The flavours of Tension in the 3-way model (Part 2)

The last post broke down the various stereotypical tensions between a GM/Narrator and their players. However, the players are not a monolithic block who all want the same thing from their session experience. There will often be tensions between players who have different requirements or who are aiming toward different session experiences.

A session will often (but not always) work smoothly when the entire group is after the same type of thing. 

If everyone has a Narrativist aim, they'll all be working toward producing a tale and exploring the unfolding story as they follow character goals as they work toward a logical and satisfying conclusion, or just generally meander with no particular goal or direction to see where things might head (working out a narratively satisfying tale from the events of the session later). The biggest tensions here will come from interpretations of how goals might come into conflict.

If everyone has a Gamist aim, there will generally be a friendly (or not-so-friendly) rivalry between the players and their characters as they compete with one another for the most satisfying ending. While everyone is competing in this way, they know the rules that are binding their play experience and should work fairly within the confines of those rules. The biggest tensions between two Gamists will come from inconsistent rule sets or grey areas in the rules where different interpretations of the specifics can be identified. 

If everyone has a Simulationist aim, the group will all be trying to immerse themselves in the world. Competition between them will often be seeing who can attain a state of flow in the world, creating longer times in the simulated world, more intense degrees of immersion, or trying to push the simulation to it's logical limits. learning about the world, learning about their character's role in the world, and understanding moments rather than an evolving storyline. The tensions here come from the times when two players might have different understanding of where the edges of the setting exist, identifying what might be canon, and what might be an unwelcome addition to the world. 

The bigger tensions tend to come when different players are after different things. I addressed this to some level when I wrote the "How to Run a Game" series (especially part 3), I've pulled out pertinent parts and added them here in italics. 

If there is a mix of Gamist and Narrativist Players we basically end up with a type of competitive storytelling...

A blend of Gamism and Narrativism is where players want to win, but they want to tell a good story in the process. They might understand the concept of the heroes journey and may know that a hero needs to face some defeats along the way to ensure that the final victory is sweeter, but for them they need to make sure the ending is satisfying and their choices have made a positive difference for their avatars in the game world. 

The tension between these player will typically come from the moment deciding when a series of events have reached their conclusion. The Gamists may want to finish on a win, while the Narrativists want to finish at a point where a situation has reached a natural conclusion. In some cases, the two may coincide, but in other cases the situation may feel like it needs to go further to resolve any loose ends (the narrativists want things to go a little longer), or the situation feels at an impasse and there is a desire to determine an outcome finality (the gamists want things to go a little longer). Taking turns pleasing one side or the other to give each a level of satisfaction may be the best way to go here. 

If there is a mix of Gamist and Simulationist Players we basically end up with a type of competitive immersion...

A blend of Gamism and Simulationism is where players really don't care about the story, they just want conquest in the terms of the genre they are playing. They don't particularly care about character motivations or ulterior motives, except as puzzles, or elements of background detail that add verisimilitude to the setting where their strategic maneuvering is taking place. Everything can be broken down into numbers, and the numbers reflect the setting where the actions occur. 

The tension here is predominantly a matter of diegetic (from the Simulationist side) versus non-diegetic (from the Gamist side). The Gamists will constantly be trying to manipulate the situation using meta-knowledge to gain a strategic advantage, while the Simulationists will be vehemently against the meta and will focus their play experience on the elements that the characters would have direct knowledge of within the setting. One side feels that the external elements of the game taint the purity of the session's vision, while the other side feels that limiting themselves to the elements within is too restrictive. This is one of those games where balance, and playing the two sides off against each other may be beneficial, because if you want to experience the same stories over and over, it's probably better to read the books, or watch the movies/TV series again. A TTRPG works well with a blend of the old and the new, the inside and the outside.

If there is a mix of Narrativist and Simulationist Players we basically end up with a freeform immersive storytelling with no real desire to see an end to the campaign...

A blend of Narrativism and Simulationism is where players want to tell a story within specific genre conventions but don't mind pushing the envelope if that's where the story leads them, or don't mind jarring twists in the story if that's what the setting dictates. This kind of player may enjoy the downward spiral, because it makes for good anecdotes later.   

The tension here is a comparison of the open boundaries of what it good for the story versus the closed boundaries of what is good for the setting. This really leans into the idea that it is often what is excluded from a setting that makes the setting interesting... is this sci-fi setting different because it doesn't have faster than light travel? How does this impact the stories told in it? Would it be better for the story to have faster than light travel? How would this break the setting if it did occur?

If there is a blend of all three, there are so many tensions in the situation that it can be hard to satisfy each of the forces involved. However, the various tension flavours mentioned so far still apply.

I'd love to write more here, but I'm already feeling like it's a bit disconnected because I've been compiling the post over scattered moments spread over a few days. I've got a few more ideas, many of which need some illustrations done... so I'll get back to this shortly.