Looking deeper into Intuitive Continuity

[Mike Holmes]

Arrgh! Before that previous post I had posted a long reply to Fang in which I claimed that I may have coined Illusionism. Anyhow, there was only one really important point that I wanted to make in it.

I do pre-plan my games. Not every one, but the majority (in game I thihn stick with the plan maybe fifty percent of the time, which is itself an effective Illusionist tool). And, again, my players accept, expect, and, yes, require this from me. It is their prefered mode of play. I am certain about this after trying to get them to play narrativist games (and failing miserably), and querying them very closely on the subject. So, while I can understand that you might not like this style, Fang, there is nothing in my players preference for it that makes them unintelligent, animalistic, or otherwise monkey-like.

I did expect you to respond to the insult, I am not so concerned with the definitions.

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

Mike,

I'll be damned. I remembered that thread as being Jesse's, not Paul's. Paul, my apologies - chalk up another attribution correction to my essay now.

Looking back on it all, I now think that Paul was describing both the  "retroactive" mode and Illusionism as I ended up conceiving it (and describe above). Looks like some review and terms-clarification is necessary.

I leave it to him: Paul, do you think that the term should include both, so that we have Illusionism (forward) and Illusionism (backward)? Or should it apply to one of them, and which?

Boy, it's terminology day again.

Best,
Ron

[Mike Holmes]

Mike,

I'll be damned. I remembered that thread as being Jesse's, not Paul's.

Hey, it was a long time ago, and I thought that it might have even been mine. And it took some work to dig it up as the search engine over on GO seems to be broke (should mail Nathan on that).

I like the Forward/Backward thing, sorta, as long as backward includes "on the spot" and not only "after play is over".

Mike

[Le Joueur]

I do pre-plan my games. Not every one, but the majority (in game I thihn stick with the plan maybe fifty percent of the time, which is itself an effective Illusionist tool). And, again, my players accept, expect, and, yes, require this from me. It is their prefered mode of play. I am certain about this after trying to get them to play narrativist games (and failing miserably), and querying them very closely on the subject. So, while I can understand that you might not like this style, Fang, there is nothing in my players preference for it that makes them unintelligent, animalistic, or otherwise monkey-like.

I think there is an important point about 'making monkeys' I didn't realize you missed from when I said it.  Let me quote:

Then you're making a monkey out of your players if you 'take them for a ride' and tell them they're driving (when in fact they're not).

If you were "querying them very closely" and they "accept, expect, and, yes, require this," then you do not "tell them they're driving" while you "take them for a ride."  That is the lie that makes the monkeys.

'Oh, yeah.  I don't really have any plan for the adventure.' [snicker, snicker]

That would be lying, and only from there are monkeys created.  If, as Ron puts it, the players are complicit, then no monkeys are present.

Now tell me; do you lie to your players?

Fang Langford
(Sorry for the tone, but I am just a little tired of people reading an insult about lying into their own honest playing styles.)

[Steve Dustin]

Since Fang seems interested in monkeys, and I first said, "If it looks like a monkey, it's a monkey," thought I'd clarify what I meant.

When I said the "monkey" quote I wasn't calling my players monkeys. I was calling the, apparently my, definition of Illusionism "a monkey." A better cliched sentence would have been, "calling a spade a spade."

Let me re-throw it out as a question: Why does it matter to the definition of Illusionism if the players know that the GM is the one driving the story? If you know you are a cog in the GM's wheel vs not knowing you are a cog in the GM's wheel, how does that differ significantly from each other? Everyone is basically going to be using the same techniques of roleplaying.

I suspect someone should probably point me to an Illusionism thread here.

I think it's not intent that needs to be spelled out. It's the "ownership" of what's going on. If the GM "owns" the flow and direction of the game, then how does that change if that "ownership" is explicit or implicit?

Maybe an explicit example of my group's playing style would help. For the record, when I read Intuitive Continuity, I read it as exactly as what I'm doing.

We're playing a Pulp action '30s game. First session, we brainstormed an general idea (occult archeology) and they created characters with a common thread of knowing someone who disappeared mysteriously in Tibet.

Now, in the meantime, I've created an intricate backstory involving a vast amount of NPCs with a core good guys vs bad guys problem. I know my bad guy's plan to rule the world.

Then we play. Here's an example of play:

Me: "You get a telegram from an old friend in Bangkok, says he's onto some gold."

Player: "I go to Bangkok."

Me: "Friend is missing, signs point to a spider cult."

Player: "I go rescue friend from spider cult."

Me: "Friend is dying from spider cult poison, you have to go to London for the cure."

Player: "I go to London for the cure."

Etc, ad nauseum. Sure, there's a certain amount of fun in it, the player likes all the craziness, but rarely am I not the final arbiter in pushing the action. The players are reacting to me. Whether they know if they are sheeple or not, I know it, and I'm bored with it.

Now, I think I come a little negative on my group, but that's because they are the example I currently have. They are definitely not monkeys.

Thanks, Steve

[Le Joueur]

Why does it matter to the definition of Illusionism if the players know that the GM is the one driving the story? If you know you are a cog in the GM's wheel vs not knowing you are a cog in the GM's wheel, how does that differ significantly from each other? Everyone is basically going to be using the same techniques of roleplaying.

Except I don't like being lied to.  If I'm a cog, it's gonna go a lot better if I know it.  Tell me my character's actions dictate the story and prove it wrong, I say quit.  I can handle being 'in' someone else's story, it can be very fun, but if you tell me it's mine and you're lying, why should I play with you?

We're playing a Pulp action '30s game. First session, we brainstormed an general idea (occult archeology) and they created characters with a common thread of knowing someone who disappeared mysteriously in Tibet.

Now, in the meantime, I've created an intricate backstory involving a vast amount of NPCs with a core good guys vs bad guys problem. I know my bad guy's plan to rule the world.

Then we play. Here's an example of play:

Me: "You get a telegram from an old friend in Bangkok, says he's onto some gold."

Player: "I go to Bangkok."

Me: "Friend is missing, signs point to a spider cult."

Player (me): "I decide the friend (and the gold) isn't worth it and head back to Paris to seek my nemesis."

...an hour later, I find myself in London with a cure for spider cult poison.  I have to ask why I bothered to come and play, if you told me my decisions were the driving concern of the story and this is how it ends up.

Etc, ad nauseum. Sure, there's a certain amount of fun in it, the player likes all the craziness, but rarely am I not the final arbiter in pushing the action. The players are reacting to me. Whether they know if they are sheeple or not, I know it, and I'm bored with it.

So there is a problem in paradise?

This is basic to why I say Illusionism (radio announcer voice: "Now with Railroading") is one of the hardest forms to make work.  When you boil it all down, they're 'going through the motions' and you're on 'a power trip.'  I bet you got bored because you're not an egomaniac (I played what I later identified as Illusionism under one; he's still running it, not with me around).

The only point I have been trying to make is that the one and only way I have ever seen Illusionism work is with honesty.  (His other players caught on after I left, he just doesn't know it.)  If you don't know that you are a "cog" in the gamemaster's wheel, sooner or later it'll smack you upside the head (like not making it to Paris, non?).  When that realization hits, it's hard to not see the gamemaster in an abusive light (in my book).  All that time you thought you were calling the shots only to find out otherwise (and the gamemaster didn't even respect you enough to 'let you in on it'); It sounds pretty disrespectful to me, but then I believe honesty is the best practice.

"Norman, dear boy...I'm lying." -- Harry Mudd (It's an old Star Trek episode.)

Fang Langford

[Mike Holmes]

Still sounds like a personal preference to me with all those "I feel" and "I believe". Other people can't feel otherwise? And is it a problematic mode? Yes, in fact it is and doesn't often work at full efficiency. But for some players its the only game in town. I think Marco would agree that he has players like this as well (based on his descriptions). Not to mention Steve.

Ron only says that this sort of thing didn't work for him because he had Narrativist players. Which makes sense. Sure you're not just a Narrativist?

Mike

[Seth L. Blumberg]

Why does it matter to the definition of Illusionism if the players know that the GM is the one driving the story? If you know you are a cog in the GM's wheel vs not knowing you are a cog in the GM's wheel, how does that differ significantly from each other?

Speaking as a happy Illusionist GM with happy players, I think that the difference does not necessarily lie in whether the players know the score, but rather in whether they accept that they are not in charge of the story.

If the players know (at some level) that they are not running things, and still play, then they must accept it, nicht wahr? If they don't know that they are not in charge, and they find out, they may do what Fang did. Explicitly stating that the players are not in control of the overall plot is one way to ensure that everyone is on the same page.

Also, lying to your players about metagame issues is really ethically questionable. If they ask "Who's in charge here?" and you say "Why, you are, of course," you are letting yourself in for a heap of trouble.

[Steve Dustin]

Except I don't like being lied to.

And that has what to do with Illusionism? That's my question. I feel like we are talking at cross-purposes here. That somehow we're not connecting.

I'll paraphrase what I think you are saying:

Illusionism is when the players are in a GM-constructed story and don't know it. Bad GM for lying to his players.

I do not contradict you about this. I'd hate it too.

I'm saying that Illusionism is when the players are in a GM-constructed story, regardless of what people think about it. Let me use an example:

Code Select Expand


Situation A:

GM: We are playing an Illusionist game tonight. Now, to
      save your friend you have to go to London and
      find the cure for the spider cult poison.

Player: Ok. I go to London.

Situation B:

GM: Now, to save your friend you have to go to London
      and find the cure for the spider cult poison.

Player: Ok. I go to London.


How are these different, if when its all said and done, the player's character still does exactly what the GM tells him too? I say, if the in-game result is the same, why isn't it the same thing? Why is it that not both Situation A & Situation B is called Illusionism? Because some people chaff at the idea their game is Illusionist, so they can say, if I'm being lied to its Illusionist, if not, its XXX Narrativism (which ever variant applies)?

Why not just call a monkey a monkey and say both Situation A & B are Illusionist?

Player (me): "I decide the friend (and the gold) isn't worth it and head back to Paris to seek my nemesis."


...an hour later, I find myself in London with a cure for spider cult poison. I have to ask why I bothered to come and play, if you told me my decisions were the driving concern of the story and this is how it ends up.

Somehow, you get my point and then you don't. My players never say, "I want to do this..." They say, "So what happens?" I'd relish the day where I sit down and the players blow my contingency plans completely out-of-the water, and I have to react, instead of perform all the set-up. I would love to have a player who says, "I want to tell this story," instead of waiting for his GM-proscribed clue to the action.

The reason why I never presented your option, is because it never comes up in my game. I wouldn't tell the player, "No, sorry, you have to go to London to cure spider cult poison." I have GM'ed those games (with prepublished scenarios I might add), and I know how badly they go. I'd say, "You're nemesis is up to such-and-such," and run with it.

So there is a problem in paradise?

Is it something I said? Why all the hostility? Have you been reading my posts? Yes, goddamn it, and its not the players who are bored, its me, me, the fucking GM. Why do I show up, if its gonna be me just telling a story? I can do that at home.

I do not purposely railroad my players. They are just stuck in the predominant roleplaying paradigm of waiting for the GM to supply the story that they are reacting to. They are not pro-active. I've never met a pro-active player.

Anyway, to re-interate:

I say it doesn't matter if players are being lied to, to make a game session Illusionist.

I say it doesn't matter when the GM creates the story to make a game session Illusionist.

And I say, the majority of game players I've met, either consciously or unconsciously expect "Illusionist play" to keep the game session coherent and focused.

I don't think I can make myself more clear. Now, if I have the definition of Illusionism wrong because, by definition Illusionism means the players must be being lied to, I say, why does that matter, if the in-game results are to be the same?

Steve Dustin

[Le Joueur]

Except I don't like being lied to.

And that has what to do with Illusionism?

I'll paraphrase what I think you are saying:

Illusionism is when the players are in a GM-constructed story and don't know it. Bad GM for lying to his players.

That's what I was saying (and for the record, any hostility was never aimed at you; if any was present it was the fatigue over Mike thinking I was insulting his players.)

I'm saying that Illusionism is when the players are in a GM-constructed story, regardless of what people think about it. Let me use an example:

Situation A:

GM: We are playing an Illusionist game tonight. Now, to
      save your friend you have to go to London and
      find the cure for the spider cult poison.

Player: Ok. I go to London.

Situation B:

GM: Now, to save your friend you have to go to London
      and find the cure for the spider cult poison.

Player: Ok. I go to London.

How are these different, if when its all said and done, the player's character still does exactly what the GM tells him too?

You're experience with gaming is too narrow for me to illustrate the difference.  I already did it and you don't seem to get it (see below).  Basically, it's not Illusionism, if you tell them what you are doing.  Technically, you can't tell someone that your running an Illusionist game and then do it, that makes it (by benefit of the definition) 'vanilla Narrativism.'

I say, if the in-game result is the same, why isn't it the same thing? Why is it that not both Situation A & Situation B is called Illusionism? Because some people chaff at the idea their game is Illusionist, so they can say, if I'm being lied to its Illusionist, if not, its [vanilla] Narrativism?

Because eventually in an Illusionist game the result won't be "the same."  Sooner or later (and this apparently hasn't happened to you yet), the player won't simply "go to London," in an Illusionist game, they will want to do something else and you won't let them!  An Illusionist game goes where the gamemaster predefines, player action not withstanding.

I admire you for never encountering this (provided that you actually play Illusionism), because this is where all the work comes from in the form.  Say the player decides to not "go to London," in Illusionism you can't just say 'no, you go to London.'  You have to create an illusion that deposits them in "London" anyway, without them realizing they didn't get what they wanted.  That's why it's Illusionism, you replace freedom of choice with its illusion.

Why not just call a monkey a monkey and say both Situation A & B are Illusionist?

Because Situation A is almost exactly what I was alluding to with that parting quote in my last article.  You see in the Star Trek episode, the crew was trapped on a planet of totally logical androids.  In order to escape, they told the head android that everything that Harry said was a lie; the Harry walked up to him and said, "I'm lying."

It's a paradox, you can't tell the players that you're going to be lying to them, because if they know it's not true that's fiction.  (Fiction happens when the speaker and the listener both know it's false; a lie is when the listener thinks the falsehood is true.)  In Situation A, you're Harry Mudd telling Norman you're lying.  If the players know they're "only a cog" then it's 'vanilla Narrativism."  (Please either realize you are using a different definition of Illusionism, or stop calling a spade a monkey.)

Situation B is only Illusionism if you struggle to have the player think it's all their perogative.  The closer they come to 'figuring out' who's in charge, the more illusions you'll find yourself casting.  Do not mistake your players' complicity with fooling them; you are only fooling them when they do something other than you have planned, and you go ahead with the plan anyway.

Player (me): "I decide the friend (and the gold) isn't worth it and head back to Paris to seek my nemesis."

...an hour later, I find myself in London with a cure for spider cult poison. I have to ask why I bothered to come and play, if you told me my decisions were the driving concern of the story and this is how it ends up.

My players never say, "I want to do this..." They say, "So what happens?" I'd relish the day where I sit down and the players blow my contingency plans completely out-of-the water, and I have to react, instead of perform all the set-up.

Then you, sir, are no Illusionist.  An Illusionist, by definition, sticks to the contingency plan no matter what.  If you would even consider letting them go beyond your "set-up," rather than using illusions to 'get them back on track,' you are most definitely not an Illusionist.  (You are in fact practicing no illusions at all.)

The reason why I never presented your option, is because it never comes up in my game. I wouldn't tell the player, "No, sorry, you have to go to London to cure spider cult poison." I have GM'ed those games (with prepublished scenarios I might add), and I know how badly they go. I'd say, "You're nemesis is up to such-and-such," and run with it.

That's because you're not an Illusionist, you just have very pliable players.  That's not what makes Illusionism, it is the practice of using illusion to control them that makes it Illusionism.

So there is a problem in paradise?

Is it something I said? Why all the hostility? Have you been reading my posts? Yes, goddamn it, and its not the players who are bored, its me, me, the fucking GM. Why do I show up, if its gonna be me just telling a story? I can do that at home.

Trust me, you would suck at being an Illusionist.  You don't seem to have the desire to conform play to a preplanned story, which is at the heart of what drives one to produce illusions.  May I ask why you are becoming hostile?

Anyway, to re-interate:

I say it doesn't matter if players are being lied to, to make a game session Illusionist.

Then I say, by your definition, no illusions are used.  If they don't look 'behind the curtain,' then no illusion is created.  Why is it called Illusionism?

I say it doesn't matter when the GM creates the story to make a game session Illusionist.

Then I say, by your definition, the gamemaster does not depend on illusions to present the story.  Unless some factor other than player will "creates the story" and the gamemaster has to create illusions to 'stick to it,' no illusions are created.  Why is it called Illusionism?

And I say, the majority of game players I've met, either consciously or unconsciously expect "Illusionist play" to keep the game session coherent and focused.

Per your very original interpretation of the term, you would be right, but what you seem to be talking about has nothing to do with the practice of Illusionism as is used on the Forge; what you have sounds very much more like 'vanilla Narrativism.'

I don't think I can make myself more clear. Now, if I have the definition of Illusionism wrong because, by definition, Illusionism means the players must be being lied to, I say, why does that matter, if the in-game results are to be the same?

I know by now you must think me a ravening beast, screaming and spitting and drooling.  That's because the internet does not allow me to write in the soothing fatherly voice that I would be using (and trust me with a special-needs 6 year-old, I get a lot of practice soothingly repeating myself, over and over).

I guess you're missing the inherent implication of the word 'illusion.'  Illusion is a falsehood, a lie, a fiction.  To practice illusion, you must make one thing look like another.  Nowhere in your "London" example have you done that.  You say one thing, the players follow it; where's the illusion?  In Illusionism, you would say one thing, the players wouldn't follow it, and only then would you be behooved to create an illusion that in essence 'forces' them to follow it anyway.  That's why it's called Illusionism, because you use illusion.

On the Forge, this definition has been rarefied.  In this definition, Illusionism occurs because of a conflict over 'where the story is going.'  The players would go one way, the gamemaster another.  The Illusionist 'works his magic' so that his way, the gamemaster's way, is the only way that things happen.  The motivation is to preserve the gamemaster's way at all costs by using illusion.

If you tell your players that your way will always take first place during play then you are then under no obligation to trick them, you don't need illusion to have it your way, the players will help out.  (Really, they will, I've tried it.  It's just as boring as you state, but it's not Illusionism.)

You keep saying "because the in-game result is the same."  It can't be, by definition.  It may not be immediately necessary to use illusion to force play back to the gamemaster's way, but the only thing that makes it Illusionism is that when the chips are down, it is only by illusion that things will go that way.  What you describe with your players does not obligate (or even seem to use) illusion, so as cool as the term may sound, you are not practicing Illusionism.

The problem that you seem to be having is not because of your practicing Illusionism, nor even because of your players expecting it.  They are actually expecting you to practice Narrativism.  And since it is on their behalf, it becomes 'vanilla Narrativism.'  For it to be Illusionism, they would have to expect that you aren't practicing anything, otherwise where's the illusion?

Is that clear?

Fang Langford

[Paul Czege]

Hey Fang,

...Illusionism occurs because of a conflict over 'where the story is going.'....The Illusionist 'works his magic' so that his way, the gamemaster's way, is the only way that things happen.

I don't think that active player resistance, thwarted and redirected by the crafty use of illusion, is a broad enough litmus test of Illusionism. It may be present, but I believe, only in a subset of Illusionist play. Rather, I think, an Illusionist game results in story, and the "illusion" part is that the player is convinced by the GM (perhaps aided by a big spoonful of complicit denial) that his decisions were a substantive contribution to it.

And since it is on their behalf, it becomes 'vanilla Narrativism.'

I don't think so. The simple reason why is that vanilla Narrativism isn't boring to the GM. Vanilla Narrativist players are still handling the protagonism of their own characters, creating a theme with the character through play.

Paul

[C. Edwards]

Steve,

I just want to say that I have complete sympathy for your situation.  I went through pretty much the same thing.  After questioning the players about why they were never proactive I discovered that they just didn't want to be proactive.  They viewed the role of GM as having the responsibility of entertaining them with as little work on their part as possible.  They didn't see why this might be a problem for me.  Since I refused to be used in such a manner (without large sums of money being offered anyway) we parted ways.

As far as Illusionism, well, the whole concept implies that the opportunity for disillusion must exist.  If the players are aware, or even prefer, that their characters are pretty much led down a one-way path, then they cannot become disillusioned by the fact.

What do you call it when GM and players are aware and carry on with that play style regardless?  I call it BLAH! But for some, that's their cup of tea.

Be well,

  Chris

[Christopher Kubasik]

Steve and Chris,

A question:

If one were to have such players create Kickers of some kind (a la Sorcerer, The Questing Beast, Hero Wars), and base the sessions on the completion of that kicker -- do you think the players would -- simply by virtue of having something on the Character sheet that said, "You will get this done," become more proactive.

I don't know why I believe this to be true, but I do.  (And if I'm wrong, I'd love to hear more about it.)  It just seems to me if you hand someone a pencil, they'll doodle, if you hand them a hammer, they'll pound, and if you hand them a gun... And so on...

I know that we could assume that these people would never respond to such a tool -- but unless either of you tried, we just wouldn't know.  (Did you try? I'd love to hear about that.)

The point is I used to complain about players not getting it -- but now I think in terms of, "What can I bring to the table that will give them a means of doing it?"  For example, a tool, on the character sheet, like othe tools for interacting with the story that they're already used to using.

And this wouldn't be a matter of explaining it, in theory or preperation. (As in: "I'm going to give you a tool to make you more proactive."  "ummm... no.")

The question is: during chargen, will certain tools help create the kind of play Steve and Chris want?  Specifically, Kickers or Quests of some kind.

If not, why do we think not?  (And again, not just "the players won't," because we just don't know -- even if it seems horribly unlikely.)

If so, why don't we just start doing it as a matter of habit?

Bonus question:  If these tools were implemented, I'm assuming the GM at hand (that is, any of us) would gladly give up the responsibility of coming up with the bad guy's plan and really let the players drive the adventure with their own agenda.  Yes?

Thanks,

Christopher

***
And in no way am I picking on Steve or Chris.  They're talking about these matters -- I'm always looking for solutions.  If either of you guys thinks I'm out of line or trying to put you on the spot, just let me know and I'll drop it.  Thanks.

Oh.  One more little thing: if... How do I say this... I'm not saying anyone is going to come on and try to answer my question in terms of labelling styles, players, tools and whatnot.  But I'm going to ask that in response to my questions people refrain from anything like that -- no matter how illogical it might seem.  For the moment I don't care about the abstraction floating around kickers.  I just want to explore what concrete effect this concrete tool might actually have in a concrete game.  If we then need to expand to other concrete tools and keep adding on, we might end up with a need for definitions.  But I don't think that's a concern just yet.  Thanks again.

[C. Edwards]

Christopher,

The methods you mention have been, in my experience, reasonably successful at promoting proactive play.

The situation referred to in my post, which happened about 4 years ago, was doomed to result in stasis from the start.  The players (a group of 3) refused to accept/try/experiment with any role-playing elements that were outside their, very limited, experience.  None of them had been role-playing for much over a year and they had all used the same system (rpg) during that time.  All attempts by me to make the gaming experience more dynamic were met with a wall of stubborn close-mindedness.

Now, I can understand if you try something and decide that you don't care for it much.  But I have little time and no patience for people who foolishly hold on to their one way of doing things without even the most vague attempt to explore other posibilities.

(puts his soapbox away)

I think the key is to have the tools pre-existing in the system (whether it be a requisite form of dynamic character descriptor, a base dice mechanic that promotes narrative play, whatever) that can be used as a "can-opener" on players who might have difficulty with a proactive style of play (as opposed to players who dont want to play in a proactive manner).  That idea is nothing new though, especially to The Forge.

Cheers,

 Chris

[Le Joueur]

Hey Fang,

...Illusionism occurs because of a conflict over 'where the story is going.'....The Illusionist 'works his magic' so that his way, the gamemaster's way, is the only way that things happen.

I don't think that active player resistance, thwarted and redirected by the crafty use of illusion, is a broad enough litmus test of Illusionism. It may be present, but I believe, only in a subset of Illusionist play. Rather, I think, an Illusionist game results in story, and the "illusion" part is that the player is convinced by the GM (perhaps aided by a big spoonful of complicit denial) that his decisions were a substantive contribution to it.

...when they aren't.  You left that part out.  That means, by whatever illusion, it goes the gamemaster's way.  If the players aren't resisting (passively even) they're going the gamemaster's way anyway, no illusions necessary and no proof of Illusionism.  <-- I'm agreeing with you here.

And I never meant to imply that the players were actively resisting in any way.  When I say I want to visit gay Paris, it's not because I know that the story doesn't go there; theoretically I was completely ignorant of that fact, I just like french food (or whatever).  (I understood these players were anything but proactive, meaning they wouldn't actively do anything, even resist.)

And since it is on their behalf, it becomes 'vanilla Narrativism.'

I don't think so. The simple reason why is that vanilla Narrativism isn't boring to the GM.

Who said it was?  I was talking theoretical.  That the Steve is bored means his play is dysfunctional, largely I might suggest, because of sharing incompatibility (He wants to share; they want him to 'do it all').  Whether you call it Illusionism (I wouldn't because I see no illusions being used), or if you call it 'vanilla Narrativism,' Steve wants more out of his players.

Vanilla Narrativist players are still handling the protagonism of their own characters, creating a theme with the character through play.

I beg to differ, as I understand it 'handling protagonism' and 'creating theme' are of extremely reduced responsibility for players in 'vanilla Narrativism.'  These might be priorities for full Narrativism, but for it to be vanilla, the players don't really care about them much (that is the impression I am given, hence the confusion with the idea that Simulationist players play in 'vanilla Narrativism').  All the players want is that someone is 'making story happen' (just not them, they want the story but not the responsibility), for it to be Narrativism.  I was given the impression, that Steve is bidden by his players to 'make story' and that they don't want to do the work.  (We'll have to see how it really goes...)

Fang Langford