Hello,

Allright, so I've had three gaming sessions since the new year. Character Creation + First Session of Play for my Eden Falls game using The Pool and a Character Creation session for a Sorcerer game set in an asylum. One of the players is a good friend of mine who has been gaming with me since Jr. High but has not been playing with me since I started slanting my games more and more towards Narrativism.

Now, I thought he'd take to Narrativism very well because he was always the kind of player who would almost blatently ignore the obvious "GM story" to go try and fulfill some personal character agenda. But he's had a very odd reaction.

After the first play session of Eden Falls he said something along the lines of, "I feel like my characters in a story rather than a campaign." He said that he felt pressure, "to do dramatic stuff and come to some kind of rapid resolution." He said that he prefered his characters to be slow boil characters and to let them develop very slowly over a long period of time.

Now I put this down to having a different taste in format for our fiction. My favorite formats are short stories, plays, novellas and 6 to 8 issue graphic novels. He's the kind of guy that likes multi-season, 24 episode serial TV dramas and 1000+ page novels and novels that are part of a series. So I told him that while yes, his character IS part of a story and that he should look for some kind of resolution relative to the current Situation at hand that he shouldn't feel like this was some total be-all-end-all resolution for the character in total. That if he wanted to look at this like the first story arc of a series he was free to do that.

Then after the Sorcerer Character creation he said something else to me. He said, "I feel an incredible pressure to perform. I feel less like I'm there for my own enjoyment and more like I'm there to please the group." I told him I thought that was odd because it seems to me that this style of gaming makes it all about your own enjoyment because now things are focused on your ideas, passions and issues that you bring to the table. To which he replied, "Yes, but I feel like that's constantly being judged against the group's standards."

So, I'm not sure what to make of all this. Before he was always a very proactive player, always building very colorful characters that wanted to achieve things and did things in their own way. I thought this would be an opportunity for his creativity to shine. Is this some kind of expression of "stage fright" now that I've yanked away the safety net, of the "GM's story" to fall back on? I would like to point out that both of his character concepts for both games are VERY VERY good and par for the course for him. Nothing about the way his characters are built has changed, just his verbal attitude toward the game.

Has anyone had a similar experience? Diagnosis at a distance is always tricky at best but I'm curious as to what others make of it.

Jesse

Hello,

I feel like that's constantly being judged against the group's standards.

"I feel an incredible pressure to perform. I feel less like I'm there for my own enjoyment and more like I'm there to please the group."

Actualy, Ralph, what I said was, "Good," in sort of kneejerk response kind of way. Mainly because I remembered Ron linking Gamism and Narrativism through that "social pressure" context in his essays. And yeah, I know the kind of player you're talking about. I had one of those for a while but he doesn't play with us anymore. This player isn't that extreme and I think you and Ron both nailed it when talking about "comfort zones."

He DID preface most of this with statements like, "Perhaps this will smooth itself out over time." So, I think he may adjust. I just found his initial discomfort odd, since I originally judged this to be something he'd really dig into.

Jesse

On the one hand, this strikes me as a big issue and I'd like to see some more discussion. On the other hand, the fact is it often DOES smooth itself over with time - you just want to be careful that "smooth over" isn't a synonym for "buried."

Ron, your b) seems to have gotten lost , in "The person lacks trust (a) that his input will be valued most when he cares about it most, and given some slack in the off-moments; and (b) that his " If you can remember what b is - I'm interested, 'cause a) is speaking very strongly to me about a situation that came up in play last night . . .

Gordon

jburneko wrote: Now, I thought he'd take to Narrativism very well because he was always the kind of player who would almost blatently ignore the obvious "GM story" to go try and fulfill some personal character agenda. But he's had a very odd reaction.
...
Then after the Sorcerer Character creation he said something else to me. He said, "I feel an incredible pressure to perform. I feel less like I'm there for my own enjoyment and more like I'm there to please the group." I told him I thought that was odd because it seems to me that this style of gaming makes it all about your own enjoyment because now things are focused on your ideas, passions and issues that you bring to the table. To which he replied, "Yes, but I feel like that's constantly being judged against the group's standards."

John Kim wrote: In general, I would say I don't think that constant judgement is a good thing. Consider this analogy

<snip>

I haven't tried this, but I am doubtful that it would work.

There may be better schemes of how to motivate and provide feedback. Thus, I don't discount it as a method. However, for the most part I have been very satisfied by telling the players to just relax and enjoy themselves -- the more they enjoy the game for themselves, the more other people will enjoy it as well.

Hiya,

John, I'm going to be very interested in your comments about a section of my Narrativism essay called "Ouija board role-playing."

Gordon, my (b) was ... Oh hell, let's give the whole paragraph for context:

In Narrativist play in particular, when someone feels they have to out-do the others in being a better Premise-addresser (or narrator, or Director-Stance guy, to pick some techniques that have been seen in recent N-type games, although they are only helpers in these cases), I think that the group has already veered in a dysfunctional direction. The person lacks trust (a) that his input will be valued most when he cares about it most, and given some slack in the off-moments; and (b) that his ...

A short OT anecdote.

I'm reminded how uncomfortable it was to adjust to IC dialog in a campaign I'm playing in. Being used to refering to my character in 3rd person and being allowed open moments of discussion about how he would react, I found having to say what he was speaking right then (and it be committed as action) to be daunting.

...

Maybe there's a skipped step with your player, i.e. disclosing his character's agenda. He may prefer to discover it in play. Like a Sim backdrop with an eruption of Nar.

I could see how Nar might make you feel exposed. And create stress for fear of an empty hand.

Ron Edwards wrote: I also want to call attention to being given slack in the off-moments, or in moments when the player is most comfortable just keeping things close to the vest.

. . . it is also the most important way to keep enthusiastic player input fresh and not just a wearisome chore.

Because "slack" isn't quite what I mean - what I mean is support, attention, and interest even when the player is not wowing everyone with his histrionic or what-have-you performance. "You want to play it quieter for now? That's OK too."

Matt Snyder wrote: I'm saying, however, that it seems likely to me that some people are being cowards, socially speaking, and suffer their fun as a result. And, worse, they dare not broach the subject. It'd be "bad form" and not for the "good of the group."

I think I've witnessed this over the years. Players agree to get along, be pals, don't step on toes, and so on. And, so, they become afraid to really say and do what they think (that is, what would be most fun) in a game because of social fear. But they don't actually know whether anything they might say or do crosses "the line." In fact, they have no fucking idea where the line is, and neither does anybody else.

Hi all,

As one of the players lucky enough to be in Jesse’s cool Sorcerer: House of Madness game (but not the player in question), let me add some context about the players that might be important.

There were four players and Jesse at the character creation session: myself, the player in question, Jesse’s girlfriend, and The New Girl (new to roleplaying, and a recent addition to Jesse’s “Gang”.) Before that session, I only knew Jesse and his girlfriend, and haven’t logged any real time within them outside of gaming sessions, encounters at gaming cons and bumping into them in malls in Los Angeles. (This excludes, of course, enjoyable interaction with Jesse on the net.)

So, here's some more info:

The Player in Question, from what I could understand, has aspirations to be a published writer. He touched briefly on this when asking me about how much money writers of novels can make. From what I could tell it’s still a “dream over there,” kind of thing, and has yet to hit the road in terms of, “whatever doesn’t kill you makes you stronger” territory.

Jesse’s Girlfriend is studying Lit over at USC. I actually don’t know what her ambitions are, but I don’t think I’d be going out on a limb to say producing actual writing would be one of her goals.

The New Girl is a cutie, smart, sensitive, somewhat wistful, a little directionless and sorting stuff out. She’s in the group because she met Jesse’s Girlfriend at USC – ‘cause she’s studying lit, too.

There’s me: done game writing, wrote and published five game novels. Did some screenwriting for New Line Cinema. I’m (*ahem*) the oldest one in the group, with most of the directionless in my life fading and an unexpected drive seizing me these days. When asked how much you make from novels, my answer to the Player in Question is a Gandalf-like intonement: You set your fees. Don’t ever let anyone do that for you: otherwise you’re just a leaf in the wind. Know what you want, and get it. It takes as much time to write a novel with a $5,000 advance as it does to write a novel with a $50,000 advance.”

You all should also know that when Jesse’s Girlfriend was looking for a certain name for her character out of the New Testement, the New Girl spit out the perfect name right away, attributing to a man who climbed a tree to get a view of Jesus. I didn’t remember hearing that tale, and said so. A Google search ensued, with two separate computers being used, no less, and it was found in Luke. Thus, we made stakes out of the name of a character in a story—and everyone threw themselves into the game of finding out the truth.

In short, we are a group of lit geeks.

And everyone knows it.

And there are certain dynamics in terms of professional status, age, strength of presence, possible interest in the New Girl (I won’t speak for anyone on this count, but I did already admit for my part I thought she was a cutie (she just is)) – that could all lead to a bit of Improvisational Storytelling Anxiety.

I’d like to add that as far as I could tell, everyone was very supportive of everyone else. However, having written everything I’ve written so far, as far as I know I was preening my mane when cleaning my paws (if you will). I was trying to be “helpful,” when referencing books and movies to illustrate points of Tell Tales and Kickers to the New Girl – but undoubtedly, more was going on. Whether I meant to be in competition with the only other unattached guy in the room doesn’t change the fact that maybe I was. (I really don’t know, and would have to turn to those outside of myself for observations on this. My guess, now? Probably, but I didn’t mean to.)

I never sensed negative judgment from anyone at the table toward any ideas. There was judgment, of course. Usually in the form of: “Cool.” Sometimes in the form of kibitzing along the lines of: “You might want to tweak it a bit to make it cooler.” But I really think everyone’s creative work was honored. (The Player in Question’s work really was amazing, and I think you’re all gonna get to freak when the Actual Play threads go up.)

All this is a way of saying that it might be a nature of the game that’s causing the “pressure." And Narrativism in particular.

But it might also be about the particular group of people, and the combination of qualities and dynamics as a group thereof, that is creating pressure for the player – and the game simply happens to be where that pressure is going to be played out. In particular, the fact that everyone at the table is well educated in stories, and has in one form or another ambitions to be a storyteller. And – of course – there’s the New Girl. All this, I suggest, might have something to do with a feeling of pressure to "please the group."

Whether this is a function of Narrativism, or some of the brackets of the Big Model outside of GNS, I don’t pretend to know.

Take care,

Christopher

I think I addressed something like this before in the thread about "freeform gamism..."

Yes, in N play there's a pressure to feed the drama, but it's subtly different from the anxiety people seem to be feeling here.

I'll stoke my ego a little, and point to my piece in the first Daedalus about improvisation: that a lot of people freeze when faced with the demand to improvise, due to fear of the results being dull, or "wrong."

Oddly, what's being asked for in N improvisation doesn't care about whether the response is predictable or "wrong," as "predictable" is very similar to "appropriate," and "wrong" can just mean "unexpected." All that matters, in Agenda theory terms, is "does it address premise, or assist with the address of premise?"

When the judgement on contributions moves to competing for coolness, appropriateness or whatever other quality of the contribution, we're certainly moving towards gamism, where the competition, not the premise, is the focus.

BTW, before I get another worm-can open, y'all know when I say "feed the drama" or "create dramatic conflict," it's exactly the same as adressing premise? I knew you did. But people think I say the funniest things these days...

Hi Pete,

As far as I can tell, the points you make about N play ("a pressure to feed the drama") is *exactly* what most of the people at the table felt. (Certainly for Jesse's Girlfriend and myself.) And let me say, for the record, I felt nothing but the "best" kind of anxiety at the table.

Keep in mind, all, that the notes I made above where observations of behavior spread out over a four hour character creation session. In other words, if you assume that what I wrote above *was* session, you might think, yes, there's some sort of Gladitorial Arena being created. But this was not the focus, at all of the session. We were just tossing around ideas, explaining certain concepts of Sorcerer to the new players, laughing, ordering pizza.... The stuff above was the stuff beneath. I pulled it out and shone a bright light on it specifically for this thread. A thread dealing with the character creation angle alone would show a group having a great time creating Premise rich characters -- very supportive, encouraging and enthuiastic for everyone's effort. (And expected this: I don't think Jesse would have gathered a group that didn't have this quality, and that's why I signed on.)

Let me quickly qualify that when the comments were "Cool" for approval, it wasn't about "being" cool, or about "competing for cool" -- it was about saying, "What you just said was Premise rich." Not in so many words, but that's what it was about -- the exact same way you, Pete, ask folks to recognize that "'feed the drama' or 'create dramatic conflict,' it's exactly the same as adressing premise." Because in the pre-play session all the group is doing is setting out the kindling for dramatic conflict. And you're looking to do it as a group to help tweak it before play begins so you're ready to rock.

If I gave the impression we were competing with each other to do this to the point of scoring points off each other, I apolgize. My post was simply to lay out the facts of the group's blunt human dynamics, subtle though they may have been (and I think were), which, in these parts, is often recognized as part of what happens at the table.

It was also to lay out the possibility (and I think the truth) that while different styles of play have their own anxieties (some more so than others), and every group has its dynamics, the individual can always go whatever direction he or she wishses to go with these facts.

Thus, in the group what I wrote above is true. We are lit geeks, for example. That's a fact. But anyone can respond to that anyway they want. That fact doesn't mean "we" are heading for Gamism at all. But certainly someone, without even meaning to, could head off in that direction, thinking, "I'm feeling pressure here, better win here to look good." But that would be his reaction to the circumstances, not the circumstances themselves. Another option would be simply to toss his hat in the ring and play, addressing premise, as you say, and enjoying what happens.

Take care,

Christopher

Re-reading the thread, i was mainly trying to emphasize a point John was making about "pressure to perform" freezing up ability to perform... and then, as usual, imposing my own personal obsessions.

But hey, it elicited a fantastic clarifying and expanding post from Christopher, so I'm not exactly upset at the results of my miscommunication.

And hey, with that group, all with some practical experience of creative writing, often collaboratively, I'd kind of expect the good pressure you described, rather than the bad sort I described. It's just when you're feeling the pressure, it's easy to mistake the one for the other, IME.

You know, I have an analogy. I'm a performing artist (I play the violin) and there's a certain amount of pressure when you get up in front of people to perform. Some people feel it more in certain situations than others. I have a friend who just can't make an audition. She gets so nervous that she physically can't play. I get freaked out at auditions (everyone does) but I can always still play, even if I don't play my best.

In an orchestra or chamber situation, it's completely different. Other people get nervous. I don't. As far as I'm concerned I might as well be watching TV or doing email or whatever. I feel zero pressure other than the desire to perform to my fullest for the sake of the art itself.

Then there's solo playing where I feel juiced, but not (usually) terrified like at an audition.

This "juice" I think is the good type of pressure.

Here's an example: the indie-netgaming group generates a fairly large amount of play (we've got 4 or 5 weekly games going right now; I'm in three of them) . As we play more or less constantly my respect for Chris's (Edwards) fu as a player and designer keeps growing. When I show up at the room after 5 hours of teaching, and my brain is a little fried, there's a certain amount of anxiety involved in having to invent something that measures up to his standard of "kewelness." It's not a bad thing. It's not fear of repercussion. It's an integral part of the play experience. It's "juice."

None of us (well, except for maybe a few new players) are hesitant about speaking up if something doesn't measure up to our standards of "kewelness." Of course, we continuously express social reinforcement when something *does* measure up as well.

I think partly a reason for this is that we've all played Universalis together. Uni comes out and makes this a part of the rules. You have to rabidly support and defend your own vision in Uni, or the game will get real wacky real fast. You can't be shy about speaking up if something doesn't fit. Uni is like a training system for this kind of social interraction.

The other night Dana wanted to have a "Spork" god in our sword & sorcery game, and we all basically jumped her. I think she was a little purturbed - it was her first time playing Uni. But we've all been jumped in exactly the same way at one time or another.

So, if you're not used to it, or if you're a person who gets actual fear from a viewed performance, this style of play is probably not something you will like. I'd suggest to Jesse just to play a few more sessions and let things clarify a bit more. The player may just be unused to this style; he may discover that he really likes the juice and that it helps him create. Or, it may turn out that he really does hate it. :)

Whoa! This thread blossomed in the night. A couple of points.

1) Christopher did a pretty good job of laying out the social context for the Sorcerer character creation session. I would like to reinforce the idea that Christopher's analysis is definetly the undercurrent brought to the surface for examination and not the surface itself. I'd also like to point out the player's comments started after two sessions with the weekday group and before the Sorcerer session.

2) I think for this specific player all that will be needed is an adjustment period. The issue in general however is certainly worthy of further discussion and I've found the insights into such behavior offered so far to be very interesting.

3) I understand John's point of view regarding special GM reward mechanics. One of the reasons I dislike Drama Dice and Fate Chips and what not is that it results in a lot of character posturing in an effort to get dice from the GM. Sorcerer makes things much better because the GM bonuses come right at the moment of rolling and thus a well-defined conflict is already in progress. Even better is My Life With Master because the awarded dice are for HIGHLY specific things, "Intemacy", "Sincerety", etc. Better still is Trollbabe which is completely self-rewarding.

Jesse

Hiya,

Jesse wrote,

I understand John's point of view regarding special GM reward mechanics. One of the reasons I dislike Drama Dice and Fate Chips and what not is that it results in a lot of character posturing in an effort to get dice from the GM.

This is all very interesting; on a personal aside, my own current game design makes such approval stuff quite important, and I'm increasingly uncomfortable with the effects. But that's a side issue.

I think that the original post made an essential point that's slipped out here a bit, which is that the Player In Question (tm) has not experienced stage-fright in the sense that he or she cannot perform; in fact, all of this player's play has been wonderful, despite the discomfort in question.

This makes me think that this player has a somewhat deeper objection to the gaming style than an initial disjuncture or whatever with Narrativism. I don't think that the thing about selfishness or whatever applies here; again, the player did very well despite discomfort. So what's going on?

I may be dragging things off-topic, but my feeling is that this player may be experiencing the "short-term drag" that I have also experienced with Nar-style play. That is, by rewarding story now, up front, ASAP, the campaign seems to downplay long-term development and depth. I realize that lots of people have counter-experiences with Sorcerer and other strongly Nar-games, but I do feel that such emphases can lead to a push toward a personal revelation and resolution sooner rather than later. The player may feel that developments which he or she would prefer to happen over the course of many months are being pushed towards happening right now. This would accord plausibly with the player's interest in very long novels and so forth.

Does that seem even remotely plausible, or have I got hold of the fuzzy end of the lollipop again?

Chris Lehrich

Hi Chris,

I recognize this as an issue, for sure. Whether it's a deal-breaker sort of issue depends on a lot of things, but my experiences suggest that it's not too big a deal (unless you're in it, of course).

From my Narrativism essay, in the section titled "Minor Narrativist dysfunctions" (five of them):

The final minor problem is to resolve play-Situations rapidly and without developing them much beyond the initial preparatory circumstances: "over before it begins." This typically occurs when people are so floored by the possibility of actually addressing a Premise through play, that they hare off to do so before some RPG god notices and intervenes to stop them. Usually, this sort of play is a short-lived phase as the group builds trust with one another.

Hi all.

Well, I re-read the thread earlier today, and then reflected on my memories of sessions of years past and came up with a thought that, in fact, was already expressed earlier... The games I've played in before really allowed each person to show up and run "their own" show... They just happened to be playing with other people. If somebody didn't like what you were doing, well.. Fine. Cause they'd get their chance to play "their" way soon enough.

Now, I don't know whether it's having a Nar premise, group character creation, or what... But that's just not available as an option anymore. Everyone knows they're there for everyone else all at the same time. I honestly don't know ifthis fact causes performance anxiety (though I see how its similiar.) For me, though, what I feel in this style of play is simply more commitment and responsibility -- Not to "perform" -- but to be present.

Tuning out really isn't an option. Fantasizing about what my guy might be feeling while another scene is going on really isn't an option. Just "wandering away" through my PC from the group to finally get some breathing room isn't really an option. After all, half the time there's no group to leave anymore.

There's very little taffy pulling wiht the GM and the group for 'screen time'. Nor are there in "in character" arguements about which "strategy" to try (frontal assault? bluff the bastard?) becaue *how* you choose to do something is right -- because the choice is what matters.

The following are some of the behaviors that I remembered this afternoon from years ago. Some were blunt, some were so subtle (and accepted), I hesitate to call them at all. And yet, here they were: "I'm going to ignore you for a while" / "I'm gonna take alll the GM's attention for a while" / "I'm gonna just tune out for a while as I think in my character" / "I'm gonna use my PC to break your adventure" / "I'm gonna use my GM fiat to keep things on track -- just do your little character thing," / "I'm gonna hold information to maybe go off and do something you can't help on because you don't know about it," / and more -- none of it works here. Even the *breathing* time most RPG sessions provide when the GM gets hooked into a 30 minute fight or the thief's shopping spree. All the techniques in use for Nar style don't just discourage this kind of stuff. They practially remove the ability to do it. If there's no plot to bust, no group to get away from, no tactic unavailabe (because the choice of how you get something done is what the game is about so you're encouraged to do it your way rather than arguing about it via PCs). You're pretty much just a guy at a table with a bunch of other people -- all waiting moment to moment to find out what's happening next. It might be a little like being somebody who's used to doing sprint around the block alone for years, and then suddenly you're told, "We're all going on a five mile hike, all five of us. Come on. Let's go." What are you going to talk about? How can anyone stand just walking along *continuously* that long? What if you just want to get away, get it over with? Well, you can't. You've made a committment to be with *these* people, and there it is.

Anyway. That's where I am. This style of play removes the privacy, time outs, and ability simply to drift away from paying attention to others if you don't want to -- and it does it explicitely by shifting the attention from the PCs to the other players. And this means, once you get this (on the surface thoughts or not), that you know people are going to be paying attention to *you* the same way. *Not* in a judging way, mind you. Just willing to stay with whatever you do no matter what you do. Not to contradict you. Not to get in a My Guy tussel. Not engage you in anyway confrontational or competative way at all.

The committment is simply this: "I'm going to pay attention to you. That's the deal we all made."

That's pretty big if you ask me. And I can see where that might throw people off.

Christopher