Weekend Game (long)

[Mike Holmes]

In other words, what sort of language can we use so that the term "story" doesn't end up performing its usual negative, plural confusions.

I keep suggesting Participationism. And I sense that it's being recieved as negative. Which is probably my fault, as I keep saying that I personally don't like it. But I also keep poiinting out that it's apparently a valid form of play. As Marco's example points out.

Participationism is heavy handed Illusionism where there is no real attempt to hide the fact that the GM is performing Illusions. THe players are simply complicit in coming along for the ride.

This is a mode (a small subset of Simulationism), and as such switches all the time. I would suggest that the moment of decision in that game was perhaps more standard "multiple-ending" Sim (more like a "choose you're own story" book than Myst which is more "roads to rome"; though I get that analogy). But on balance that was just one moment of play, and importantly, provided by the GM. The players did not choose to choose, the GM did. The players just made the choice. The fact that for most of the rest of the game they were unlikely to have been able to decide as players to have their characters make any meaningful choices, is why I would put this session down as being predominantly Participationist.

I could and would use this term to describe a stock Cthulhu adventure to players.

Mike

[Marco]

I keep suggesting Participationism. And I sense that it's being recieved as negative. Which is probably my fault, as I keep saying that I personally don't like it. But I also keep poiinting out that it's apparently a valid form of play. As Marco's example points out.

Participationism is heavy handed Illusionism where there is no real attempt to hide the fact that the GM is performing Illusions. THe players are simply complicit in coming along for the ride.

Why is this seeming negative?

What you describe is more standard, open-ended, Sim, Seth. Participationists not only cannot make decisions, they are never really presented with any when it's being done "correctly". As in the vampire example, the GM leads the characters about. You get a lot of this sort of thing:

GM: there is a big door leading out of the black featureless room. What do you do?

Players: Um, we go out the door.

and

Participationists not only cannot make decisions, they are never really presented with any when it's being done "correctly". As in the vampire example, the GM leads the characters about.

None of that sounds like very much fun. It certanly wasn't what I experienced. It sounds negative. When Jesse was subjected to it, he didn't enjoy it. It's not you saying you don't prefer it.

Let's take a look at this:

1. Your PM asks if I could kill Gothe.

The GM says: "In the initial meeting unlikely--I wasn't well armed, we were in Gothe's reality where he had trained, loyal, expert bodyguards, and he was meeting on his terms."

You say (in PM): " But did you have any choice on how to approach this situation? Or, better put, coould you have killed him if you had really wanted to?"

If the answer is "Yes, if I'd really wanted to." then you are advocating Equalty as I pointed out (i.e. the GM thinks the odds are low but since a player wants it to work, it does).

If the answer is No: then it's illusionism.

If the answer is Play It Out then it's Sim. Now, you suspect it wasn't. Why? I'm not sure (because the story came out so satisfyingly?)

The litmus test is: could the game-story survive me killing Gothe. The answer is yes. We were introduced to William Ashford, father of Harriet--he was the head of the compound. In the absence of Gothe, he would have continued after us.

Could I have killed him after my revelation (after which it would have been sane to attempt?): Absolutely (the GM thought I might--would have been satisfying)--we were told by Harriet that Gothe was afraid of me. If I'd killed him we'd still have had to figure out what to do about the impending nuclear sanction. So yes, it would have survived.

Where's the need for illusionism?

What is it that makes you think it was all pre-scripted? Because it worked out to what we felt was a "good" story?

2. Then there's this:

The fact that for most of the rest of the game they were unlikely to have been able to decide as players to have their characters make any meaningful choices, is why I would put this session down as being predominantly Participationist.    

How is that a fact?

What is meaningful?

Had we decided not to allow the Dr. to make the phone call to the cops (when we came to the art gallery and saw police cars there we were *greatly* relieved and back in Carter's reality) that would have precluded the end-scene right there.

Since I could be mind-controlled over phone and wasn't *sure* who Carter called (we discussed that prior to me picking up the phone) it sure was possible. If that's not meaningful, what is?

Or are you certain would the GM have forced me to?

3. Finally, I was interested in the GM's story as a situation, not a pre-scripted series of scenes--in fact, finding Gothe's number led us to him skipping the mind games he was going to play with us (we arranged a meeting on our terms).

The "story" was the set-up--the depth, the impending choice, the disease, the bombers ... the events in motion that we were thrust into.

I really don't get why that's "along for the ride" unless:

You object to the GM creating NPC's with agendas and events on schedules that will eventuall demand actions from the PC's or have consequences for them (that's where you could be read as advocating advocate Staticism).

You say you don't prefer Equality or Staticism, so where's this coming from?

You told me once you used to tell players there were options they didn't take and that it was an obvious tell to your illusionism. Maybe that's why you see it here?



-Marco

[Mike Holmes]

Why is this seeming negative?

You could be right that my bias is showing. I find it hard to believe that this is a valid form of play. But still, I'll take you're word for it. You were there, I was not. That's been my pooint all along. Sorry if my portrayal sounds negative, but it's trying to be descriptive.

Instead of "meaingful", I should say "plot altering". That is an error.

None of that sounds like very much fun. It certanly wasn't what I experienced. It sounds negative. When Jesse was subjected to it, he didn't enjoy it. It's not you saying you don't prefer it.

We're seeing this from two different perspectives. You are saying that you had satisfying choices and good play. I'm saying that the choices you had were of a limited variety. If we are actually describing the same thing, then it's just terminology that we disagree on. If you'd like to change the terminology to something more palatable, I'd certainly have nop problem with it. It might help to take out my bias.

Let's take a look at this:

1. Your PM asks if I could kill Gothe.

The GM says: "In the initial meeting unlikely--I wasn't well armed, we were in Gothe's reality where he had trained, loyal, expert bodyguards, and he was meeting on his terms."

You say (in PM): " But did you have any choice on how to approach this situation? Or, better put, coould you have killed him if you had really wanted to?"

If the answer is "Yes, if I'd really wanted to." then you are advocating Equalty as I pointed out (i.e. the GM thinks the odds are low but since a player wants it to work, it does).

If the answer is No: then it's illusionism.

If the answer is Play It Out then it's Sim. Now, you suspect it wasn't. Why? I'm not sure (because the story came out so satisfyingly?)

I'm not personally advocating anything.

What I can do is describe the difference between your style of play and that of other Simulationist play. And they are exactly what you point out. I do not know of anyone who goes for the "Equality" thing you speak of, but I suppose they could. I wouldn't. You misinterperet me. When I say you could kill him, I mean possibly. That is, that either you would "play it out" and let the chips fall where they may.

As for Illusionism, yes, that's another option. One that also probably does not allow you to kill the Dr. in fact. The diffeence being the obviousness of the approach. If (and this is hypothetical, I don't know what heppened in the game) a GM frames to a scene where I am confronted by a potential enemy, and he is surrounded by guards such that I couldn't possibly get to him, then that's the Participationist approach. The Illusionist approach would be to allow for the characters to get to the scene in any fashion, but keep the Dr. alive through other illusionist methods. For example, having the body guards with him at all times. Seems like a subtle difference. But when you've experienced both, you can feel the difference. With real Illusionism, you really aren't sure. You may suspect, but it isn't obvious.

Again, I could just be misreading that episode, which I admitted repeatedly.

The litmus test is: could the game-story survive me killing Gothe. The answer is yes. We were introduced to William Ashford, father of Harriet--he was the head of the compound. In the absence of Gothe, he would have continued after us.

Could I have killed him after my revelation (after which it would have been sane to attempt?): Absolutely (the GM thought I might--would have been satisfying)--we were told by Harriet that Gothe was afraid of me. If I'd killed him we'd still have had to figure out what to do about the impending nuclear sanction. So yes, it would have survived.

Well, then, that's not a good example. Heck, perhaps your GM was using completely relationship mapping techniques. Which would make this a Narrativist excercise. But I can only make my assessment from what I read, not having been there.

So, tell me, does Participationism exist? Or are your games just Narrativist, and the transcripts of them just hard for people of my particular experience to interperet as such?

What is it that makes you think it was all pre-scripted? Because it worked out to what we felt was a "good" story?

No (not that it wasn't a good story, it was), but instead when reading the thourogh transcript you mentioned very specifically the one point that you had a decision. Which seemed to me to preclude any others. You certainly never mentioned any player motivations except to point out how the plot direction of the GM vie messing with the player's perception of events at one point rankled with said player. Which is also evidence of such behavior. I could go on with a line by line assessment of why what I read gave me the impression it did, but it should suffice to say that this is the impression that I got.

Had we decided not to allow the Dr. to make the phone call to the cops (when we came to the art gallery and saw police cars there we were *greatly* relieved and back in Carter's reality) that would have precluded the end-scene right there.

Since I could be mind-controlled over phone and wasn't *sure* who Carter called (we discussed that prior to me picking up the phone) it sure was possible. If that's not meaningful, what is?

Or are you certain would the GM have forced me to?

Again, I've said that Participationism is a mode of play. It may have ceased for moments of real decision. But I find it telling that allthe moments that we can discern were ones of the GMs choosing. To feel the sense of being able to changing the plot (whether real or not), the player needs to feel that he can do so at any time. Not just when the GM hands the players the reigns momentarily.

Again, I may be misreading, but when you give me these specific examples it sees like there were fewe or no others. Did you feel empowered at all times to have the character take what action you wanted him to (or even some or most of the time)? Or only at certain moments? Again, perhaps I'm wrong and Participationism does not exist.

3. Finally, I was interested in the GM's story as a situation, not a pre-scripted series of scenes--in fact, finding Gothe's number led us to him skipping the mind games he was going to play with us (we arranged a meeting on our terms).

The "story" was the set-up--the depth, the impending choice, the disease, the bombers ... the events in motion that we were thrust into.

I really don't get why that's "along for the ride" unless:

You object to the GM creating NPC's with agendas and events on schedules that will eventuall demand actions from the PC's or have consequences for them (that's where you could be read as advocating advocate Staticism).

You say you don't prefer Equality or Staticism, so where's this coming from?

I mean "along for the ride" in that the players decisions had no impact on what possible outcomes were available. In an open-ended game, the ending would be completely determined by where the players deccided to have the characters go and what to do. In an Ilusionist game, the players would have felt as if that was the case (probably less so because Illusion is less successful in this).

You told me once you used to tell players there were options they didn't take and that it was an obvious tell to your illusionism. Maybe that's why you see it here?

Oh, if this was not participatinism, then I think that most likely it was Illusionism (but, hey, who knows). Yes, this is what I'm getting at. There was no possible outcome that wasn't prepared for prior to play. And it seemed pretty obvious as well. That combination is Participationism. I am along for the ride to a Predestined end, even if one of many.

So, if I've misjudged anything, I apollogise. If my bias against Participationism has made it seem invalid, again, I apollogise. But I've noted this phenomenon, and believe that it needs a taxonomy. Perhaps so we can begin to understand it more.

Interestingly, sonce Ron's post about CoC and Participationism, I have been getting a creeping urge to set up a social contract and plaay just that way. Also, now that I think of it, I think that this is very much what Gareth (Contracycle) meant in his post about Shakespeare. Very worth looking into.

Mike

[contracycle]

re "complains": sorry I meant that in the generic sense, didn't mean to imply whingeing or the like.

Going to St. Timmothy's and getting killed by the GM is the equivelent of falling into a pit trap and dying.

Yes and no.  I think there are two differences.

First, the sentence in Marcos last post which leaped out at me is that Myst doesn't care who you are.  I think this is an important difference and the one that makes computerised RPG so different from tabletop.  When a GM is wearing NPC-clothes and interacting with you in your PC-clothes, they are interacting with your specific character, which you designed (which incidentally is one of the things that makes me wary of my own proposals in regards pre-specifying characters), there is a much greater quantity of depth and context that can be brought to bear through the individual and personal relationships of the PC's and NPC's.  And this lends much greater support to identification with the character - becuase there are "people" in your world who echo your identity back to you through "their" comprehension of who "you" are.

Second, the decision about the pit trap specifically is a totally blind one, whereas Marcos story allows an at least partially informed decision.  The players have enough information to make a judgement rather than a guess, and that judgement too is a personal one - both because the acquisition of the relevant information occurred in character, and because the judgement occurs in character.  Its not just a dressed up Y-junction, its a Y-junction with backstory and personal significance.

Anyway, those I think are the qualitative distinctions between good interactive (Illusionism?) and computer style play.  The presence of a real person playing the bit parts adds immeasurably in skilled hands.  A GM has tone of voice to use in way which is reasonably analogous to a movie score, because a GM can even put a specific tone into the description of things.  A dark sky narrated in different voices leads to different "effects".  Hence I think that it is in fact a performance in a more full sense than just posturing and display; it is much more, umm, sympathetic than that.

Anyway, thats why I think its not very much like Myst, or anything of its ilk.  I think the combination of personalisation and continuity can transform an objective decision about a tunnel into an intensely subjective and personal one.

Edit: sorry you do specify the seeding of clues and the informed nature of the decision.  I guess I mean that there is a big difference between the sense of finding clues as joining the dots or playing hide and seek, say - its about whether you/the character understand the world and how much confidence you have in what you/the character know.

Also, it is not the culmination of a long campaign game, as a lot of sim is.  Its a very specific, deliberate, focussed experience designed (probably) with impact in mind.  This is very different IMO from keeping up the continuity, its exploiting the continuity for effect.  Even falling into the pit trap could be made "dramatically satisfying"; it was just a tragedy rather than a comedy.  This is not usually the case where long term survival is an implied or default goal.

[Paul Czege]

Hey,

Ron wrote: That's why heavy GM-input during Narrativist play isn't necessarily railroading.

And I completely agree. It was one of the most surprising realizations I had from running The Pool last year. I think three things worked together to create a gameplay experience with heavier GM-input in the first couple of sessions:

1) the use of Kickers
2) my shocking and aggressive style of scene framing
3) a low level of player experience with conflict resolution systems that deliver Authorial power

Things transitioned naturally to heavier player input in the later game. It was a great dynamic that created a lot of grist for conflict when it was needed, and surprising and protagonising resolution when that was needed. In fact, it worked so well that replicating the dynamic has been a design goal of My Life with Master. That's because I think the circumstances that produced the heavy GM-input phase in that game is likely a one-time bonus for a play group that can't reoccur once players know better what to expect. A more experienced Narrativist comes out the gate swinging with Authorial power, tending to skip over the "settling in" phase that made heavier GM-input possible when I ran The Pool. So, without getting into specifics, what I hope I've built into My Life with Master is a regulated transition, good for the experienced and inexperienced both. We shall see.

Paul