Thoughts From a Player

[jburneko]

Hello,

Allright, so I've had three gaming sessions since the new year.  Character Creation + First Session of Play for my Eden Falls game using The Pool and a Character Creation session for a Sorcerer game set in an asylum.  One of the players is a good friend of mine who has been gaming with me since Jr. High but has not been playing with me since I started slanting my games more and more towards Narrativism.

Now, I thought he'd take to Narrativism very well because he was always the kind of player who would almost blatently ignore the obvious "GM story" to go try and fulfill some personal character agenda.  But he's had a very odd reaction.

After the first play session of Eden Falls he said something along the lines of, "I feel like my characters in a story rather than a campaign."  He said that he felt pressure, "to do dramatic stuff and come to some kind of rapid resolution."  He said that he prefered his characters to be slow boil characters and to let them develop very slowly over a long period of time.

Now I put this down to having a different taste in format for our fiction.  My favorite formats are short stories, plays, novellas and 6 to 8 issue graphic novels.  He's the kind of guy that likes multi-season, 24 episode serial TV dramas and 1000+ page novels and novels that are part of a series.  So I told him that while yes, his character IS part of a story and that he should look for some kind of resolution relative to the current Situation at hand that he shouldn't feel like this was some total be-all-end-all resolution for the character in total.  That if he wanted to look at this like the first story arc of a series he was free to do that.

Then after the Sorcerer Character creation he said something else to me.  He said, "I feel an incredible pressure to perform.  I feel less like I'm there for my own enjoyment and more like I'm there to please the group."  I told him I thought that was odd because it seems to me that this style of gaming makes it all about your own enjoyment because now things are focused on your ideas, passions and issues that you bring to the table.  To which he replied, "Yes, but I feel like that's constantly being judged against the group's standards."

So, I'm not sure what to make of all this.  Before he was always a very proactive player, always building very colorful characters that wanted to achieve things and did things in their own way.  I thought this would be an opportunity for his creativity to shine.  Is this some kind of expression of "stage fright" now that I've yanked away the safety net, of the "GM's story" to fall back on?  I would like to point out that both of his character concepts for both games are VERY VERY good and par for the course for him.  Nothing about the way his characters are built has changed, just his verbal attitude toward the game.

Has anyone had a similar experience?  Diagnosis at a distance is always tricky at best but I'm curious as to what others make of it.

Jesse

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

I feel like that's constantly being judged against the group's standards.

He's right. That is precisely the defining feature of what I consider to be developed Narrativist and Gamist play. It's exactly what may or may not be present in Simulationist play (and historically has been rare there, I think), but must be present in either of the other two modes.

Which is, incidentally, why I think Narrativist play is not a subset of Simulationist play, as suggested in a recent RPG.net thread, and coincidentally is also a section of my Narrativism essay.

Personal and social comfort zones differ. I like pressure or at least others' demonstrated attention to my creative effort, and I like that attention to have some degree of critique associated with it. That's a "juicer" for me, and I hope it feeds back positively among all the people I play with. That happens when we play any number of Gamist and Narrativist ways. It shows up in our Simulationist play too, although more intermittently and with less drive.

Other people aren't so happy with that kind of juicer - either they like it too, just less of it, and maybe only expressed at specific points (i.e. between sessions), or they just don't like it at all. The latter view is often associated with claiming role-playing as a "levelling" hobby, in which one doesn't have to be good at it in any way in order to have a good time with friends. Holders of this view tend to shy away from Gamist and Narrativist play.

But back to that judgment. The issue is whether the creative and social interactions among the group can apply the judgment in a positive way - whether they can use it rather than being made nervous by it.

In Narrativist play in particular, when someone feels they have to out-do the others in being a better Premise-addresser (or narrator, or Director-Stance guy, to pick some techniques that have been seen in recent N-type games, although they are only helpers in these cases), I think that the group has already veered in a dysfunctional direction. The person lacks trust (a) that his input will be valued most when he cares about it most, and given some slack in the off-moments; and (b) that his

The hard questions in all three essays - and the ones for Narrativists aren't much different from the Gamist ones - are aimed at this very issue. Could it be that your friend has been so forthcoming in other circumstances when he feels that he, alone, is his sole "real" audience? That he is safe within the non-judgmental Sim context? Could it be that his individualized agendas for his characters in other play-experiences indicate, not interest in Premise, but rather an escape from the possibility of his character being involved in what others care about?

It's kind of alarming to consider the mind-set which only sees safety to perform in a context which provides no judgmental feedback for the performance. I'm a college prof, as you know - providing a meaningful context for that kind of feedback is my job.

Best,
Ron

[Valamir]

"I feel an incredible pressure to perform. I feel less like I'm there for my own enjoyment and more like I'm there to please the group."

I'd have told him "you're right, you are"

Everyone at the table is equally responsible for participating in the enjoyment of the group.  To suggest otherwise seems to me inherently selfish.  

I don't know from what you wrote if this is the attitude of your player, but I find the sort of player who wants to just show up, do whatever they like that pleases them so that they have a good time, with disregard for what pleases the rest of the folks at the table to be the sort of player I don't want at the same table with me.

Likely that's more extreme than what your player was suggesting.  Its quite possible that he's just been taken out of his comfort zone and needs an adjustment period.  Of course he's going to feel uncomfortable during that period.   That's what being taken out of ones comfort zone means.

[jburneko]

Actualy, Ralph, what I said was, "Good," in sort of kneejerk response kind of way.  Mainly because I remembered Ron linking Gamism and Narrativism through that "social pressure" context in his essays.  And yeah, I know the kind of player you're talking about.  I had one of those for a while but he doesn't play with us anymore.  This player isn't that extreme and I think you and Ron both nailed it when talking about "comfort zones."

He DID preface most of this with statements like, "Perhaps this will smooth itself out over time."  So, I think he may adjust.  I just found his initial discomfort odd, since I originally judged this to be something he'd really dig into.

Jesse

[Gordon C. Landis]

On the one hand, this strikes me as a big issue and I'd like to see some more discussion.  On the other hand, the fact is it often DOES smooth itself over with time - you just want to be careful that "smooth over" isn't a synonym for "buried."

Ron, your b) seems to have gotten lost , in "The person lacks trust (a) that his input will be valued most when he cares about it most, and given some slack in the off-moments; and (b) that his "  If you can remember what b is - I'm interested, 'cause a) is speaking very strongly to me about a situation that came up in play last night . .  .

Gordon

[John Kim]

Now, I thought he'd take to Narrativism very well because he was always the kind of player who would almost blatently ignore the obvious "GM story" to go try and fulfill some personal character agenda.  But he's had a very odd reaction.
...
Then after the Sorcerer Character creation he said something else to me.  He said, "I feel an incredible pressure to perform.  I feel less like I'm there for my own enjoyment and more like I'm there to please the group."  I told him I thought that was odd because it seems to me that this style of gaming makes it all about your own enjoyment because now things are focused on your ideas, passions and issues that you bring to the table.  To which he replied, "Yes, but I feel like that's constantly being judged against the group's standards."

OK, I can relate that this is similar to how I have often felt.  I dislike things like bonus XP based on role-playing, or bonuses for cool stunts in combat, or those sorts of things -- both as a GM and as a player.  These days I give XP at a flat rate based on whether or not you show up to the game.  

In general, I would say I don't think that constant judgement is a good thing.  Consider this analogy.  There is an author who you really like, and you come into a bunch of money.  Then you decide you will get him to write a novel you really love by this method...  He sends you the pages, and you pay him between $10 and $100 per page based on how well you liked that page.  Motivated by this reward, the result should be a book you truly love -- better than the ones which the author just wrote for himself.  

I haven't tried this, but I am doubtful that it would work.  

There may be better schemes of how to motivate and provide feedback.  Thus, I don't discount it as a method.  However, for the most part I have been very satisfied by telling the players to just relax and enjoy themselves -- the more they enjoy the game for themselves, the more other people will enjoy it as well.

[Matt Snyder]

In general, I would say I don't think that constant judgement is a good thing.  Consider this analogy

<snip>

I haven't tried this, but I am doubtful that it would work.  

There may be better schemes of how to motivate and provide feedback.  Thus, I don't discount it as a method.  However, for the most part I have been very satisfied by telling the players to just relax and enjoy themselves -- the more they enjoy the game for themselves, the more other people will enjoy it as well.

John, with utmost respect, I find this to be a dubious analogy. It doesn't really tell us much. I do see what you're getting at, but I think the analogy excludes a crucial factor, which you then provide in your last paragraph. When the author writes the book for you, he's doing so because he's getting paid. That's his reward. There's no indication in your analogy that he finds his own creation also rewarding. If that even happens, it seems incidental.

Of course, as you say in your last paragraph, each member of a gaming group is performing for himself as well. And, the beauty is, everyone is doing this in kind in one big, lovely, interactive chain reaction. This is one wonderful reason gaming is unlike, say, writing.

I'm with Gordon. I find this to be a deeply interesting phenomenon in gaming circles. And, I think it's a big, big issue. I think it's big because I sense the possibility dysfunction in many gaming groups.

I'm trying to say this without being misread, so I'll just give it a go. I find play without this social pressure / social judgment / attention to be cowardly.

I'm not saying this is the case for all such play. John gives an example, and I've no reason to assume it's anything but functional and fun. I'm saying, however, that it seems likely to me that some people are being cowards, socially speaking, and suffer their fun as a result. And, worse, they dare not broach the subject. It'd be "bad form" and not for the "good of the group."

I think I've witnessed this over the years. Players agree to get along, be pals, don't step on toes, and so on. And, so, they become afraid to really say and do what they think (that is, what would be most fun) in a game because of social fear. But they don't actually know whether anything they might say or do crosses "the line." In fact, they have no fucking idea where the line is, and neither does anybody else.

They fear judging and being judged, and that fear rules over all other things. That's really a horrible way to enjoy one's hobby, I say.

I imagine I'm not really saying anything new. Surely this has been brought up previously? In fact, all I'm really saying is "Gee, dysfunctional social contracts are bad, especially when no one communicates."

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

John, I'm going to be very interested in your comments about a section of my Narrativism essay called "Ouija board role-playing."

Gordon, my (b) was ... Oh hell, let's give the whole paragraph for context:

In Narrativist play in particular, when someone feels they have to out-do the others in being a better Premise-addresser (or narrator, or Director-Stance guy, to pick some techniques that have been seen in recent N-type games, although they are only helpers in these cases), I think that the group has already veered in a dysfunctional direction. The person lacks trust (a) that his input will be valued most when he cares about it most, and given some slack in the off-moments; and (b) that his ...

... fellow players may offer kibitzing help without implying that he is falling down on the job.

I also want to call attention to being given slack in the off-moments, or in moments when the player is most comfortable just keeping things close to the vest.

This is not only the area of overlap where I think my typical play and John's would be compatible, but it is also the most important way to keep enthusiastic player input fresh and not just a wearisome chore.

Because "slack" isn't quite what I mean - what I mean is support, attention, and interest even when the player is not wowing everyone with his histrionic or what-have-you performance. "You want to play it quieter for now? That's OK too."

Pressure, yes - in terms of critique, attention, and appreciation, and above all, shared joy. But not in terms of "C'mon, c'mon, don't bore us, top the last thing, feed us again."

Frankly, I've found systems that require such things to be exhausting (Extreme Vengeance). But systems that reward you when you do them in addition to other rewards if you want to do other things, work very nicely for me and my current fellow players.

Best,
Ron

[Bill Cook]

A short OT anecdote.

I'm reminded how uncomfortable it was to adjust to IC dialog in a campaign I'm playing in.  Being used to refering to my character in 3rd person and being allowed open moments of discussion about how he would react, I found having to say what he was speaking right then (and it be committed as action) to be daunting.

...

Maybe there's a skipped step with your player, i.e. disclosing his character's agenda.  He may prefer to discover it in play.  Like a Sim backdrop with an eruption of Nar.

I could see how Nar might make you feel exposed.  And create stress for fear of an empty hand.

I also want to call attention to being given slack in the off-moments, or in moments when the player is most comfortable just keeping things close to the vest.

. . . it is also the most important way to keep enthusiastic player input fresh and not just a wearisome chore.

Because "slack" isn't quite what I mean - what I mean is support, attention, and interest even when the player is not wowing everyone with his histrionic or what-have-you performance. "You want to play it quieter for now? That's OK too."

This completes the range.  It takes courage to play low key.  It can easily be misinterpreted as risk aversion or disinterest.  I assume it would require some Nar play experience to recognize and support that tone.

[John Kim]

I'm saying, however, that it seems likely to me that some people are being cowards, socially speaking, and suffer their fun as a result. And, worse, they dare not broach the subject. It'd be "bad form" and not for the "good of the group."

I think I've witnessed this over the years. Players agree to get along, be pals, don't step on toes, and so on. And, so, they become afraid to really say and do what they think (that is, what would be most fun) in a game because of social fear. But they don't actually know whether anything they might say or do crosses "the line." In fact, they have no fucking idea where the line is, and neither does anybody else.  

Hmm.  I suspect there are other factors here.  In my experience, the opposite has been true...  Encouraging being judgemental gives a less permissive feel, such that people are afraid to do what they think would be the most fun for them because it might not be the best thing for the group.  

I know that it takes a lot of time and effort to drill this point into my own players -- that there isn't a right thing to do, and that there isn't a particular plot or adventure that they're supposed to follow.  At first players usually constantly look to the GM for permission, for cues as to what they are supposed to do.  The open nature of the play I enjoy is hard to grasp.  But by always giving blanket permission this eventually goes away.  

It seems like we have the same goal of minimizing fear, but we have developed quite different approaches.  Perhaps some other difference in our styles explains the difference.

[Christopher Kubasik]

Hi all,

As one of the players lucky enough to be in Jesse's cool Sorcerer: House of Madness game (but not the player in question), let me add some context about the players that might be important.

There were four players and Jesse at the character creation session: myself, the player in question, Jesse's girlfriend, and The New Girl (new to roleplaying, and a recent addition to Jesse's "Gang".)  Before that session, I only knew Jesse and his girlfriend, and haven't logged any real time within them outside of gaming sessions, encounters at gaming cons and bumping into them in malls in Los Angeles.  (This excludes, of course, enjoyable interaction with Jesse on the net.)

So, here's some more info:

The Player in Question, from what I could understand, has aspirations to be a published writer.  He touched briefly on this when asking me about how much money writers of novels can make.  From what I could tell it's still a "dream over there," kind of thing, and has yet to hit the road in terms of, "whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger" territory.

Jesse's Girlfriend is studying Lit over at USC.  I actually don't know what her ambitions are, but I don't think I'd be going out on a limb to say producing actual writing would be one of her goals.

The New Girl is a cutie, smart, sensitive, somewhat wistful, a little directionless and sorting stuff out.  She's in the group because she met Jesse's Girlfriend at USC – 'cause she's studying lit, too.

There's me:  done game writing, wrote and published five game novels.  Did some screenwriting for New Line Cinema.  I'm (*ahem*) the oldest one in the group, with most of the directionless in my life fading and an unexpected drive seizing me these days.  When asked how much you make from novels, my answer to the Player in Question is a Gandalf-like intonement: You set your fees.  Don't ever let anyone do that for you: otherwise you're just a leaf in the wind.  Know what you want, and get it.  It takes as much time to write a novel with a $5,000 advance as it does to write a novel with a $50,000 advance."

You all should also know that when Jesse's Girlfriend was looking for a certain name for her character out of the New Testement, the New Girl spit out the perfect name right away, attributing to a man who climbed a tree to get a view of Jesus.  I didn't remember hearing that tale, and said so.  A Google search ensued, with two separate computers being used, no less, and it was found in Luke. Thus, we made stakes out of the name of a character in a story—and everyone threw themselves into the game of finding out the truth.  

In short, we are a group of lit geeks.

And everyone knows it.

And there are certain dynamics in terms of professional status, age, strength of presence, possible interest in the New Girl (I won't speak for anyone on this count, but I did already admit for my part I thought she was a cutie (she just is)) – that could all lead to a bit of Improvisational Storytelling Anxiety.

I'd like to add that as far as I could tell, everyone was very supportive of everyone else.  However, having written everything I've written so far, as far as I know I was preening my mane when cleaning my paws (if you will).  I was trying to be "helpful," when referencing books and movies to illustrate points of Tell Tales and Kickers to the New Girl – but undoubtedly, more was going on.   Whether I meant to be in competition with the only other unattached guy in the room doesn't change the fact that maybe I was.  (I really don't know, and would have to turn to those outside of myself for observations on this.  My guess, now?  Probably, but I didn't mean to.)

I never sensed negative judgment from anyone at the table toward any ideas.  There was  judgment, of course.  Usually in the form of: "Cool."  Sometimes in the form of kibitzing along the lines of: "You might want to tweak it a bit to make it cooler."  But I really think everyone's creative work was honored.  (The Player in Question's work really was amazing, and I think you're all gonna get to freak when the Actual Play threads go up.)

All this is a way of saying that it might be a nature of the game that's causing the "pressure."  And Narrativism in particular.

But it might also be about the particular group of people, and the combination of qualities and dynamics as a group thereof, that is creating pressure for the player – and the game simply happens to be where that pressure is going to be played out.  In particular, the fact that everyone at the table is well educated in stories, and has in one form or another ambitions to be a storyteller.  And – of course – there's the New Girl.  All this, I suggest, might have something to do with a feeling of pressure to "please the group."

Whether this is a function of Narrativism, or some of the brackets of the Big Model outside of GNS, I don't pretend to know.

Take care,

Christopher

[pete_darby]

I think I addressed something like this before in the thread about "freeform gamism..."

Yes, in N play there's a pressure to feed the drama, but it's subtly different from the anxiety people seem to be feeling here.

I'll stoke my ego a little, and point to my piece in the first Daedalus about improvisation: that a lot of people freeze when faced with the demand to improvise, due to fear of the results being dull, or "wrong."

Oddly, what's being asked for in N improvisation doesn't care about whether the response is predictable or "wrong," as "predictable" is very similar to "appropriate," and "wrong" can just mean "unexpected." All that matters, in Agenda theory terms, is "does it address premise, or assist with the address of premise?"

When the judgement on contributions moves to competing for coolness, appropriateness or whatever other quality of the contribution, we're certainly moving towards gamism, where the competition, not the premise, is the focus.

BTW, before I get another worm-can open, y'all know when I say "feed the drama" or "create dramatic conflict," it's exactly the same as adressing premise? I knew you did. But people think I say the funniest things these days...

[Christopher Kubasik]

Hi Pete,

As far as I can tell, the points you make about N play ("a pressure to feed the drama") is *exactly* what most of the people at the table felt.  (Certainly for Jesse's Girlfriend and myself.)  And let me say, for the record, I felt nothing but the "best" kind of anxiety at the table.

Keep in mind, all, that the notes I made above where observations of behavior spread out over a four hour character creation session.  In other words, if you assume that what I wrote above *was* session, you might think, yes, there's some sort of Gladitorial Arena being created.  But this was not the focus, at all of the session.  We were just tossing around ideas, explaining certain concepts of Sorcerer to the new players, laughing, ordering pizza....  The stuff above was the stuff beneath.  I pulled it out and shone a bright light on it specifically for this thread.  A thread dealing with the character creation angle alone would show a group having a great time creating Premise rich characters -- very supportive, encouraging and enthuiastic for everyone's effort.  (And expected this: I don't think Jesse would have gathered a group that didn't have this quality, and that's why I signed on.)

Let me quickly qualify that when the comments were "Cool" for approval, it wasn't about "being" cool, or about "competing for cool" -- it was about saying, "What you just said was Premise rich."  Not in so many words, but that's what it was about -- the exact same way you, Pete, ask folks to recognize that "'feed the drama' or 'create dramatic conflict,' it's exactly the same as adressing premise."  Because in the pre-play session all the group is doing is setting out the kindling for dramatic conflict.  And you're looking to do it as a group to help tweak it before play begins so you're ready to rock.

If I gave the impression we were competing with each other to do this to the point of scoring points off each other, I apolgize.  My post was simply to lay out the facts of the group's blunt human dynamics, subtle though they may have been (and I think were), which, in these parts, is often recognized as part of what happens at the table.

It was also to lay out the possibility (and I think the truth) that while different styles of play have their own anxieties (some more so than others), and every group has its dynamics, the individual can always go whatever direction he or she wishses to go with these facts.  

Thus, in the group what I wrote above is true.  We are lit geeks, for example.  That's a fact.  But anyone can respond to that anyway they want.  That fact doesn't mean "we" are heading for Gamism at all.  But  certainly someone, without even meaning to, could head off in that direction, thinking, "I'm feeling pressure here, better win here to look good."  But that would be his reaction to the circumstances, not the circumstances themselves.  Another option would be simply to toss his hat in the ring and play, addressing premise, as you say, and enjoying what happens.

Take care,

Christopher

[pete_darby]

Re-reading the thread, i was mainly trying to emphasize a point John was making about "pressure to perform" freezing up ability to perform... and then, as usual, imposing my own personal obsessions.

But hey, it elicited a fantastic clarifying and expanding post from Christopher, so I'm not exactly upset at the results of my miscommunication.

And hey, with that group, all with some practical experience of creative writing, often collaboratively, I'd kind of expect the good pressure you described, rather than the bad sort I described. It's just when you're feeling the pressure, it's easy to mistake the one for the other, IME.

[Paganini]

You know, I have an analogy. I'm a performing artist (I play the violin) and there's a certain amount of pressure when you get up in front of people to perform. Some people feel it more in certain situations than others. I have a friend who just can't make an audition. She gets so nervous that she physically can't play. I get freaked out at auditions (everyone does) but I can always still play, even if I don't play my best.

In an orchestra or chamber situation, it's completely different. Other people get nervous. I don't. As far as I'm concerned I might as well be watching TV or doing email or whatever. I feel zero pressure other than the desire to perform to my fullest for the sake of the art itself.

Then there's solo playing where I feel juiced, but not (usually) terrified like at an audition.

This "juice" I think is the good type of pressure.

Here's an example: the indie-netgaming group generates a fairly large amount of play (we've got 4 or 5 weekly games going right now; I'm in three of them) . As we play more or less constantly my respect for Chris's (Edwards)  fu as a player and designer keeps growing. When I show up at the room after 5 hours of teaching, and my brain is a little fried, there's a certain amount of anxiety involved in having to invent something that measures up to his standard of "kewelness." It's not a bad thing. It's not fear of repercussion. It's an integral part of the play experience. It's "juice."

None of us (well, except for maybe a few new players) are hesitant about speaking up if something doesn't measure up to our standards of "kewelness." Of course, we continuously express social reinforcement when something *does* measure up as well.

I think partly a reason for this is that we've all played Universalis together. Uni comes out and makes this a part of the rules. You have to rabidly support and defend your own vision in Uni, or the game will get real wacky real fast. You can't be shy about speaking up if something doesn't fit. Uni is like a training system for this kind of social interraction.

The other night Dana wanted to have a "Spork" god in our sword & sorcery game, and we all basically jumped her. I think she was a little purturbed - it was her first time playing Uni. But we've all been jumped in exactly the same way at one time or another.

So, if you're not used to it, or if you're a person who gets actual fear from a viewed performance, this style of play is probably not something you will like. I'd suggest to Jesse just to play a few more sessions and let things clarify a bit more. The player may just be unused to this style; he may discover that he really likes the juice and that it helps him create. Or, it may turn out that he really does hate it. :)