remember that.

I'd like to tell you the way to fix the guy, but I never did get the guy I used to play with to get past that point. I talked to him about it, tried giving him more narrative control, and a few other things, but it would always be the same. Eventually I gave up.

I have heard from friends that he's gotten better since, but I honestly don't know how.