I'm not sure if this relates to GNS besides in the most peripheral way. I was discussing with someone role-playing and they said something that I found odd.

It was about their character being fundamentally a "tool". The playing of the character was only use to facilitate the story--in other words what happenned to the character didn't matter to them in anyway except as it impacted the nature of the story, because it was just a device for the story itself.

Now this to me seems a narrtivist version of an idea I see applied to more gamist (mechanics oriented) player types who see their PC as a "playing peice". To me it's just different words applied to saying "I'm the shoe" in Monopoly.

Fundamentally it strikes me as an odd view--because I at least have a sympathetic connection to my characters--I know they are fictions, but they are fictions whose ends I care about. In much the same way I identify with the protagonist of a book or television show I like, and "root" for them.


Anyone else feel the same? PC's as peices? PC's as sympathy creating protagonists?

Personally, I can't help but have a sympathetic connection to a character I have created. I see where the person you mention is coming from though. In a sense, I approach the same idea from a different perspective. While I have sympathy for my character I also have respect for that character as a fictional entity that is the product of my own creative energy (wow, that sounds like New Age touchy feely shite). Because of that, I don't get defensive or try to protect the character from any abuse he might suffer during the unfolding of a story. I have enough respect for my characters to let them succeed or fail in thier own individual way according to the flow of the story.

I'm not sure what GNS terms would most resemble my play style though. Maybe I'm a Sympathetic Character Simulationist that enjoys narrative games for the freedom of character expression they allow. Hmm, I'll have to think about that.

Hi folks,

Welcome to the Forge!

Sidhain, I agree with you. I think you are re-stating my point that Gamist and Narrativist play both often include an overt player agenda, when making decisions about the character. My name for that is Author Stance, and I've stated many times that it's common in Gamist and Narrativist play.

The most extreme Author Stance, in which the player doesn't bother to justify the character's actions in in-game terms, is called Pawn Stance. That is, Bartholemew the PC goes left because Bob the player wants him to, for whatever reason, and we just don't bother with whatever Bartholemew may feel, know, or want (fictionally speaking).

My big conceptual point for this post is: Pawn Stance, like any other Stance, does not define a given goal/mode of play (G, N, or S) - it is a way to approach one of those goals. You're right in seeing that it's at least consistent with Narrativist play, but that's only because it's a form of Author Stance.

Pawn Stance is one of those interesting role-playing phenomena which generates a "love it or hate it" reaction. For instance, like you and Thickenergy (based on your posts), I don't especially like to play with someone who uses a lot of it. In fact, I'd say that Thickenergy's post is a beautiful example of the common preference for "basic" Author Stance, without taking it to the extreme of Pawn.

Best,
Ron