My weekend group is now four or five sessions into a 7th Sea game. This game is a sequal to a game we played a year ago. Some of the characters are the same, some are new. Same with the players.

One of the player's played with us up until the last time we played 7th Sea. Then he stopped because of complications in his personal life. So he didn't play in the previous 7th Sea game. So he is both a new player and a new character. I'll call him D.

There's a funny habit he has that really came to a head last session and just hit me really hard. Here's the situation. Genvieve, played by S, is being stalked by an NPC named Sebastion. Sebastion finally has Genvieve cornered alone in a hallway of a nearly abandoned castle. D wants in on the action and asks if his character can show up. Since I have NO aid from the system on this matter I look at S for her permission since it's her scene and she gives the okay.

Okay, so D's character is a Castillian Swordsman named Fredrico who is also a fairly high ranking Los Vagos member. For those of you unfamiliar with the setting this bascially means that Fredrico is Zorro, if Zorro was an organization rather than just one man. Fredrico has a stake in this situation because Sebastion has been going around impersonating El Vago (i.e. Zorro) while stalking Genvieve.

Anyway, Fredrico sneaks up on Sebastion and puts his sword at Sebastion's throat. At that point Genvieve runs off in a panic leaving the two alone. So I ask D what Fredrico is going to do and I mention that Sebastion starts taunting his stealthy cowardice and that he should face him with honor. It is also BLAZINGLY clear from previous encounters that Sebastion is the better swordsman.

At this point D's habit kicks in. D is very indecisive when put into these kinds of situations. He starts clawing through his character sheet and notes looking for guidance on what he should do. Normally this is just a nusance but what hit me so hard was when he actually got up from the table and started going through my 7th Sea books looking for the El Vago sourcebook. He then starts flipping through it page by page. I asked him what he's doing and he responds that he's trying to figure out how an El Vago would handle this situation. I reminded him that that's not the issue. The issue is how Fredrico is going to handle this situation. He dimissively says, "Yes, I know, I know" and continues pawing through the book anyway.

I know this behavior has been mentioned and discussed. Ron talks about people in Sorcerer demos pointing to the character sheet and claiming that "how to behave" is ingrained there. And sometimes this is attributed to habits often steming from White Wolf roleplaying. But this guy isn't the most experienced player in the world. I have trouble believing that his brief brushes with roleplaying in the past would have ingrained this behavior so automatically in him.

So what exactly IS the root of this behavior. Is it just roleplaying stage fright? Who else has seen this and what has been the underlying issue? Is there something the group might be doing to perpetuate this behavior that I'm just not noticing?

Jesse

If you don't mind me asking -- how did the other players react, especially S, whose scene he pretty much stole? How did the scene finally play out? And, since I don't know anything about 7th Sea, what was really at stake if D fought an honest duel with the NPC? Was he likely to get killed, or just humiliated and scarred?

A good question and I don't have any particular insight for you.

I'm very interested, however, in what YOU did as this continued...and what you know in hindsight think you should have done (if different)...I know what *I* would have done...but I'd like to get your take first.

This is a total guess. I don't know player D from Adam.

Artistic insecurity is a candidate, but I don't think that's the case here. You might think "well, I can't just make anything up, I've got to keep it in tune with what everyone else is doing."

But in this case it's Zorro and rapiers and everyone knows the genre. And everyone at the table is cool with him doing his thing. (Right? That's the way your post made it seem, that you in particular were egging him on to do his thing, and he was all like 'whatever'.)

So then he says "well, I can't just make anything up, I've got to keep it in tune with what the books say." But this isn't the freakin' Bible or Little Red Book. The books are a cover for some personal indecision.

So what could this stem from?

You gave him a thematic choice, mastery or maybe revenge vs. honor. (That's how it seemed to me.)

A lot of people we role played with as kids would just pick mastery/revenge. "I cut his fuckin' throat. Haw! Sucker." No real choice there, for them, because they've got the guy at a disadvantage, and they want to win.

Later on you might develop prejudices against those kids, or feel ashamed that you slaughtered half the Village of Hommlet because you couldn't get a decent price on a Large Wooden Chest, or whatever else. Or you might just have confusion because of a conception of what RPGs are about - 'wait? That's it? I can 'win', just like that?" So then you think maybe there needs to be some constraint on your behavior to rein this kind of stuff in.

So you look for one. You learn to "play your character". No metagaming for me, nosirree! I vill confine myself to ziss role.

And then you feel OK about yourself again. No more bad metagame considerations of winning leading to wildly immoral play.

This is SOP for a lot of role-players. The 'good' roleplayer figures out what his character will do and acts accordingly; the 'bad' roleplayer just tries to 'win' every situation.

But I take it that's not really what you were asking him for at all. (Or is it?) The way you wrote your post it sounds like what you're asking for is for him to make a statement: what does he value, honor or mastery, or maybe revenge for this guy's bad behavior, but is even that worth the stain on his honor, etc.

"Making a statement" isn't a 'move' in an RPG for a lot of players.

But even if he didn't want to "make a statement" in the more public sense mightn't he still might take it personally, asking 'what do I value more? Do I value revenge or honor more here? What do I want out of this situation' But then he'd be metagaming, and we all know that's 'bad'.

So he just dismisses it when you tell him the choice is about him. Yeah, whatever. It's not even on his map. "If it's just about me, I'd cut his throat, but then I wouldn't be roleplaying right any more." If he even gets that far.

One reason that the GNS essay would be profoundly important for people to think about even if every theoretical point in it were flat-out wrong is that it confronts the question "What do you want out of your roleplaying?" head on, and treats decisions made in games as made by real people who are not characters in games. Including the decision to play your elf or Zorro wannabe 'right', consistently with some external text. But the training I've described above, which lots of people (including me) go/went through en route to becoming "good roleplayers", is a training which encourages some people not to want to answer that question in personal terms at all.

"It's not a matter of what I want; it's a matter of roleplaying right. You don't want me to just sit here and break your game by metagaming everything and playing to 'win' without any concern for genre fidelity, do you?"

False dichotomy, baby. Now there's a fallacy that pulls its weight.

Interesting questions and comments. I will say up front that my group has a very funny view of "killing" in 7th Sea. Somewhere deep in the 7th Sea books it says something like, "7th Sea is game about heroes and heroes don't kill people."

Now, there's a Reputation system in 7th Sea that I HATE because there's no mechanic attached to it other than the GM arbitrarily adds and subtracts points. I desperately want this to act like Humanity does in Sorcerer but it just doesn't. The closest it comes to working that way is the rule that at -25 reputation, you become a villain and an NPC.

But what all this amounts to is that my group frowns on any other player even contemplating killing a foe they've defeated. A few sessions back there was this really large battle and this "Black Knight" figure was taken out. One of the player's (who had the most at stake in the conflict) said, "I want to mount this guy's head on a pike." And the group gave her this kind of disapproving shocked stare. I jumped in and said, "If that's what you want to do, go ahead, there's no problem with that. You might take a reputation hit, but that's your call."

Now to D's particular situation. Eveyone in the group is used to his indecisiveness. I don't think S minded having her scene stollen because she used it to justify her character slipping away while D's character and the resulting noise distracted everyone else. I think that's why she reliquished the scene to D. I also think she got a kick out of leaving D in the lurch.

What ultimately happened is that D agreed to a face off and summarily got his ass kicked. There were multiple things at stake for Fredrico. Part of it was retrieving the El Vago mask Sebastion was using. Part of it was defending Genvieve's honor (he had pledged to protect her a few sessions back). Part of it was just facing the man ruining the Los Vagos reputation. At the end of the duel I ended up having Sebastion pin the El Vago mask to Fredrico's chest with Fredrico's own sword.

Oddly enough, one of the other PC's pocketed the El Vago mask before reviving Fredrico. So Fredrico thinks Sebastion still has it.

To answer Ralph's question: While D was making up his mind, going through notes, flipping through the book, I switched scenes. If I remember correctly I switched to S who played out Genvieve's flight from the castle. Once that was done I switched back to D who still hadn't made up his mind and I asked him what he wanted to have happen. He hemmed and hawed some more and then finally decided to face him.

I have suspected that D is very concerned with image. I don't think he's concerned with 'winning' per se, so much as 'looking good.' And here he was in a situation where there was no way to 'look like Zorro.' If he killed him he'd look evil. If he took the mask and ran (which is what I think the player REALLY wanted to do) he'd look like a coward. If he stood and fought he'd lose and look incompetent.

Now, mind you the player proceeded to use the Intimidation rules to severely mechanically hamper the opposition. I thought this was pretty cool. I mean here was this weaker swordsman, making this master swordsman quiver and hesitate. It just wasn't enough.

Jesse

Actually, there's a subtle difference between "Looking good" as a goal and "Not looking bad." It sounds as if D has that second one on the brain more than the first.

Is this a case of deprotagonization?

The game system put D in a postion where any task he undertook, especially in competition with this more compitent character, had a high chance of failure. Did D choose the character type because he was seeking the thrill of being zorro? Before I understood this fact about task-based systems, I often found myself in that situation -- dithering, looking for a way for my character to not look like a duffus.

This only changes when I either give up the desire to be a hero, or play a game with a system that doesn't put pcs in this position very often.

jburneko wrote: But what all this amounts to is that my group frowns on any other player even contemplating killing a foe they've defeated. A few sessions back there was this really large battle and this "Black Knight" figure was taken out. One of the player's (who had the most at stake in the conflict) said, "I want to mount this guy's head on a pike." And the group gave her this kind of disapproving shocked stare. I jumped in and said, "If that's what you want to do, go ahead, there's no problem with that. You might take a reputation hit, but that's your call."

jburneko wrote: I have suspected that D is very concerned with image. I don't think he's concerned with 'winning' per se, so much as 'looking good.' And here he was in a situation where there was no way to 'look like Zorro.' If he killed him he'd look evil. If he took the mask and ran (which is what I think the player REALLY wanted to do) he'd look like a coward. If he stood and fought he'd lose and look incompetent.

Alan wrote: Is this a case of deprotagonization?

The game system put D in a postion where any task he undertook, especially in competition with this more compitent character, had a high chance of failure. Did D choose the character type because he was seeking the thrill of being zorro? Before I understood this fact about task-based systems, I often found myself in that situation -- dithering, looking for a way for my character to not look like a duffus.

This only changes when I either give up the desire to be a hero, or play a game with a system that doesn't put pcs in this position very often.

Reading this made me think how I would handle a situation like that. No way would I duel honorably. He might kill me! At the same time, I wouldn't ever really want to hurt someone, much less kill them. Just the thought of actually slitting someone's throat is nauseating. I'd probably do just that, though. At least, that's what I'd say as someone playing a roleplaying game.

The latest Robert Redford movie (The Clearing?) has a scene where the rich guy is strangling his kidnapper on the forest floor. He stops moving, and the kidnappee turns away and leans against a tree, aghast at what he's gone. The kidnapper revives and takes the man under control again. He later blinds him with a flashlight and shoots him several times in the chest, killing him. It's a pretty amazing contrast. The first guy is justified in defending his life, and yet, he is horrified at the act and unable to follow through. The second guy uses the trek to screw up his courage, blinds the guy so he won't have to look in his eyes and uses the gun to kill decisively from a distance.

Who knows what was going through D's head. I probably would have asked him qualifying questions: what kinds of things are you trying to decide? Why not just kill him? What is there to gain from having a duel? Is there another option that you see? If you could be assured that things would go the way you planned, what would you do?

jburneko wrote: If he took the mask and ran (which is what I think the player REALLY wanted to do) he'd look like a coward. If he stood and fought he'd lose and look incompetent.

Now, mind you the player proceeded to use the Intimidation rules to severely mechanically hamper the opposition. I thought this was pretty cool. I mean here was this weaker swordsman, making this master swordsman quiver and hesitate. It just wasn't enough.

Jesse

Jesus, I'm seeing true simulationism. Rather than deciding what his character would do in that situation, and essentially making a narrativist address of premise, he was gunning for perfect simulationism. Man, usually that's the point where people will go nar, but refute they were doing anything but sim. This guy seems to be sticking to his sim guns though.

Taking responsibility for your character, when the system, the situation, and the unstated but all-too-present dictates of your group can indeed be hard.

My read on it is that he was going so hard core sim because he didn't feel he had the ability, in the group and with the system, to make the Nar choice. And so he needed the backing of the system to give him the authority to do it.

Now, when the GM told him he could do what he wanted he may have heard it, but there is often a reluctance among players to do something that the GMs said is okay that the group doesn't like or want. It's a similar reaction to what you get with elementary school kids and teachers pets -- you know the teacher/GM will back you, but that it will cost you standing with the other students/group.

So in this situation, much as I think the GM was trying hard, I don't think the player had the support he needed to make the decision he wanted. Maybe it's a bit weak on his part, but its also something common and rather normal in group situations. It's also something that won't get fixed without the player changing the way he relates to the group, or the group stopping its passive-agressive judgementality.

(As a semi-sim note, it's worth noting that in any number of movies, novels, and comics Zoro has, in situations much like that, laughed, tagged the sucker, and then run away until later. And yet for some reason in RPGs this gets labeled as cowardly....)

Brand_Robins wrote: My read on it is that he was going so hard core sim because he didn't feel he had the ability, in the group and with the system, to make the Nar choice. And so he needed the backing of the system to give him the authority to do it.

Brand_Robins wrote: So in this situation, much as I think the GM was trying hard, I don't think the player had the support he needed to make the decision he wanted. Maybe it's a bit weak on his part, but its also something common and rather normal in group situations. It's also something that won't get fixed without the player changing the way he relates to the group, or the group stopping its passive-agressive judgementality.

It seems that the guy was definitely between a rock and a hard place in that situation. He was placed in a situation where he had two choices:

1.) Kill the villian and be marked a murderer by his own group.

2.) Duel the villian, who was almost certain to beat him.

On top of this, he was playing a character that was "Zorro". I don't know this fella, but I had run into players that will create a character that is an analogue of someone in a book or movie, and fully expects the character to perform exactly like in that work of fiction. In this case, he was playing a character that:

a.) Doesn't murder.

b.) Never loses.

So what does the player do? He falls back on the books to determine what choice the character would make, or perhaps find some option c. At the very least, thumbing through the books provided him with time to think.

However, this makes for some poor roleplaying. It's unfair to the other players that have to wait for him to pretend that the book is making the decision for him.

I'm going to echo some points made.

There are a lot of indecisive players who may see roleplaying as a task rather than as a chance to be creative and have some fun (or whatever. i don't really know).

As far as I can see, this is a no-win scenerio. In the sim. sense he decided that it would be right to dual him and get his butt pwnded. There really wasn't any other option. It's a pretty clear-cut case of deprotaonization.

May the wind be always at your back,
-Pyron

Brand_Robins wrote: .. Zoro has, in situations much like that, laughed, tagged the sucker, and then run away until later. And yet for some reason in RPGs this gets labeled as cowardly ..

I should have posted a way to resolve the problem.

A large part of this type of problem, as you stated, is from expectations (or presumed expectations) on the character's, and therefore player's, actions. Take away that, and he has the freedom to slit his throat, hit him over the head, steal his boots and run, or whatever.

Oftentimes players confuse sim. (or gamism or narrativism) with having only one correct option, as if gaming is a complicated multiple-choice test or something.

Talking with your players about allowing them more options is a good idea. I've always found that GM's implication on how to play to be vastly important. The problem is that most player, in my experience, have some one-way-to-play complex and it's hard to burst.

May the wind be always at your back,
-Pyron

It sounds a lot like I what I was really trying to say in the RoboPlayer thread however many moons back.

That is, the method of roleplaying by working out a deterministic "what my guy does next" program, then just running it over and over - not really making any free decisions at all, but appearing to do so as the result of variables shift in the program. In this case, the program might have been, "do what Zorro would have done in this situation". Probably it wasn't exactly that, probably it was something more based on the dynamic of the RPG group and the setting and the GM's behaviour and the vagaries of the system and all of that.

And what happened here was that the program crashed - it failed to return a result for that situation, and so of course the player desperately ran off to find out what should be in the program at that point.

The typical cause of this is that the player feels that their OOC thoughts should play absolutely no part in their play of their character. They can't dare to invoke their own brain's decision-making, or free will, while roleplaying because that would be acting as themselves, not their character. Instead, they have to cobble together the nearest approximation they can get of their character's decision-making process and run that again and again.

So the answer to the title question would be, "Why should I be responsible for my character? I'm just working out what he'd do, if he's not responsible that's just how it's worked out."

hyphz wrote: The typical cause of this is that the player feels that their OOC thoughts should play absolutely no part in their play of their character. They can't dare to invoke their own brain's decision-making, or free will, while roleplaying because that would be acting as themselves, not their character. Instead, they have to cobble together the nearest approximation they can get of their character's decision-making process and run that again and again.

John -

Hyphz is speaking a bit hyperbolically, but what he's talking about is real. There are at least some role-players - I've played with several - who get totally stuck in 'what is the right thing for my character to do here' where
'my character' is defined not just by me but by setting materials, GM secretrs, etc. that I have only partial mastery of, and on which I depend on books and/or the GM for information. So that someone else is assigned, in my own mind, credibility over how my character would act in certain cases.

Technically that player is making a choice to assign credibility to their character to something outside them, sure, but they would tend to talk about it more the way hyphz does. And this is problematized because in order to establish e.g. shared setting or color there are some things 'about our character' that we give up sole credibility to decide from the get-go, always.

I think the 'option paralysis' you talk about also exists though. I wonder if you're trying to say the phenomenon that hyphz is talking about, which relates to some preconceived notions about 'roleplaying right' and the internal discipline some people put on themselves to meet them, is actually the same thing as what you're talking about, or if you think they're different. I tend to think they're different because you cite being unsure about consequences as the important point, as opposed to being unsure about what the right thing to do in that situation is.

John Kim wrote: Your claim here is that in-character decisions don't use the player's brain?!? What, they use the character's brain and the player just watches? That makes no sense. Following what your character does is using your brain.

The problem is generally that they are stuck with many options which all seem arbitrary, but they feel will carry weight that they don't yet understand. Taking out the character just makes it more arbitrary, and if anything increases pressure (since you're saying that you will judge them as a person for the decision they make).

Wow, this has been a lively discussion.

I want to address the issue of deprotagonization. I don't think that was the case here. I, the GM, didn't force this situation on the player. And I didn't put any limits on what the player could decide for his character. I admit that my group has the no-kill knee jerk thing going on but I *try* to discourage that. But overall whatever, he would have done, I was willing to roll with. As far as I can tell deprotagnoization has NOTHING to do with "having good choices." All the choices may have been bad, but the choice was still fully the player's.

Overall, I think hyphz has hit the nail on the head. I also think we have very bad verbiage for discussing that phenomenon. You can have two different players say, "Well, the character would do this..." and one be talking about the sort of deterministic play that hyphz is talking about and the other mean, "...in the way I have chosen and concieve the character to be."

In fact, I think player S is very much like this. She talks about her character being external to herself MORE than any other player in my group. She says things like, "I'm sorry but this is what Genvieve would do..." when her action is about to screw over another player or "Oh, god, this is going to be bad but Genvieve must do this..." when her action is about to screw over herself. But from everything else S does, I can tell that all of these statements carry an implicit, "...as I have concieved of her" or "...as I feel the need to express her at this time." Genvieve feels external because she is a disected, compartmentalized component of S's authorial expression.

On the other hand D is using things EXTERNAL to himself as the measure for his character in exactly the manner hyphz describes. And since D is NOT that experienced of a roleplayer I'm trying to figure out where this need to shield his character decisions with external standards of expected behavior comes from. Hyphz offers some good possibilities.

Jesse

We have better verbiage, you're just not using it because of your narrativism bias. The verbiage is that the player was playing in excellent sim style, trying to find out the most in-genre thing for a character to do in this case. Did someone suggest the "Zorro" option?

Morover, did the player ever make a decision? I think it's interesting that you never do say just what the outcome was. Did the session end with him still looking?

If the player had been playing narrativism and was saying, "Damn, Jesse, but this is one sticky situation that we've gotten my character into. I really want to think about what would be the coolest thing that the character could do here in terms of the issues." Then you'd have forgiven, nay, even applauded the delay by the player.

But it's sim, and so you see that as "irresponsible." Once again GNS is found to be perfectly descriptive in discovering standard incoherence.

Ohh, and is it the players fault that he's got a different CA?

I admit that my group has the no-kill knee jerk thing going on but I *try* to discourage that.

But what I was saying is that they feel a character's decisions shouldn't be made using free will. Because then it would be the player's free will, not the character's. The character's behaviour should be deterministic, a function of the character's role, the setting, the social contract and dynamic, the situation and the game system.

Hello Mike,

A few posts back I did describe what happened. He went for the duel and lost after putting everything he had in into a intimidation attempt which a) succeeded b) robs the opposition of dice for the durration of the scene.

Yup, the simy bent of the system is often a hinderence but there are things I've done to substantially drift the system (and the setting for that matter) to suit my purposes. We've had extensive discussion where we've all agreed that any CA can be realized despite the system. It's just a matter of whether you're standing on a concrete foundation or on rickity stilts hanging over a cliff. I mostly run 7th Sea because I have such a high imaginative commitment to it from my players.

But I do want to point out that if this were *just* a preference thing I wouldn't be bringing it up. In my Tuesday group I have a player with a fairly developed Step On Up CA. It's clear that what he does is what's fun to him and any disconnect between him and myself is fairly opened and acknowledged, at least on my end. You don't see me posting questions about him because I know what's going on there.

If D were lovingly pouring over all the sourcebooks, taking copious notes, enthusiastically citing source material, or otherwise taking pleasure in his perfect expression of whatever external standard he was holding himself to then I would say, yes, this is preference clash. I would also expect some attempt to hold others or at least acknowledge others when they meet his expectations. None of this happens.

Instead, it seems to me, that D is hiding from something. That there's an underlying, assumption about roleplaying, rather than a developed preference behind the behavior. I get the adherence to Actor Stance assumption, I've dealt with that for years. But to actually go actively searching for justification and even decision making algorithms, mid-game, is mind boggling to me. I'm looking for the underlying source of fear.

Of course, it may turn out that source of fear is my and at least a few other of my players' commitment to conflict expression and resolution and all he wants is to be a swashbuckler for day.

Jesse

Now I do think that hyphz is onto something, as I have often seen the kind of behavior he talks about (and often in online RPGs, making me wonder how similar our experiences are), and I think it was likely influential in this situation. However, let’s take these things that you told us about the game:

1.

For those of you unfamiliar with the setting this bascially means that Fredrico is Zorro, if Zorro was an organization rather than just one man.

Somewhere deep in the 7th Sea books it says something like, "7th Sea is game about heroes and heroes don't kill people." … But what all this amounts to is that my group frowns on any other player even contemplating killing a foe they've defeated… the group gave her this kind of disapproving shocked stare.

I don't think he's concerned with 'winning' per se, so much as 'looking good.' And here he was in a situation where there was no way to 'look like Zorro.' If he killed him he'd look evil. If he took the mask and ran (which is what I think the player REALLY wanted to do) he'd look like a coward. If he stood and fought he'd lose and look incompetent.

I jumped in and said, "If that's what you want to do, go ahead, there's no problem with that. You might take a reputation hit, but that's your call."

Instead, it seems to me, that D is hiding from something. That there's an underlying, assumption about roleplaying, rather than a developed preference behind the behavior.... I'm looking for the underlying source of fear... Of course, it may turn out that source of fear is my and at least a few other of my players' commitment to conflict expression and resolution and all he wants is to be a swashbuckler for day.

Is this, or is this not, a common behavior for this player? If it's common, then it's a sim CA on his part. If it's not common, it's just indulging in a bit of "atomic sim" when it occurs to do this.

You don't see people diving into books looking for the "right" thing to do in a particular case, and looking for algorhithms mid-game? Then you've lead a very sheltered RPG existence. It's as common as snow. Just because you live in California and have never seen it doesn't mean it's not a completely normal behavior.

Put another way, I've done this. I've done this playing in what would otherwise be games that would be characterized as narrativism. Call me an incoherent ninny, but I do stuff like this all the time.

Brand does, too. He's the guy who I "saw" rolling his own traits against each other in Hero Quest to see what his character would do. Totally unsupported by the rules. Very sim feeling, as the player is actually abdicating their ability to make a statement with the moment, instead trusting to the game to do it.

And completely typical (like Itse's example).

What you'd have to prove to me is that the player is not having fun by doing what he's doing. That's the only way that I'd buy that his acts were intrinsically dysfunctional, and not just his preference on how to play. Can you actually say that he's shooting himself in the foot? Or is it just that he doesn't share your CA during these moments?

Mike

Uhoh, I think I'm stepping into a minefield here, but I don't think this is a GNS issue.

First of all, I'm not clear on the use of Simulationism really. The classic behaviour of Zorro is narrativist, not simulationist. The focus of the movies and stories is to enable Zorro to do cool stuff, not to simulate what the world really would be like if Zorro existed. To argue that trying to simulate Zorro in an RPG renders the RPG simulationist because you're trying to simulate something, even if that something is narrativist, seems rather uncomfortable.

The second problem is that GNS defines "creative agenda", yet what this player was clearly trying to do was to avoid creating anything, wanting to instead act on something already existing in his character. And it wasn't a case of rolling traits against each other to see which one's dominant; he was looking for a specific action for his character in the book, based on a very wide-ranging group membership (being an El Vago).

One possibility is that they generally don't want to be creative with the character, and just want to get the coolness value of doing "what that character always does". I've seen that online too, but it's a lengthy example and off-topic.

Hey hyphz,

I appreciate the backup but Mike's right. If what was going through his mind was, "Hey, I swore to protect this girls honor and now I'm at the honor duel portion of the story and we'll according to my understanding of how a Zorro like story flows I'm supposed to win this but I can't, something's wrong." Panic. Panic. Panic. Then he's being simulationist. And the panic is coming from the fact that the group has placed him in a new conflict situation that doesn't match his story flow expectations. CA clash.

I've thought about it and I grant this is a possibility.

I was, however, deliberately trying to keep this GNS neutral because I think one can have ownership and responsibility for the their character regardless of CA. If you're a simulationist and you're holding up your character to some pre-play set of expectations and standards, that's fine, but acknowledge that that is the case. Admit that the limitations you've placed are your own and that the choices you make are still wholely YOURS. It seemed to me as if D was denying that he had a choice in the matter. In fact he was looking for proof that he had no choice in the matter.

Jesse

jburneko wrote: I appreciate the backup but Mike's right. If what was going through his mind was, "Hey, I swore to protect this girls honor and now I'm at the honor duel portion of the story and we'll according to my understanding of how a Zorro like story flows I'm supposed to win this but I can't, something's wrong." Panic. Panic. Panic. Then he's being simulationist.

I was, however, deliberately trying to keep this GNS neutral because I think one can have ownership and responsibility for the their character regardless of CA. If you're a simulationist and you're holding up your character to some pre-play set of expectations and standards, that's fine, but acknowledge that that is the case. Admit that the limitations you've placed are your own and that the choices you make are still wholely YOURS. It seemed to me as if D was denying that he had a choice in the matter. In fact he was looking for proof that he had no choice in the matter.

Hyphz, simulationism is looking for the internal cause, the in-game rationale for what the character will do. Especially in situations where the action may produce theme. Narrativism is basing the decision on what happens on the player's choice of what would be cool to see happen.

Yes, they're both player decisions. But to the extent that the player abdicated his chance to put his own notions of what's the statement that he'd like to make in favor of trying to determine what the game thinks should happen, well that's about as practical a definition of the line between the two modes as I can imagine.

Sim isn't "anti-story" it's just not the player making story. It's the player letting the system or in-game rationales make story for him. (I shouldn't have to mention this, but that doesn't mean that narrativism means that the chosen action doesn't seem to come from internal causes, they do. That's just not what the player is looking to primarily to make the decision).

It's the old Samurai example. The PC is in a situation where he has an incentive to do something dishonorable - does the player look to the rules, to see what to do, note his character has a code of honor, and choose to do the honorable thing? Or does he look to what he thinks would be the best statement to make in terms of theme, select the honorable rout, and then use the code of honor if somebody wants in-game justification?

Same situation, same result, different mode of play.

Anyhow, this sounds precisely like what the player was going through to me. It seems that Jesse's player was looking for what the game told him was the right thing to do. Jesse, what's "right" to do for a simulationist is precisely what's right by the system and/or in-game causality. To the extent that the player is unaware of these things, the sim player can't make an appropriate decision. He's not been empowered to do so.

Sim players know that they have choice in what they do, but they also believe that they have to select from the limited set of choices that are somehow supported by something external to themselves. For them to make a decision that's based on what they think alone is to destroy sim play.

In any case, again, was this, or was this not, an extreme example? Does he do it all the time? Or was it just a case of the player having analysis paralysis? Again, the same thing happens to narrativism players constantly. Quite often I present bangs, and players hem and haw, trying to figure out just what it is that they do feel is the best theme to present. Perhaps the question never occured to them before, and they really have to think about it. The same sort of paralysis sets in.

Is it not taking responsibility? No, it's precisely the opposite. It's allowing the imperative of the mode of play to force you to be overly cautious in making the decision in order that you feel that you've done it correctly.

Was the player taking too much time with the decision? Well, possibly. Possibly the decision in question wasn't so important that the research they did was more effort than the result was worth. I know I've made that mistake before. Hemming and hawing about a close decision hoping that something decisive would make up my mind, and taking far too much time with a decision because of it.

But it's not an abdication of responsibility. Rather, if anything, it's an overconcern with something in this case. The irresponsible player would say, "I kill him" without considering the ramifications at all.

Mike

Hyphz,

I've taken the whole Simulationism Story vs. Narrativism Story to PM. I don't want that discussing cluttering this one.

Mike,

Yes, the player does this a lot. And maybe you're right. It's just there's all these times where he's like going on about what he'd like to do but then whining about how he can't because of x precieved restriction on his character. And yes, at the table it looks all angsty and painful. But maybe it's just a CA clash and in a situation where the GM and other players were actually putting him in situations that met his expectations it wouldn't be painful and angsty.

Jesse

Well this sounds like a somewhat different phenomenon your describing here. In these cases does he take long times to look up the reason why he can't do what he wants to do? Or are these decisions made quickly.

The original example, seems like he doesn't have an idea of what the character would do, and is looking for one. Was that not what you were trying to convey? You didn't mention that he had said in that case that he wanted to do any particular action - just that he went a looking for one.


You know, there's an old solution to this problem that I think is often used abusively, but might be used proactively here. When a situation arises, tell the player that he has not much longer than the character has to make his decision. Count to ten out loud, and if you get to ten, say that the character has hesitated, and done nothing (with whatever appropriate repercussions). The player may hate this, but it might shake things up enough that you discover some of the root causes for what's going on. Or it might "fix" the player. Once he sees everyone accepting his rapidly made descisions, and even enjoying them, he'll change.

Looking back at your observation that the player wants to "look good" I have another (crackpot) hypothesis. Could it be that you're giving dilemmas, and the player doesn't want to lose either side of the dilemma? Could it be a latent gamism gene going into effect, and getting the player to find out a way not to lose either side of the stakes that he has to chose between?

For instance, in the example, the optimum result would be for the player not to kill the NPC, but also not to let him get away. But there seems to be no way out as you've presented it. Either the player has to take the character's taunts, and look cowardly, or he has to fight, and loose, or kill the character in cold blood. None of his options are "win" options. None are what he sees as a "Zorro who always wins" option (never mind that this is not the Zorro from the movies). So he searches for the solution to the puzzle. In the end going with the one option that means that he at least has a small chance of coming out with his optimal solution.

Could it be that the options that he's lamenting not having are ones that allow him to win?

Mike

Is it just me, or does anyone else see the "Princess Bride" option? Strike him on the head with the pommel of your sword, make some witty comment (I would as soon destroy a priceless work of art as kill you) take the mask, and escape away to fight another day.

I know that this obviously doesn't help the player, but it's an option; Think outside the box. When you hold the upper hand, you shouldn't ever have to choose a losing option unless you want to.

from Wolfen:

Is it just me, or does anyone else see the "Princess Bride" option? Strike him on the head with the pommel of your sword, make some witty comment (I would as soon destroy a priceless work of art as kill you) take the mask, and escape away to fight another day.

komradebob wrote: This strikes me as the best possible option for him that stays true to genre simulation. Would your system ( I'm not familiar with the mechanics you were using) have supported this option?

It sounded like a simple Gamist goal vs Simulationist goal to me. The player's Gamist goal was to win by defeating the NPC, his Simulationist goal was to play his PC 'right'. He felt the two goals were in conflict, which caused him to freeze up as he desperately sought an 'out'. Eventually he went with Sim.

I've seen similar deer-in-headlights from a player of a flamboyant swashbuckler PC who IRL was a walking cringe. The disconnect between the way he envisaged the character and his own inclinations was just too big. By contrast a player more comfortable with themself and the game would have settled quickly on one or the other - either 'win' by acting disnourably - thus 're-imagining' the PC as a ruthless pragmatist - or else follow through and play the man who knows he cannot win but yet does the right - honourable - thing. Personally I love playing these kinds of scenes and I don't feel that if my heroic swordsman PC isn't the best there is, that I'm somehow deprotagonised. As long as _I_ make the decision, I'm the protagonist. And the decision to face certain defeat & likely death _for honour_ would be the mark of a true Castilian...

Edit: I guess if that's the coolest option it's the Nar option, eh? :)

That's a fascinating observation. The player could be stuck trying to determine the choice that will make his play appear coherent with two or three modes (I'm guessing all three, actually). Given that in certain circumstances, this is impossible - or so the theory tells us - this could just be a case where he couldn't find that solution despite looking a lot for it, and was relegated eventually to taking an action that displayed a singular mode.

Basically the player has set the bar high for each of the modes in question, and the possible actions that are available/plausible all go below one of the bars. So they all seem unsatisfactory.

Hmmm. I bet this is a real phenomenon. And I'll bet it's not too rare, either. Might be a good idea for a new thread.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: That's a fascinating observation. The player could be stuck trying to determine the choice that will make his play appear coherent with two or three modes (I'm guessing all three, actually). Given that in certain circumstances, this is impossible - or so the theory tells us - this could just be a case where he couldn't find that solution despite looking a lot for it, and was relegated eventually to taking an action that displayed a singular mode.

Mike Holmes wrote: That's a fascinating observation. The player could be stuck trying to determine the choice that will make his play appear coherent with two or three modes (I'm guessing all three, actually).

I agree that the idea of trying to satisfy conflicting CAs simultaneously is an interesting one worthy of another thread. It might even be what's going on here, as the description of the cringing real world player vs. the swashbuckler image strikes a note of truth to me with regard to this specific player.

After even more thought I did want to add one particular detail. It occured to me that this player is very very good at posturing. He is very very fond of presenting descriptions of his character as if they were somehow resolutions to a conflict or problem.

There was no hesitancy as he described his character skulking up to the character in the dark and emerging from the shadows to place his sword tip at his throat. He then beamed at me with this kind of "ta-da" look on his face as if to somehow suggest that the scene was now over and everything was resolved. I mean even if I'd had the NPC throw up his arms and surrender in defeat there would still be the question of what to do with him.

I was reminded of an earlier instance where the same kind of thing happened. The player was trying to have his character rescue some Montaigne Nobles who were being held captive in a military encampment. He, again with no hesitancy, had his character announce his presence by leaping on top of the cage where the prisoners were kept and shouting something pithy at the soldiers in the encampment. And then he got all flustered and confused when an actual combat ensued.

Jesse

jburneko wrote: He, again with no hesitancy, had his character announce his presence by leaping on top of the cage where the prisoners were kept and shouting something pithy at the soldiers in the encampment. And then he got all flustered and confused when an actual combat ensued.

Brand,

Sounds, EXACTLY, like my guy! Which is why I hesitate to say this is a CA clash because there is no expectation of what should come next on the part of the player. It's all: POSE! *beam*, followed by, "Oh shit, you mean the game isn't over?!!"

Jesse

jburneko wrote: Sounds, EXACTLY, like my guy! Which is why I hesitate to say this is a CA clash because there is no expectation of what should come next on the part of the player. It's all: POSE! *beam*, followed by, "Oh shit, you mean the game isn't over?!!"

Those last points make me sympathize a little with your guy. For him, it seems, the contest was to jump in and get the sword to the guy's throat. I have a feeling that he might have expected that part to be more difficult than perhaps it was and might well have been prepared for his PC to fail if it led in a new direction.

But to achieve what he set out to do so quickly and have another PC run away, well perhaps to him that seemed like turning up to a football match, the other team haven't shown up and there's a note from his own teammates (already gone) asking him to collect the cup while he's there. Yawn.

What do you do with a defeated enemy? If this is a defining moment for his character, he might well prefer to have more time to think about it. He might well want to use dice to decide, as has been suggested, or to have the GM decide for him. If he isn't enjoying making that decision, well it's supposed to be fun, why force him to decide? Why not cut from that scene to another, letting him know that what he decided is going to crop up later. You say that you have opted for one way or the other, but he is still allowed to change that when it does come up.

Then it does come up and in fact you can still leave it open. Say he hears that he is "Wanted" for the murder of this guy (or better still some complete innocent is). He could have the dilemma of owning up or not to something for which someone else is going to be executed (whether he did it or no). He could have left the scene but someone else did the dirty. The guy could in fact still be alive. To me, this situation (of course I'll not have read it exactly right for your specific game, so apologies for that) can be left to be decided at a critical moment, or better still to remain a mystery forever.

Those options of what to do with the guy seem to me just to be closing doors about who his character is, not necessarily opening any new ones up. This sort of decision is in a way postponed chargen (as actually most play should be to some degree). When you're making your character, you might want a little room to think about which to choose when offered the options "Coward" and "Murderer".

Just my thoughts.
Sam.

p.s. As for his looking through the rules for the 'right' course of action, to me that was just avoiding making a decision he didn't want to have to make there and then.

Hmmm. Perhaps you should just cut at those points? That is, it seems to me that, for the players described, the interesting parts of the scenes are done at this point. What does he do with the guy? Does it really matter? We cut to the next scene, and leave the NPCs fate undetermined. We know the PC got the better of him and that's all that matters.

Think in terms of movies. Often this sort of thing happens. If it's not about the protagonist, then it often simply isn't established what happens to NPCs who have been defeated.

What the player wants, apparently, is a new situation to be thrust into so he can have another opportunity to strike yet another cool pose. This is what play is "about" for this player. Now, whether or not this'll work with the agenda of the rest of the group, I can't say. But if you want the player to be engaged with some other part of play, then you're going to have to "teach" them what's fun about it like you instruct any other player - mainly, IMO, by using a system that supports that sort of play.

Mike

This is a completely facinating idea. Have we identified a sub-type of The Dream? Portrait Play, "I don't know how this turns out or even what I'm trying to accomplish but I know what I look like doing it."

Might be time for a new thread.

Jesse

Portrait play - interesting idea, I certainly have images in my head of favourite PCs that I would love to enact in play, yet have no real idea of what would satisfactorily follows that portrait, and have a sneaking suspicion that trying to actually enact that fantasy - eg leading the cavalry charge on my white horse against the massed ranks of the foe - wouldn't be nearly as satisfactory in actuality as in my head.

jburneko wrote: This is a completely facinating idea. Have we identified a sub-type of The Dream? Portrait Play, "I don't know how this turns out or even what I'm trying to accomplish but I know what I look like doing it."

Might be time for a new thread.