Just recently I've listened to a bunch of podcasts all talking about player preference for different levels of engagement.
As I understand it, this discussion is more in line with Mary Kuhner's Game-oriented, Drama-oriented, Simulation-oriented (GDS) theory than Ron Edward's Gamist, Narrativist, Simulationist (GNS) theory which seems to have broader implications beyond mere player engagement.
The conversations in question have been taking place across several episodes of Jason Hobbs' Random Screed, something of a response episode from Anthony ''Runeslinger" Boyd's Casting Shadows and Che Webster's ongoing quest for otherworld-immersion with Roleplay Rescue.
What triggered the following thoughts is a call-in from Anthony on the most recent episodes of Random Screed concerning terminology and Jason's own thoughts in response.
These differing modes of engagement were described using a variety of terms. Some of these terms come with certain implications.
The term 'layers of play' would seem perfectly adequate but, for me, it suggests a hierarchy, that one form of engagement may be better than another. So many divisions within the hobby are the result of preferences being expressed as immutable facts.
Anthony speaks of 'frames' as a more neutral term yet acknowledges this suggests a more bounded nature, that perhaps fails to acknowledge the overlap or subtle interaction of these different approaches.
Anthony also refers to Ron Edward's use of the term 'stance' (although I'm not entirely sure this particular term is used in reference to degrees of player engagement) and how that implies intent. It also strikes me as quite a confrontational term.
I believe both Jason and Anthony spoke of these modes of play existing on a spectrum that certainly conveys a sufficient degree of equity, yet I don't think it quite captures the experience.
The following “theory” was prompted by Jason considering the use of the term 'layers', which I liked and possibly also Anthony's passing reference to 'the second person' in his own episode.
I'm calling this Pronoun Perspectives of Play.
The first-person perspective
Acting on what your character knows of their immediate situation, their relationships and knowledge of their place in the world.
Example: "I kick open the door"
The second-person perspective
Acting on what the GM is telling you, this includes all of the above plus consideration of rules implementation and knowledge of the world beyond the character.
Example: "You'll need to make a Strength check to kick open the door"
The third-person perspective
Acting as a player with an overview of the table, this includes all of the above plus the social contract, what you and the table want from the game, and knowledge of the game beyond the world.
Example: "Can I borrow some dice? I left mine at home again"
And just to be clear, the first-person perspective isn't about literally talking as your character, doing a voice or acting out. It's about how you are interacting with the game world. This is how I like to spend most of my time during play.
This is not to say I have anything against games where I’m engaging in other ways, discussing rules or talking with my friends on a more personal level but I'm very aware that if we have come together to roleplay, interacting with the world through my character is what I’ll be expecting to do.
Very much enjoyed the post, I've been thinking about the various perspectives a look recently as I've been toying with the idea of Interactive Fiction, a great read. Also you've inspired to look at porting some of my own stuff over to Substack so thanks for that as well :)