My Sim experience: Emmet

[Joe Murphy (Broin)]

Since coming to The Forge, I'd assumed that most of my previous gaming experience sat well in the proto-Narrativist camp.

As a GM, I wanted players to cooperate in support of Premise. As a player, I often worked in support of his emerging story. I'd often take actions that were in support some apparent theme, or develop characters with an explicit personal Premise in mind. I wanted karmic, dramatic, exciting stories that revolved around my characters. And so on. As with a lot of Narrativists, I'd found myself hindered by Sim rules systems, when I wanted to model more than just ballistics in my games. No offense to the Simmies out there.

I realised this week that I did have one powerful Exploration of Character experience as a player, though, and I'd like to share my reactions and observations. This took place about 18 months ago.

Neil ran a short-lived Vampire: The Masquerade game for myself and a couple of players. As I hadn't played much that year, I took a couple of weeks planning and writing up a character for the game. What intrigued me was to get inside the head of an utter lunatic, as at the time, a friend of mine was suffering a schizophrenic breakdown. I suppose I wanted to 'relate'? So, I came up with Emmet.

Emmet was absolutely barking. He was a vicious, bitter, small-minded cur, with little in the way of a conscience or sense of responsibility. This was 'tempered' by various phobias and delusions, and a need to belong. He was a very exaggerated character, certainly. He was also very manic. As I personally tend towards the depressive side, I thought an insanely energetic character might be an interesting challenge.

So, I had a explicit goals when I entered the game. I wanted to portray someone wildly manic, who was unlike myself, with the conscience of a mistreated dog (hopefully unlike myself). I wanted the character to scare the other players. And I wanted the character to be proactive - I didn't know what Neil's GMing style was, but I wanted Emmet to complicate issues with misapplied energy, cruelty and creativity. And I played my little heart out.

I jigged my feet constantly. I tapped my fingers on my knee. I listened to everyone intensely and stared them right in the eye. As the plot developed (straightforward mystery), I complicated each scene. A witness to a crime was accidentally killed in front of us, so Emmet brough the kid back to life as a vampire, questioned the poor kid, and then killed him again. Totally against the rules of vampire society, but I wanted to see how the other players (and GM) would tackle Emmet.

Unfortunately, the rest of the group didn't react with the shock I expected. In fact, we breezed over it, and moved on to the rest of the mystery. I suppose the GM felt that that was the story we would play through. Shame.

The immerson in character was almost disorientating. I remember running for quite a bit of the 4-mile journey home. I spent the rest of the afternoon in a kind of manic haze. I think I cleaned the house from top to bottom. In that sense, the depth of immersion was cathartic and exciting. It was only slightly unnerving, and the mania passed.

It felt strangely good to not worry so much about the rest of the group, too. I was concerned solely with my own portrayal of my character. I wasn't called on for combat rules. I didn't step out of Actor stance once. In a sense, however, I was also unconcerned with the fun the rest of the group were having. My single-minded goals were a little selfish. I felt that I could justify any complaint that I was 'screwing up the game' with the response 'but isn't being in character the absolute most important thing in gaming?'

I did feel that my actions were in competition with the GM, as I was taking actions that defeated, headed-off, or complicated the scenario he had planned. In the long run, that would not have been healthy.

Since realising all this, I've reevaluated my thoughts on Simulationism, particularly with regards to Simulation of Character. I had previously dismissed a great deal of Simulationism, as I'd associated it with clunky games and disfunctional experiences. Pure prejudice on my part.

I realised last week that I probably could enjoy a Sim game where the GM responded to the characters' choices in a consistent manner. Unlike Emmet, I'd need characters with proactive, complex goals. I'm also curious if I could maintain Exploration of Character as a consistent, long-term goal, in a long-term games, or if I'd feel the need to push a dramatic Narrativist finale for the character, for example. I'm also reconsidering my thoughts on the 'Pure Simulationism is Not a Game' thread and suchlike.

Observationally yours,

Joe.

[Mike Holmes]

I think one "division" of Sim play that often gets missed is the idea of story-driven Sim play versus what I had one player call pinball gaming, and so I call pinball Sim.

In story-driven Sim, the objective is to experience the story that the GM is trying to throw your way. To play it out from beginning to end. Pinball Sim is much more "Pure" to use a loaded term. In pinball Sim, the GM has no particular plot, and may only have the sort of elements you see Ron suggest for Narrativist play. That is, you may have lots of NPCs, and Relationship Maps of a sort, and preset Bangs, but you have no idea how the story will go. The difference between Sim and Narr in this case is that there is no partiicular Premise being addressed, the players are simply enjoined to play their characters, as they encounter the world and the elements that the GM has prepared.

The reason that pinball is a good name is because play sort of then resembles playing pinball. The ball starts rolling, and nobody is quite sure where it's going to go. Like pinball, you can use your flippers and bump the machine a bit, which is like the player interaction, and the GM's additions, but in the end much of what happens is essentially random. The objective in this case is just to explore the included elements, and to observe the "series of interesting events" (or non-story) that may occur.  

What you seem to have wanted, Joe, that afternoon, was a pinball Sim game. Instead you were playing a story-driven Sim. To make story-driven Sim work well, you need to use quite a bit of Author stance, actually. That is, you have to make decisions occasionally for your character that involve taking the GMs hooks, and then retroactively assigning motivations to your character. Just like in Narrativism, except that the priority is not to author your own story, but to help the GM author his.

As opposed to pinball Sim where you are obligated only to play your character to the hilt in full actor stance, and see where it goes. This is where you get a Stance incompatibility with the two types of play. You were in actor, and the other players were in Author, which caused the friction.

This is a good example of how not only do you have to decide on a G or N or S mode for play of a game, but you also have to subdivide a bit further with Stance to get a really solid compatibility for play.

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Joe,

Great post. My only minor quibbly thing is to point out that people tend to forget that Exploration is the foundation for all role-playing, and to identify it with prioritized Exploration of something, which is Simulationism.

In other words, "getting into your character" to a major degree is not, in and of itself, Simulationism - unless it was the priority of play to the exclusion of G or N. For instance, in many circumstances, I've "entered" character much as you describe, but always with a backdrop of Narrativist metagame goals for doing so.

So whether your experience and priorities of playing Emmet were or weren't Simulationist really isn't the issue, I think. Although definitely, I agree with you that it could have been, and that the experience made you more sympathetic to those who play in that fashion. That, to me, is a good thing.

Best,
Ron

[Joe Murphy (Broin)]

Great responses, Mike and Ron. Thank you very much indeed.

Mike,

As far as that Vampire game went, I think the other players were in Actor too. Locally, it's very much the 'default' style of gaming and emphasies that good ol' Simulationist/Actor combo. Most local games focus on 'immersion', without any real sense of what immersion is, or where immersion can cause problems. 'The object of roleplaying is to get in character, and stay in character', and so on.

You're absolutely right about the story-driven sim the rest of the group wanted, though. That's not a style of gaming I often read about on The Forge, so I'll pay more attention to Simulationist conversations in the future.

'Pinball Sim'. I like it. I'll keep that metaphor in mind. And you know, it doesn't sound too bad. =)

Ron,

Sorry, I thought I'd been a bit clearer. Absolutely, exploration is the overarching goal. In the aforementioned Vampire game, my goal was Simulation of Character. I was unconcerned with Gamist and Narratvist goals. Or rather, looking back, my mode of play was Simulationist, as far as I can tell.

Twould be interesting to take what I know now and play one of Mike's 'pinball' games, for example, and see if it was a mode of play I could get used to.  

After all, there are plenty of Gamist experiences I enjoy, Narrativism appeals to me, so why wouldn't an explicit Simulationist game float my boat?

Best,

Joe.

[Mike Holmes]

Well, I think that I empathize with Joe here in that I think I know what kind of game he's talking about wanting. Essentially, that form of Immersion that comes from using very focused actor stance in a Sim game, where the GM is simply trying to act as the objective world.

He might have been refering to something else, but I doubt it. Of course the only difference in the Sim pinball game and much Narrativist play for players is having to come out of actor stance long enough to ensure that you are addressing a Premise in the Narrativist game. But that little bit of author is a breaker for some players in certain circumstances.

Mike

[GreatWolf]

Drat.  Once again Mike beat me to the punch.

I think that Mike is exactly right, though, Joe.  If your character had ended up in my current Unknown Armies game, I probably would have been a bit annoyed.  After all, I'm delivering story elements to the players, and you are interfering.  However, this would have only been the case if you were interfering in a negative way.  The example of raising the boy and then killing him again could very easily have been a positive addition to the game, by adding in the concept for the other players that perhaps their ally couldn't be trusted.

Even in Sim play, you see the need for Author stance.  It appears less than in Narrative play, to be sure, but it is there.  I often find that, in Sim play, Author stance arises when a player wants to give the other players material to react to.  So Emmet's actions, if tempered with a bit of Author stance, could have given the other players a lot to work with.  What of the (hypothetical) pacifist character or the (also hypothetical) traditionalist, both of whom would have been horrified at your actions?  The other players had an opportunity, which they declined.

Also, there is the use of Dude stance.  I don't remember if "Dude" stance ever achieved a formal status, so I'll address it as a subset of Author stance.  "Dude stance" was proposed by Jim Henley (somewhat tongue-in-cheek) as decision-making based on the social context of the players.  So, for example, one of your players had a really lousy day at work.  Maybe today isn't the day to mutilate his character or have his mentor betray him, etc.

I say all of this in response to your comment: "In a sense, however, I was also unconcerned with the fun the rest of the group were having. My single-minded goals were a little selfish."  And I agree that this can be a big problem.  Selfishness is the killer for most RPGs, regardless of GNS.  (It just looks differently.)  So, a good Sim player should use Author stance (aka "coming up for air"), if nothing else, to make sure that he is not getting his fun at the expense of someone else and to ensure that he is positively contributing to the fun of everyone else.

[Mike Holmes]

I say all of this in response to your comment: "In a sense, however, I was also unconcerned with the fun the rest of the group were having. My single-minded goals were a little selfish."  And I agree that this can be a big problem.  Selfishness is the killer for most RPGs, regardless of GNS.  (It just looks differently.)  So, a good Sim player should use Author stance (aka "coming up for air"), if nothing else, to make sure that he is not getting his fun at the expense of someone else and to ensure that he is positively contributing to the fun of everyone else.

I think that this is an important point that Seth raises, but it needs commentary. I think that this can be overstated. That is, a player needs to balance his selfishness, and selflessness. You need to be a little selfish at least.

Why? I remember reading something about Sex that said that one should always be a little selfish, because otherwise you're not likely to be satisfied, yourself. And part of the satisfaction for the other participants is in knowing that you are satisfied. I think that this goes for RPGs too.

So, while one should not be entirely selfish (though it might not always be destructive to do so), one should also not be entirely selfless.

Probably being obvious again, but I needed to say it.

Mike

[Joe Murphy (Broin)]

Thanks for the responses, all. Much appreciated. I have much more of a handle on how the stances relate to Sim play.

Joe.