at "push come to shove" time, it's more important that the decision be appropriate within the environment than it is for the decision to create a good story (or game). In fact, if a decision is consistent with the environment, and previous decisions - if it seems almost inevitably 'correct' (to steal Jack's line - "Seems like fate", indeed) - Sim-folk (as I can be, sometimes) will get pure joy from making that decision "real" via the game no matter the story/competitive/ANYTHING payoff it might involve.

There is an art to making Sim-decisions in this fashion. It is a creative act. It's just not a creative act primarily oriented around Nar Premise.

Hi Laurel,

It may be the hasty circumstances under which you wrote, but I'm not really able to parse a question or issue from your post.

The main issue seems to be the Actor Stance and Narrativism thing. I suggest that all role-playing is composed of multiple, shifting stances, and therefore it would be perfectly OK to see someone play in a Narrativist fashion with a personal profile that favored Actor stance. (I have a hard time imagining someone relying solely on Actor stance and still playing in a Narrativist fashion, but then again, I have a hard time imagining anyone playing one-stance-only at all, ever.)

For instance, I tend to play in Author stance most of the time, and then switch into Actor stance, very intensely, during confrontational or "in the clutch" situations. Other, equally Narrativist-tending players I know tend to do exactly the opposite.

To take it to game design, Mike Sullivan's The Framework relies on Author and Director stance for players whose characters are not central protagonists in the scene, and Actor stance for players whose characters are; whereas The Pool enforces Director stance upon those players whose characters are currently central.

In other words, don't get too hung up about 1:1 stance correspondence to GNS. A given expression of a person's (for instance) N goals is composed of many stances over time, many rules interpretations, many types of communication with his or her fellow humans, and more.

Here's another point: a feeling of being "into" one's character is not necessarily Actor stance. That feeling is nothing more than Exploration of Character, composed of understanding the character and being committed to his or her continued expression during play. Stances are an entirely different issue, although I suggest that stance-switching becomes easier and more intuitive (hence less self-noticeable) when Exploration is firing especially well.

I'm afraid I'm not able to find a question or point in the Gamism portion of your post, unless it concerns the idea that you get a lot of satisfaction out of it - which strikes me as neat, fine, and non-controversial.

Best,
Ron

Yeah, re-reading that its definately fuzzy writing and I don't think this is much better yet. Its not something for a debate as much as discussion to see if my experiences are similar to anyone else's.

1) Even if stances and GNS don't have a 1-on-1 relationship, once I'm in Actor stance, I tend to keep it unless something external to "the game reality" (with its heavy influence on Sim-prioritization) changes. I don't consciously think about being in Actor stance while I'm there and don't consciously think about dropping it. I drop Actor Stance because there's been some disruption of the environment that causes me to focus my attention to Premise or other factors.

When a game isn't "functionally Sim" and/or a play group is using clearly involved in Narrative or Gamist play, only then do I switch to primary Author mode and take Premise or Strategy as a priority- whichever suits the instance of play. I simply don't prioritize Premise or Strategy in Actor stance. Ever. If Premise is my Priority in an instance of play, I was in Author or Director stance before that instance of play reached a point where goals became relevant.

Through the decision process Gordon spoke of... "the decision be appropriate within the environment.....a decision is consistent with the environment, and previous decisions - if it seems almost inevitably 'correct'..... (to steal Jack's line - "Seems like fate".....will get pure joy from making that decision "real" via the game".... a good story (including one that engages the Premise) might emerge through my Sim RPing as a secondary, non-priority effect that nevertheless can be as 'good' as a story created if Premise had been my driving motivation. The difference is simply in my motivation, stancing, and some observable behaviors... the observable "quality" of story or role-playing doesn't differ.

I feel extremely creative and empowered imagineably in either of my two primary table-top modalities, but the reasons why I feel creative relate specifically to actual GNS goals... its the fufillment of these goals that leads to the satisfaction. (Yes, this probably seems like umm.. duh.. to some people, but its an actual revelation to me)

I've always thought of myself as a Narrative-oriented player because I place such a high value on story and Premise. But I realize through the conversations over the last few days that when I'm in an Actor stance, I'm so involved with making decisions consistent with the environment and with my character's motivations that I cannot prioritize the game Premise unless I first get switched into an Author stance. Sim decisions simply come "naturally" or "seamlessly" to me in an Actor stance because both Sim-style of play and Actor stance focus on the "reality of the game world" as opposed to me manipulating the game world for personal or Premise benefit.

Laurel wrote: . . . when I'm in an Actor stance, I'm so involved with making decisions consistent with the environment and with my character's motivations that I cannot prioritize the game Premise unless I first get switched into an Author stance. Sim decisions simply come "naturally" or "seamlessly" to me in an Actor stance because both Sim-style of play and Actor stance focus on the "reality of the game world" as opposed to me manipulating the game world for personal or Premise benefit.