Director stance in standard sim

[Christoffer Lernö]

Skipping right to the point: I think it was Mike who pointed out in some thread that when you create your character it is in fact a sort of Director stance.
To me, too much player control of narrative makes it hard to run a standard illusionist sim. However, there are parts where it's ok.

Why do I bring this up? Well I thought that maybe you could come up with more examples than me. What I have so far is (looking at fantasy here):

* Character creation
* Magic spell creation (for games that allow that)
* Character advancement (for games that allow you to advance skills and similar that do not correlate with in-game events)

Are there more examples?

[Henry Fitch]

At least one game that's considered Sim explicitly says "you can interact with object that the GM hasn't mentioned, as long as it makes sense for them to be there."

[Mike Holmes]

At least one game that's considered Sim explicitly says "you can interact with object that the GM hasn't mentioned, as long as it makes sense for them to be there."

This is a really common use of director stance that I refer to all the time. From this one can extrapolate all sorts of other sorts of less common director stance rules. For example, Some Sim games say in the GM sections, something like, "If a player thinks up an interesting idea for an adventure, then work it in, and play it out." Thus the player is actually creating entire adventure concepts.

Mike

[Christoffer Lernö]

Some Sim games say in the GM sections, something like, "If a player thinks up an interesting idea for an adventure, then work it in, and play it out." Thus the player is actually creating entire adventure concepts.

I think we brought that up before as a useful illusionist technique. It's not director stance per se (I think), because the player doesn't have explicit control over the in game events. The GM is still the one with a veto, but the he's willing to work in whatever good ideas he hears. Note that the player doesn't need to be in Director stance to present aventure ideas. They can just as easily come in say actor stance.

[Mike Holmes]

I think we brought that up before as a useful illusionist technique. It's not director stance per se (I think), because the player doesn't have explicit control over the in game events. The GM is still the one with a veto, but the he's willing to work in whatever good ideas he hears. Note that the player doesn't need to be in Director stance to present aventure ideas. They can just as easily come in say actor stance.

First, I said nothing about whether or not the player was aware or not of the GMs acceptance. If he is not aware, then, yes, this is Illusionism, but just a certainly, it's director stance play. That is, the player stated at some point a desire to play a certain typle of adventure. That's not Actor stance, certainly. And it's only Author stance if the player stated the fact in terms of his character. If the player simply says, "Y'know, I'd like to play a dugeon crawl", that's director stance play. If the GM says, out in the open, "OK, then a dungeon crawl it is!" then that's not even Illusionism. That's just the GM allowing the player to create the existence of a dungeon openly in director stance.

By definition this is director stance. The player is creating something in-game that has nothing, neccessarily to do with his character. Consider the standard examples.

Player playing a PI wants to find the bad guys. The player is aware that the bad guys are in the park. The player notes that it is late in-game, and the PI goes home to sleep, because that's what he'd do knowing what he knows. Actor stance.

Same situation. The player has the character go to the park and "accidentally" run across the bad guys, and retroactively says that walking in the park is something that the PI does regularly (If the player dos npt do the last part, it's Pawn stance). Author stance.

Same situation. Player does the same as in situation number two, but also creates a bos bad guy to encounter there.

Note that all of these could be done in first person acting, or totally out of character. That has nothing to do with stance at all. So in our example, we see that it's definitely director stance we're talking about. Whether the player says it in character, or out of character does not matter. His indication to the GM and the subsequent creation of the adventure are what meke this Director Stance.

Now, a player may not have intended to use director stance. He may have just been intending to create some dialog in actor stance (or also likely, the player might be indicating something in Author stance as well; "I know there are dungeons out there! why haven't we reached one yet?"). In this case, the GM has merely misinterpereted the player's actions as a request to create a dungeon or whatever. But likely, the player is communicating his Director stance desire through his choice of first person dialog or whatever. There will, as always, be cases where it's not possible to tell just looking at the play what stance is being employed where. But that doesn't change the fact that such a stance is often employed.

The question of authority is separate from the use of stances. One may have the suthority to use director stance in one game and not in the next. In the Illusonist case above, the player has the authority to use director stance, but just is not aware that he does. Again, does not change the fact that even without explicit authority, the player will still use director stance at times.

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

Mike, that's an interesting point. I was inclined to agree with Christoffer at first, but you've argued convincingly.

I think there's a bit of a gray area in one sense, though - if the player states the preference in question between sessions rather than in play.

We have always left the notion of "out-of-play play" a little bit veiled in our discussions here. The obvious example is character creation, which - in one sense - is Director Stance from Hell and - in another - is not play at all, but a formalization of the social contract prior to play. Other examples include some kinds of character improvement (which in many cases has GM-authority granted by the rules and in other cases does not), and even, to get real abstract for a moment, deciding what game to play in the first place.

It's probably worth a topic of its own some time. For now, I'd like to say that because the current issue is potentially in-play or out-of-play, that we're entering a shady area of discussion for which, in some ways, Christoffer's point makes more sense, and in others, Mike's does.

Best,
Ron

[Christoffer Lernö]

Umm you're probably right Ron.

We've been skidding away from the original subject a little though, which was an attempt to list "acceptable uses of directorial mechanics" beyond those I already mentioned.

If I make a summary... Up until now we've had:

* Character creation
* Magic spell creation (for games that allow that)
* Character advancement (for games that allow you to advance skills and similar that do not correlate with in-game events)
* Interacting with objects that are obvious they're there but haven't been mentioned (like going into a kitchen and say you look through the fridge even though the GM hasn't mentioned there is one)
* "If a player thinks up an interesting idea for an adventure, then work it in, and play it out." (although this might be a gray zone area)

Do we have more examples?

[Marco]

Some more:

.- Using currency to buy an "ally" (person or organization)
.- Defining personal history during the game (Character A is asked when he met Character B and says "Back in the '32 riots on the San Clair Orbital" creating history and maybe even the place). Assumption is that the GM will not veto so long as it makes sense.
.- Extradoridnary use of a talent to override GM's call:

Player: "I build a warp drive."

GM: "You can't do that--this is a modern day FBI agents game!"

Player: "I have physics on a 50 or less."

GM: "Umm ... roll 'em. Negative 47!"

Player: "I roll a three."

GM: "OOhhh ... hang on, lemme make a star chart."

I've seen it happen ... I've seen it work.

-Marco

[Mike Holmes]

Are you looking for only functional, can support Illusionism ideas? Or are you looking for any example of director stance in Sim designs? I think that, given the right attention, any particular part of a game could be designed with functional Director Stance and still support some sort of Sim. What does it matter if we have examples or not?

I guess I'm looking for more clarification of why you're interested before going on.

BTW, I agree that my example is grey, especially when looked at from the perspective of out of game play. Perhaps addressing game issues from that far out should be called something else. "Producer Stance" (to belabor the analogy)?

Anyhow, I think that there is a lot more of these stances used than people think in all modes of play. The question becomes one of when delimiting certain authorities becomes supportive of, or problematic for, any particular mode. The standard thought is that Director Stance can kill a lot of what many players are looking for in Sim. I'd like to challenge that assumption; but I'm willing to accept a negative result if that's what is found to be true.

Mike

[Christoffer Lernö]

I was mostly thinking of looking at games well established to be sim style games and see where there is actually directorial mechanics without people "noticing it".

You (?) pointing at character creation was the eye opener here.

Of course, what I'm really interested in is what types of functional directorial mechanics one can have while keeping a working sim. However, if we keep this general for the time being we might get more out of it than if we would focus on my game directly. I'm not really sure what I'm supposed to find, so asking me to detail ygg stuff would be rather useless.

I agree with you Mike that there is a lot more of these things occuring covertly during play in one form or another, but I'm thinking of things "officially accepted" within the mechanical structure, that is - detailed in the rules in some manner or the other.

I feel there is a difference between
a) putting things in the rulebook and
b) adding it to the rules afterwards.

The former has a much deeper effect on how the game is perceived... I think. So there would be a difference in regards to how much deviation is allowed in the rules themselves compared to actual play. IMHO.

[Valamir]

what I'm really interested in is what types of functional directorial mechanics one can have while keeping a working sim

An infinite amount.  The two are not interdependent.

Even taking an obsessive desire for realism as our gaming goal, there is nothing inherent in director stance that precludes this.  The game will be however "simmy" the players want to make it.  If something is supposed to work a certain way and it does...what difference does it make if it got their by rules and dice, by GM fiat, or by player directoral power.

Universalis is pure director stance.  You can be as Simulationist or not as you like.

[Christoffer Lernö]

Sorry sorry, my fault that was wrong. That should be Illusionist sim mechanics, not sim mechanics.

[Emily Care]

World creation can also be included in Illusionist Sim, though it is mostly done in connection with character. For example, take a fantasy setting, a player makes up a character of from a different country than the game takes place in, and the player could well have free rein for describing the people there, culture, skills etc. The most important thing is that what is created meshes with the assumptions underlying what is already in play.  

The sky is the limit. Or rather, since we are talking about a gm'd Illusionist Sim game, whatever will not conflict with what is outlined by the gm or others in the game, is the limit. It's whatever your game groups social contract and group consensus will support.

Including guidelines for this and other kinds of player directorial expression would be a good place to direct the development. Players might create bubble realities that undermine aspects of the main campaign/world. Players might use this as a cart blanche of sorts to stock themselves with whatever hefty gadgetry, weapons, or abilities they think will help them kick ass in the game.  If that is going to make play less interesting or comfortable, a gm-approval process might be of use.  

--Emily Care

[Mike Holmes]

I think that perhaps why so much director stance is acceptable in CharGen in otherwise Sim games, is because it is not likley to affect the plot in any way. It is seen as outside play, and thus as not a part of the part of the game where motives like Immersion, and other things associated with Sim, come in. Thus it does not detract from those parts of the experience. Thus, if as Emily says, a player creates a country far away that the character lives in, it does not detract from anything during CharGen. And if it's far enough away, it does not detract from in-play creation. As long as the PCs are not at that place, in fact, or headed that way, it seems to be OK.

I think that's a general principle. Director stance is always more acceptable in Sim games when it does not seem as though the things created by the player are affecting play currently. All things affecting play currently must fall into the hands of the GM for control. Making them arbitrary once again for the purposes of experiencing them. That is a player could create the entire world, but as long as another GM is "running it", that same player can get all the same Sim enjoyment. The only other thing that has to remain the GMs in such games are the secrets.

So, to use Fang's terminology a bit, Sim is more certainly disrupted by player control of currently pertintnet events and objects that are not their character, or Mystiques not associated with the character.

Does that make sense?

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Mike,

It especially makes sense given the textual stricture found in so many games of this sort: "All characters must meet the approval of the GM." You can make up a character who's way neat, exactly by the rules, and you're all set to go ... and the GM says, "Nope."

I have witnessed tons of examples of primarily-Gamist-rulesbreaker players and primarily-Sim-illusionist GMs butting heads over exactly this issue in Champions games, and every time, they accuse one another of Not Playing Right.

One of the most interesting design features of Arrowflight (which I believe is the single most overt and effective illusionist game text I have ever seen) is that character diversity is fairly high in terms of Color, but exceptionally limited in terms of attribute and ability range (i.e. System).

Best,
Ron