Participationism with an Agendum

[M. J. Young]

O.K., this happens to me periodically, as I'm responding to a post and then discover the thread has been closed. This is a continuation of the discussion over in Celebrating Theme is Nar Equiv of the Gamist Crunch.

The point in that thread appeared to me to be the assertion that you could have narrativist play in which only the referee addressed the theme. That led to a discussion of participationism, and Caldis objected that participationism was anathema to narrativism.

Participationism involves giving up all thematic control to the gm.

I think this is where we break down. Participationism involves giving up all agenda-meaningful control to the referee. I have seen gamist participationist games, in which the players knew they couldn't die or even lose because the referee was controling the outcome completely, and they threw themselves with great abandon into doing some really inane splashy combat stunts entirely for color, and felt good when it was over that they beat the monster which in one sense they should never have defeated and in another sense they knew was going to lose.

By all the logic of gamism, you can't have gamism if the choices of the players make absolutely no difference to the outcome of the challenge; but as long as play is about the challenge, it's gamism, even if the dial has been set to zero, everyone knows it, and no one is publicly acknowledging it.

Since participationism is not specifically the removal of thematically-relevant credibility, but the removal of all relevant credibility, your argument that it is only narrativism to which it matters fails.

I certainly recognize that the current statement of the model maintains that you can't have narrativism with player credibility at zero, and you can't have gamism with player credibility at zero. The simple fact, though, is that simulationism suffers the same fate--zero player credibility does not make a game simulationist. Either participationism is not play (and we've at least tentatively agreed that it is), or it is possible for a game to proceed on any of the three agenda with the player credibility dial set at zero. What counts in that case is that one player, the referee, still has credibility, and whatever agendum he is persuing is the agendum of the game. The others don't contribute to the process, but they approve it, giving necessary social support to the one player with credibility that makes it a group agendum.

I see that your argument rests on this from the glossary:

Force is "The Technique of control over characters' thematically-significant decisions by anyone who is not the character's player."

Actually, that's been heavily debated, and Ron has admitted that he goofed. He could not think of exactly how to word that, and he put "thematically-significant" in there as a placeholder until he could find a better expression. In reviewing his work, he missed it, and so it went to print with that in it. There's a thread from last year somewhere in which that was established. Force means control over any participant's ability to make agendum-significant decisions.

The question, then, is whether you can legitimately define a participationist game as having a creative agendum, and secondly whether the fact that it is participationist prevents it from being one specific agendum. I say that if only one player, the referee, has credibility to make agendum-relevant contributes to the shared imagined space, then whatever his agendum is, that's the agendum of the game.

--M. J. Young

[Silmenume]

Hey M. J.,

You beat me to the punch!  I found the link and the quote whereby Ron admits the glossed definition of Participationism was in error.

Here is the link and below is the quote.

Hi M.J.,

The "thematically" is a straightforward error, from the beginning. My intent was to write "significant to Creative Agenda" in some phrasing and I used "thematically" as a place-holder - and since the resulting sentence wasn't obviously wrong, I never remembered to go back and fix it.

Very annoying. Wish I'd done it in some less-charged term.

Best,
Ron

Other than a possible niggling little rephrase I am too tired to contribute anything substantial at the moment.

Participationism involves giving up all agenda-meaningful control to the referee.

Control seems to be a bit of a loaded term and may cause some undo strife.  Just as a little suggestion may I offer the following –

Participationism involves giving up all

agenda-meaningful input to the referee.[/list:u]I don't know if that helps, is wrong or is irrelevant, but to me it marks a subtle but important distinction.  I do not intend to belabor this point.

[Marco]

While I think the 'revised definition' of participationism is an improvement, there's something about it I don't understand: If the GM has a linear plot of a game laid out (pre-determined), how does any CA really have freedom within that? It seems that:

1. The PC's can only act within the Thematic answer the GM has chosen (i.e. the can "address premise" if they make the choice the GM likes).
2. They can't take a real risk outside of the choices the GM has given them (i.e. clever tactics that derail the adventure will fail. I would think the PC's can't 'lose' in chapter 1).
3. They can't reinforce a point other than the GM's--and in the GM's fashion (they can't decide to change the focus of Simulationism).

It seems to me that functional Participationism must line up with the player's wishes for input. That is: if the players really think that Justice is more important than Patriotism (or whatever) and the GM doesn't challenge the players sufficiently strongly to make the outcome in doubt then the players still get to make their choice (the one that leads to the GM's next scene) and play proceeds without a hitch.*

That sounds like low intensity Nar play to me. The GM can challenge the player's perspectives a little--just not enough to throw the game into chaos.

[ I'm think the objection will be that the difference is that the GM won't permit any answer other than the one he has chosen. I think to discuss that we have to get into the heads of the functional-participationist GM's and have a look and see what's really going on there. ]

From that perspective, all functional Sim play must be participationist  in a sense, because if the players are reinforcing the "point of being doomed investigative defenders of humanity" in a standard Call of Cthulhu adventure (or playing to all the genre elements in a James Bond game rather than introducing some none-genre premise and angst for their 00-agents) and the GM is facilitating that then you don't *give up* the ability to address that premise--you just reinforce it.

From this perspective, I don't think there's really such a thing as "functional participationsm." I think that there is only dysfunctional participationism.

The only time one can distinguish a GM who is serveing the players what they want vs. imposing what he or she wants is when they don't want it.

-Marco
* I've played some pretty out-there games where the choices were diffcult or stomach churning--but there are places I wouldn't go (I can't see myself ever playing a child abuser or making a choice to abuse a child no matter what was on the "other side of the scales."). If a GM did construct a scenario where there was 'real choice' and one of the sides was that act, I don't think I'd be enthused--I think I'd just be disgused by an apologistic scenario.

[Caldis]

I was going to continue this myself MJ, thanks for beating me to the punch.

I concede that my arguement holds little water if the definition of Participationism has been changed from what is stated in the glossary.  I personally find that redefinition to be lacking.  As initally formulated it was a functional style of play where the gm ran the story and the players were ok with that, likely because it didnt mess with their agenda.  The way it stands now it can not be a functional form of play.

I have seen gamist participationist games, in which the players knew they couldn't die or even lose because the referee was controling the outcome completely, and they threw themselves with great abandon into doing some really inane splashy combat stunts entirely for color, and felt good when it was over that they beat the monster which in one sense they should never have defeated and in another sense they knew was going to lose.

Not being able to die doesnt make it participationist, it just means the stakes are low.  Not being able to lose is a bit closer but again could just be low stakes or it could be a puzzle that wont cost them anything but hey cant proceed untill they figure out how to get around it. However if as you say the victory is guaranteed and all the players are adding is color than sure it's participationist but I dont think it's gamist anymore.  Gamism by definition requires strategy and guts, neither of which are being displayed here.

To be following an agenda one must be trying to bring something about in the game, trying to create something in the game, in gamism it's displays of strategy and guts or Step on Up.  If a game is recognized as gamist simply because it has combat but no Step on up then I think it has been mislabelled.   Otherwise the upshoot of this is you label every game that has story as narrativist, something that is clearly not intended by the model and something that Ron has strained to point out on many occasions.  Product does not define creative agenda.

So participationism by the redefinition is disfunctional yet where does that leave MJ's description where players were enjoying themselves despite the inherent conflict of interest?   There are a few conclusions that could explain it.  

The players could be playing but not expressing a creative agenda, as Walt called it Zilchplay. They are there just to go with the flow and enjoy the experience.  This could be related to the long considered "Social" CA, where people are ostensibly there just to hang out.

The players could be playing with a seperate agenda that is not being controlled by the gm.  This is where we dump it on Simulationism, and I'm sympathetic with this.  The players are trying to get a vicarious experience of the situation as is talked about in Ron's Sim article.  Their actions are "realizing the ideal" as Walt put it in his recent article.

Any other possible options I've missed?

[contracycle]

It could be they are competing for style points.  That is, risk to their characters maynot be the point - creativity in terms of crazy stunts is the point, as it exhibits strategy.  But I also think that such a mode of play is going to be short-term.

[clehrich]

While I think the 'revised definition' of participationism is an improvement, there's something about it I don't understand: If the GM has a linear plot of a game laid out (pre-determined), how does any CA really have freedom within that?

I think that the problem here, and with many discussions of Participationism, is that "GM has a linear plot of a game laid out (pre-determined)" is not the same as "GM has total control over CA-meaningful decisions."  What Caldis is complaining about, and I agree with him, is that the latter definition is intrinsically dysfunctional, while the former is not.  I don't know what we should call the former, but apparently not Participationism.  For these examples below, I'm going to call it "Following," as in follow-the-leader.

There is an assumption here (e.g. in Marco's post) that GM-constructed linear plot is the locus of agendum-relevant activity.  It doesn't need to be.

Imagine a police game.  Now the GM sets up a linear plot, a kind of mystery-cum-chase, by the end of which the PCs certainly will have caught their man.  That is not in question; the plot is predetermined.

So here's Narrativism:  The Premise is basically something about the balance between getting your man and obeying the rules, a sort of Dirty Harry question if you see what I mean.  The Premise question is thus not whether they succeed, but how.  Thus they can Follow the GM's storyline with total freedom to address Premise as they see fit.  So for example, some PCs may feel that catching this dangerous criminal rapidly, before he can do more damage, is more important than obeying the letter of the law; some may feel that the ends do not justify the means, and will grapple with those moments in which they cannot follow what appears to be the most efficient path to success because of some seemingly trivial instance in the law, e.g. the Miranda rulings and so on.  You can imagine a game like this, I assume.  But my point is that they're going to get the guy in the end -- all the address of Premise occurs along the way, and affects how they get there, not whether.

If this is a Gamist game, presumably the Challenge is not to get the bad guy, because there's no challenge there.  It's predetermined.  So perhaps the Challenge is to get the bad guy with minimal collateral damage.  A hostage situation would fit this admirably: you know the guy is going down, one way or another, since unless you choose to let him go he's trapped in a building with a kindergarten class – where's he going to go?  So the Challenge is to get him without losing the kids.  And perhaps the greatest Challenge is to do so without killing him, which would presumably traumatize the little tykes even more than they already have been.  Again, it's a matter of the how rather than the whether.

But when we get to Simulationism, it seems to me that you cannot set this Following game up functionally, or at least it's fantastically difficult to do so.  Simulationism isn't founded on an activity other than construction and reinforcement of the Dream itself.  (This is what Jay's been struggling with for a while now.)  And it seems to me, based on some of the abductive-logic stuff I posted a while back as well as some of the mythic bricolage stuff and so on, that the crux, the most important part of Dream-building, is to focus on the points at which there is a serious possibility of error, i.e. where the players can have a real disjuncture between what their PCs encounter and what they themselves imagine in the Dream.  The effective way to get at this is to focus on moments of in-SIS intensity, and put the PCs (and thus the players) under stress.  By thus rubbing up against the walls of the Dream, the players are enabled, through their free action, to validate the Dream for themselves.  But if the players know that they are really not under stress, that there is no legitimate possibility of breaking the Dream's walls here, because the GM has set everything up in advance and the players are Following, then you cannot legitimate the Dream around you.  Ultimately the thing is that the Dream is not especially affected one way or another by plot; making CA-significant decisions and choices occurs without respect to such prior GM determination.  This paradoxically entails that the most significant such decisions and choices will necessarily occur at plot-significant moments, which then entails that if it's all predetermined these seemingly significant moments are emptied-out of their potential force as Dream-construction.

I'm not sure I'm parsing Sim correctly, to be honest, because it seems to me that what I'm here calling Following should be completely possible and functional in all CAs.  But I think the problem lies in our current, somewhat weak understanding of Sim, not in the issue of Following or Participating, where the former is potentially functional and the latter necessarily dysfunctional.

[Marco]

There is an assumption here (e.g. in Marco's post) that GM-constructed linear plot is the locus of agendum-relevant activity.  It doesn't need to be.

Imagine a police game.  Now the GM sets up a linear plot, a kind of mystery-cum-chase, by the end of which the PCs certainly will have caught their man.  That is not in question; the plot is predetermined.

This depends on what point we find "Participationism." Believe me, I'm not stuck on the narrativist-meaning-of-plot-and-story.

In your examples you show that the PC's will get the guy no matter what--but there certainly aren't scenes with a pre-determined ending. You've got a series of bangs there.

There's a threat to school kids as a challenge and I can either succeed or fail? Bang.

I have an informat who knows something but doesn't want to talk (but I can beat him)--and whether or not I do so will determine how fast we break the case? Bang.

And so on. (I don't understand the Sim thing. I'll study it).

If we can call a game Participationism because there's a linear series of encounters and an end point then MLWM is Participationism, so is a dungeon, and so is 'Assault on Everest.'

So I don't think so: I think Participationism is found in that the GM determines how a given challenge will be handled to a signifcant level of fidelity (i.e. not "there's a trap in the corridor--but rather--the pit trap will get the first person and plunge him into the cell with the displacer beast, separating them from the party and leading to the 'Lower Level Rescue' scene which follows.)

-Marco

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

1. Jay, you have misrepresented me and misused the concept of referencing. The text you quoted was referring to the definition of Force in the Glossary, not the definition of Participation(ism).

I'm not real happy about that, speaking as moderator.

2. The person who coined the term "Participationism" is Mike Holmes. I suggest that all authority over how it relates to Creative Agendas lies with him.

Best,
Ron

[Marco]

2. The person who coined the term "Participationism" is Mike Holmes. I suggest that all authority over how it relates to Creative Agendas lies with him.

Best,
Ron

I'm cool with that if he comes by and sorts it all out, however: Participationism was described pre-glossary (and directly references Force which is out of date in the glossary). It was also originally coined to describe one of my game-writeups.

If Participationism is a game where the PC's willingly give control over whatever CA-appropriate choices they like then it's a game without CA save for the GM. That argues directly for the existence of Zilchplay (as I understand it). It's also curious as to why Participationism shows up in association with Sim.

If this is true and the players are happy with it then I think, in theory you can have a Narrativist Participationism game where the Nar player is the GM and everyone else is audience.

[ which, I guess, doesn't mean that much, really--but it's an interesting take on Participationism. ]

-Marco

[Ron Edwards]

All of which I agree with, Marco ... at least in terms of setting the groundwork for discussion.

But the important person to hear from is Mike.

Best,
Ron