I was recently talking with my friends girlfriend, about her role playing past. I was curious as to what she enjoyed back then and why she hadn't continued now. I was probing in terms of GNS with this example:
Your poor, and come across a town full of sick people. You find a van full of medical supplies that you could easily steal and sell for a mint.

Then I went through some of the ways you might take that on. One might be to try and figure out just how much supplies the town needs, then take the rest and sell it for cash (optimisation, gamism). Another might be to just say whether you take the van or not, to show something about your character (statement, narrativism…and I thought this might be her thing). Finally you might take or leave the van because it fits you character and your doing that because you would look forward to seeing what happens (experimentation, or simulationism as I understand it).

My friend was there and immediately had to give his angle on the scenario. It's interesting how he was compelled to immediately give it. Anyway, his evil doctor character (4th level Rifts character with quite some history) would take the van, but then show up with it to the town as its hero, delivering this…then charge everyone to get the stuff and generally take control. Gamist, and I had to note to him that I liked that one.

His girlfriend didn't really get invested in the scene enough to respond. But instead, interestingly, she gave a scenario of her own instead (in part to change to setting matter she's more intrigued by). In her scenario, it was a cat pimp gangster like character and his clumsy sidekick. And in it, the cat gangster could either go grab a lifetime of catnip…but at the same time his sidekick needed rescuing. Now she pitched it this way…but then said if she was playing, she'd go on to find a way to get them both!

Now hold on, I was set for nar there…but that's gamist. Of course the character wants both, getting both wont tell you anything about what he'll sacrifice in order to keep something else. This instead shows you the players skill in getting all the resources involved. And then I think about the times I've tried to add gamism with other groups and almost always the players would try to find a gamist way around the problematic issue. And I'd have to set them on the right track, that your making a choice here that defines your character. I've run some nar moments for my friend and I think they were taken as a moment of character statement, but perhaps this was because we know each other and unlike the PBEM's where I had to explain nar, it's been in person (lots of social cues for everyone to run by). But just then, when I pitched the nar problem hypothetically, my friend went for a very gamist response himself. That's what really interested him.

And then I just realised, perhaps I haven't seen the potential here. I mean, I'm not greatly nar inclined myself and more gamist…I just thought I'd like to add some like you add a little salt to your chips (Some old hands at the Forge might groan at this sneaking up on mode). But the potential here…these people were instantly provoked to give a gamist response. Because, I think, addressing premise is actually quite painful, in a way. It's hard in the way you have to sort of reach into yourself to answer it. And it was provoking their gamism far more than all the gold pieces in the world you could offer to them. So it's either work out a functional gamist response, or face the 'penalty' of addressing premise.

I think that most likely this 'penalty' affects them at just such a personal level, that if I'm right, it's just a really great thing to advance adult gamism. When your younger, your more inclined to go for gold pieces or getting a bigger gun, because their cool. As you get older, it's not because your more mature that these things matter less to you, but because you’re an even better gamist now, your gamist skills force you to recognise these things as just tools to get to some other goal. This rather than being a goal to get to themselves. So a lot of the zing of gamist roleplay can drift away when these supposed system rewards stop being rewards. But if I slap them in the face with the gauntlet which is addressing premise, it makes the challenge so personal to them by the nature of how you address premise, that they are provoked thoroughly to step on up!

Only prob I see here is the potential for drift…some player decides to just address premise, then get's annoyed with all the 'task' resolution he has to go through to go after the goal he chose.

Basically this thread is either just to present an interesting technique for reading and possible use and/or to discuss what's really going on if you see something else here instead.

PS: Some might be affronted at the idea of addressing premise being considered a penalty. Talk about it here if you like.

That's a really cool notion, and I agree with it completely.

Moreover, I see it happening among people who are playing Narr. Even people who want to show explore/define some facets of their character often have hot-button areas where they have no intention of ever going. A sorceror who wants to address the question "What will you do for power?" may balk at the question "What will you sacrifice for love?"

Driving toward those areas will inspire them to truly wondrous heights of creativity as they desperately scramble to avoid what they fear. As long as you don't foolishly mistake the threat you use to goad them for a goal that you need to doggedly pursue, it's good fun for everyone.

I've seen this too. It usually shows up when the game system lets the player acquire or retain some power over the SiS _through_ the acquisition of SiS elements. Hence, many games designed with narrativist play in mind don't connect player power to SiS elements; they have ways to ensure players always have power to create Story Now, regardless of what their character owns or even what state he's in.

TonyLB wrote: As long as you don't foolishly mistake the threat you use to goad them for a goal that you need to doggedly pursue, it's good fun for everyone.

No, I'm saying that you don't want to get into the mindset of saying "If they do a gamist maneuver that lets them win both things, that will mean I've failed, so I have to stop that."

If they want to avoid being Narrativists then they'll get creative as Gamists... unless you quash their ability to be creative as Gamists (in support of a Narr agenda of your own) in which case they'll just sulk.

Ah! Well, that's the other side of the drift problem I mentioned, except yes, rather than the player drifting, it's the GM.

Mmm, both are something to be careful about with this technique.