Over in The hard question Jesse brought up an anecdote that really hit me over the head. Let me start by quoting it, for those who didn't go through that whole thread:

jburneko wrote: The other day I was talking to my girlfriend about Sorcerer and I mentioned that I think a difficulty some of our players have is realizing that Sorcerer not only asks you to player your character but to be art director and stunt coordinator for the environment around them.

Players don't summon demons in Sorcerer because in their brain they don't know what demons they CAN summon; as in what demons already exist out there in the setting for them to contact. Rather than imagining a demon and then acting like it's been out there for their summoning the whole time. On top of that they are used to thinking that magic and what it looks like is something that exists outside their character so creating all the color details of what a ritual consists of, what the air smells like, how the world contorts when a demon enters it and so on feels awkward.

I mentioned all this to my girlfriend and she said "I don't understand why. It's MY demon after all." You see my girlfriend was not a gamer when I met her. To her, on a natural gut level instinct, she not only owns her character but everything that is IMPORTANT to her character. Her character's appartment belongs to her, the player, because it is an extension of her character. Her character's sister belongs to her because that too is an extention of her character. She takes ownership and authorship very easily of anything she feels is important or an extension of her character concept.

She does this very naturally and yet when I started describing GNS to her she self identified as a simulationist because "plot logic" is very very very important to her but she's very much a Narrativist because her character and her character's issues (Premises her character embodies) are the focus of her play. In fact I was very Simulationist focused when we first started playing and the games were very frustrating for her because she kept talking about how her character was being underminded all the time. By that she meant everything that was important to her character concept was being swept aside in favor of the current "adventure" or "scenario" at hand.

IMHO, this is still part of play preference and not necessarily an issue with GNS.

It sounds to me like something I have been calling context, which is a way of connecting the player and the character. Before I learned of this site and GNS, I was thinking hard about the things that players want and need to tether them to the imaginary space, which this "shtick" sounds like.

I think that it's on the same level as preference about resolution mechanics, narrative control, etc. That is, it's more procedural in nature than it is agenda-related.

So what you have in this player seems to me like someone desperate for some context and in need of some ownership in the game. I'm curious, is this player relatively new to the hobby, or an old hand?

<edited to actually answer the question>

Good God, Jay, you're a mind-reader:

coxcomb wrote: It sounds to me like something I have been calling context, which is a way of connecting the player and the character.

IMHO, this is still part of play preference and not necessarily an issue with GNS.

So what you have in this player seems to me like someone desperate for some context and in need of some ownership in the game. I'm curious, is this player relatively new to the hobby, or an old hand?

clehrich wrote: *snip*
And reading Jesse's post, I was reminded of the time I tried to discuss the Jack The Ripper game (now Shadows in the Fog) with him, and he said he wanted some magic ability. Fine, I said, like what? I don't know, he says, what's available? What do you want? I asked. What is there? he asked. If you want it, you can have it, so long as it isn't fireballs at 30 paces, I said. No, he said, you have to give me some way that I can invent a shtick that will be mine, and that I can feel powerful with, and that I can explore and play with, and I want total inventive control and everything but I want a list of options. (Well, that's how I heard his final response.)
*snip*

This isn't really that hard to understand, I don't think.

The guy has a desire to have the Exploration dial turned up higher than you do. He wants the creative contraints of having more things pre defined to enhance his ability to choose what he wants from a list of set options, so he can see how the options he chooses relates the other options that are available.

Noon, could be right and he's doing this to support a Gamist agenda, but I think one could write a similiar description about the other agendas also.

As you note it could be in support of a Nar agenda. Nar with an emphasis on Exploration is not that uncommon. The danger is when the Exploration aspect gets over prioritised and you wind up with Ouiga Board sim. I don't think that's a danger her because by demanding a Schtick that he's intended to use to power his play, he's basically given notice that he intends to be quite overt about "moving the planchett" when that schtick is involved.

I'm tempted to suggest its a form of Narrativist Niche protection where he's defining his Premise turf; but that's a bit of a leap from the limited information given.

To me this sounds like he wants his character to be an active particpant in an immersive imagined world, but he as player wants to do as little as possible to make that shared imagining happen. This isn't necessarily laziness; it could be that any contribution he makes to the imagined world makes it seem less objectively solid to him. In any case, having an objectively solid-seeming imagined world presented to him for his imagining is his highest priority.

This is technically a type of Simulationism by default, because in the absence of a desire to actively pursue a Gamist or Narrativist agenda the only focus is on exploration. It's also precisely what I've termed zilchplay. I once described a typical zilchplayer's behavior this way: "imagine the elements the GM is describing and trigger my standard character behaviors at the expected times." With a possible quibble on the word "expected," that's exactly the aspect of his play style that you find most striking.

What you appear to have here is an unusually honest and conscious preference for zilchplay. As I said, it's technically Sim, but I believe it really it's no CA at all. That's why the responses to your question have been all over the map: Narrativist, Gamist, Simulationist, and "CA is not applicable here" all in a few posts. Kind of like the answers you'd get if you asked what color the walls are, in a completely dark room.

- Walt

Heh, I'm chuckling here. I am Jesse's girlfriend (no, I don't mean that literally). Based upon the information given, I don't think there is much of a correlation between Jesse's girlfriend and your friend (different exploration element at work). But you know your friend, so I'm just going to rant and ramble for a little bit. You can see if anything jumps out at you.

*****

As far as Jesse's girlfriend goes, I think you've got rather natural behavior there. Way back when I started gaming it didn't even occur to me that the familiar/family/house/etc of my character would be played by the GM. That approach seemed pretty dumb (still does, actually). She just hasn't been beaten with the Actor stance stick, plus some Nar|Setting with high Situation/Character causality requirements. Control over Setting is necessary to explore it, and Director stance helps preserve causality of Character/Situation by structuring character stimuli. It's pretty coherent.

I self identified with Sim too, for the couple of years it took me to fully grasp Nar. To be bluntly honest, this is because the causality definition of Sim is broken. Hell, her personal perspective might lead her to the same place as me, which is that Sim doesn't exist. The Sim stuff isn't the point here, though. Take it as the opinion of the dissenting minority, and do with it as you will.

For my own personal reasons, I wonder what level of abstraction Jesse's girlfriend tends to think at. Big picture? Detail oriented? Anyway, not the point. This is a 'Bigger Lego Block' sort of approach. In our group we refer to the 'bubble'. Some players have a larger bubble, they require a larger 'space' of ownership around their character. Players with a smaller bubble control less around their characters. Mucking with things inside the player's bubble will cause conflicts, but you must touch the surface of the bubble with the situation for it to protagonize the character. This means that, irritatingly, those with a very small bubble are less proactive. You have to drop things directly in the laps of their characters before they'll do anything. They simultaneously complain about not having enough to do, while refusing to create conflicts for their characters. Ok, I'm really starting to rant.

Chris wrote: And reading Jesse's post, I was reminded of the time I tried to discuss the Jack The Ripper game (now Shadows in the Fog) with him, and he said he wanted some magic ability. Fine, I said, like what? I don't know, he says, what's available? What do you want? I asked. What is there? he asked. If you want it, you can have it, so long as it isn't fireballs at 30 paces, I said. No, he said, you have to give me some way that I can invent a shtick that will be mine, and that I can feel powerful with, and that I can explore and play with, and I want total inventive control and everything but I want a list of options. (Well, that's how I heard his final response.)