Conclusion: Looking for a Satisfying Roleplaying Experience

I was speaking with a friend who'd read the last post about roleplaying games and commented in person. Some of our discussion helped me to better understand how to express what I'm talking about here. His suggestion to me was that I continue to look through indie games and learn to trust other players more, and he feels I can find something workable for me that way. There's merit in his suggestions in that it can only be a good idea to keep looking for something new if I'm not satisfied with what I have, and it's a good idea (and good spiritually) to get my ego out of the way and learn to flow with other players or the mechanics of the game taking creative directions other than those I would've chosen for myself.

Still, my cohesiveness argument comes back into it. Games where creative control is shared don't tend to produce stories that hang together very well, and good story is a significant goal. In theory, the game mechanics of an indie game are supposed to produce that cohesion, but in practice I haven't found the results satisfying. There are always events that work well enough from a purely logical perspective but don't feel right to me.

Also, let me point out that the cohesiveness I'm looking for doesn't have to come from me personally. I'm just as happy to play in another GM's game if they can create the sort of experience I'm looking for. It's just that for conventions, I can only offer my own game and seek to play in others I enjoy. I can't offer someone else's game, which is why I'm looking for suggestions for what I can offer that'll make me and a reasonable number of players happy. I've always tended to GM because the best way to create the game I like is to do it myself.

My friend and I had quite a discussion on author's stance vs. actor's stance while playing characters in roleplaying games. For those not familiar with the terms, actor's stance is staying entirely in character without using any information the character wouldn't have and trusting that the GM will bring the characters together in ways that make the game entertaining. Taken to an extreme, the actor is responsible only for being true to the character and it's not his fault if his actions don't produce a satisfying game for anyone else. This is usually the most enjoyable roleplaying to me, but it's also a frequent excuse for all manner of obnoxious behavior on the part of some players. In contrast, author's stance is when the player looks at his character from a more distant perspective and chooses the character's actions based on what would make a good story, even if it's bad for the character and doesn't make 100% sense from that individual character's perspective.

We found that my point of view was that the most satisfying roleplaying occurred when the players usually immersed themselves in the characters (actor's stance) while simultaneously being aware of how this was working for everyone else and occasionally shifting to author's stance for the good of the whole, using author's stance to get over the rough spots, so to speak. The GM's main role (from my POV) was to do the same thing for the characters not assigned to the other players. My friend's opinion was different, in that he felt the default position for players should be author's stance because it produced the best story for everyone, and because he felt that he became too personally wrapped up in actor's stance, losing perspective and occasionally getting upset with the other players.

Both points of view are entirely valid, and even work reasonably well at the same table, but the discussion helped me to clarify in my own mind what I'm personally looking for. I'm looking for that personal investment in the character to provide a more visceral experience; he's looking for a more objectively interesting story. In my experience, a lot of indie games have that "third person" feel to me due to the mechanics the game designers have chosen, and the people who enjoy them obviously have no problem with that, but those mechanics push my head out of the mind set I enjoy, which is probably why they don't work as well for my tastes.

So my goals points me in the direction of LARPs (Live Action Roleplaying), which provide a very immersive experience and would scratch the performance itch, but LARPs have problems of their own from my perspective. The first problem is that participants in a LARP don't get the overall picture until/unless they do a wrap up at the end, while I prefer to see the characters' various stories intertwine as they develop. The other problem is that players in a LARP are limited to playing characters that look like themselves or end up looking ridiculous trying to play someone who looks nothing like them, which breaks that reality too much for my tastes. For some reason, for me it's okay for people to play roles very different from themselves in a tabletop game because nobody is supposed to look like their character. It's rather like the way human beings find robots disturbing when they appear too human because they don't quite actually get there. It all comes down to what sort of story conventions the player is willing to accept. I also like the way a GM can shape the story of a tabletop game on the fly, adjusting to the interests of the players as he goes, while a LARP is simply unleashed and becomes whatever it's going to become.

The conclusion I'm reaching is that as a GM, I can keep offering games with more of an author's point of view and expecting players to take the actors' roles as long as I understand that I may not draw as many players as I'd like, and if those numbers drop off enough I'm simply going to have to accept that it's time to do something else. In the meantime, I can keep experimenting in the indie community, try to keep an open mind, and see if I can find something in that realm that's enjoyable, perhaps in a completely different way. Trying LARPs may also be an option as long as I choose carefully, playing games of a strongly realistic nature.