The Forge Archives

In this thread Marco commented

QuoteI especially liked the expansion on Simulationism--I think it's good and well wrought--but it seems to me to leave out GDS Dramatism which, I do not think, would be accurately described as a "what if?" exercise.

As I remember most of the previous discussions on Dramatism were rather flailing and I don't know that any very satisfactory answer was achieved.  It may well be worth while to see how it shakes out under this more treatment.

It would be important to start with a pretty clear idea of what Dramatism's key features are.  That would be a good subject for a thread.

QuoteI would also think that under "what if" play illusionism would likely be seen as more dysfunctional than it usually is (which I agree with--I don't think too many players would intentionally consent to what is usually described as illusionism at it's core).

If someone is playing to see "what if" and the GM isn't allowing "what if" but replacing it with "X" where "X" is the GM's desired outcome that would seem to be a flat conflict of interest.

I agree.  The act of illusionism is a very profound violation of the needs of simulation.  That doesn't surprise me because I don't think any "real" simulationist was ever really satisfied with Illusionism being thought of as simulationism anyway.

An interesting angle to consider is whether illusionist play fails my test for Conflict.  If the GM is both simultaneously establishing the adversity and through illusionist technique resolving the adversity then one might argue that there really isn't any adversity in illusionist play.  That the adversity is itself part of the illusion because, in reality, the GM provides a safety net in order to keep the desired story going.

Illusionism then may be a technique used at the exploration level specifically to avoid having to committ to the uncertainties of a Creative Agenda.

That's interesting - and compelling. Because in my later experience especially, once everyone's on board with an accepted degree of Force from the GM, then no "illusion" is necessary.

Consider Simulationist play when Situation is king, as in my discussion of High Concept Sim.

When Force is high but there's no illusion, then more accurately, we're all illusionists when that happens, and the only ones being "fooled" are an entirely imaginary audience. This is what Mike calls Participation if I'm not mistaken, and it's quite fun.

Which would then seem to cast some shadow on the pride of GMs who consider their prime skills to be fooling the players into thinking they've directed the story, when all along he or she had control over the imaginary situation. Such a GM always perceives himself or herself as indispensable and necessary (for a good story, you know), and also that the fooling-part is essential.

Best,
Ron

P.S. This entire post assumes that the reader understands the definition of Force, which various recent threads indicate is not well-understood at all. Force per se is neither railroading nor any other awful/terrible thing. Once you get that point drilled in, then it's OK to consider that Force does not play well in Gamist or Narrativist contexts.

Quote from: ValamirIllusionism then may be a technique used at the exploration level specifically to avoid having to commit to the uncertainties of a Creative Agenda.

Just for clarification, are you proposing that a group playing in Illusionist mode has no creative agenda at all, or that they are just sort of hovering in between somewhere?  I find the whole idea very intriguing, as it seems to imply something about why a certain group of roleplayers find the three CA categories troublesome.

Ron,
I understand your comment about the Illusionist GM's pride, but are you relating Participationism to Ralph's comments on CA in some way as well?

Well, at this point I haven't spent a whole lot of brain cells cranking the idea of Illusionism through this idea, so "proposing" is probably a little too strong a word, more like ruminating...in a kind of "interesting lets see if this goes any where sense"

So I'm ruminating on the idea that Illusionist play is exploration only and doesn't involve a Creative Agenda.  Or perhaps more precisely that the potential for Creative Agenda is subverted by the GM's sleight of hand.

I have a funny image in my head of players with a hook in their mouth trying to swim up one of the CA streams while the GM keeps realing them back in...

Other interesting possibilities to consider would be if the GM is actually playing with a Creative Agenda and using illusion to force the other players into the same Creative Agenda, in which case it might be interesting to discuss the possibilities of different CA Illusions

But again far from any actual proposal...just interesting musings at this point... (I feel like I should be sitting on the porch with a pipe blowing smoke rings...)

I've played in games where I, the player, demanded both Force, and the appearance of no Force. And It was functional for the most part. When it became problematic was when the Force became obvious.

(Once we were forced by the GM to see someone by men armed with crossbows - when it became apparent that we were going to fight them, he told us that they looked very high level. This was a mistake made from sudden need, not a problem with the overall CA).

As always, I buy "difficult" but not problematic other than that.

Dramatism is a GDS term no? Doesn't that make this an apples/oranges comparison?

Mike

Hello,

My contention from the beginning has been that Dramatism is a moving target - that whenever it's been discussed here, and when I call for specifics, the hitherto unified participants suddenly reveal that they've all been talking about different things.

Therefore when I say "Dramatism doesn't exist," it does not mean that any of the particular things which each proponent describes (Logan, Gareth [mytholder], John Kim, etc) does not exist, but rather that the label doesn't represent any entity that we can actually discuss.

Any disagreement with this point probably belongs in a thread of its own. My goal in bringing it up here is that Ralph has already stated that the term needs to be defined before it can be addressed, and I agree. But since the Illusionism topic seems completely disconnected and perfectly capable of being pursued, let's keep doing Illusionism here and look to another thread for the Dramatism.

Best,
Ron

I asked in another thread if the GM could create conflicts that encourage a particular Creative Agenda, and was met with a resounding "yes."  This makes sense to me.

What it leads me to conclude then, is that the GM is capable, in an Illusionist game, of creating conflicts and outcomes to those conflicts which exhibit a Creative Agenda over the course of an instance of play.  However, like the illusion of control, the players have no role, or rather they don't participate in the creation of this Creative Agenda.  It's truly a one man show.  That's not to say that Illusionist players don't still prefer one CA over another.  I think rather that in this context, they expect an illusion that syncs with certain preferences.  Yet, because they aren't aware of the GM making CA-based choices--even less so than non-Illusionist players--classifying the game under a GNS heading is particularly difficult for them.  Rather, they are forced to consider the story in retrospect only, and that's when things get muddled.  In other words, how can you recognize the kind of choices you are making if you aren't really making any meaningful choices to begin with?

Hey Ralph,

I think that one form of GM Illusionism applied to Gamism is one where the GM does not let the Gamble fail.  IOW he removes the possibility for failure thus turning the game into the Crunch without the players' knowledge and thus without their permission.  By doing so the GM removes or lessens the risk involved and thus reduces the weight of what the player is trying to say/demonstrate about himself via his play.

Regarding Simulationist Illusionism I would posit the following.  If the Illusionism is real, the players do know the GM is using Force (that their choices are being deprotagonized) and they are ok with that, then I would say that it is not a CA in operation because without the element of risk they players aren't "saying" anything.  It is, in essence, a form of Zilchplay – they are just plain Exploring what is already mapped out for them – which makes it essentially Setting.

Some thoughts.

Quote from: Mike HolmesI've played in games where I, the player, demanded both Force, and the appearance of no Force. And It was functional for the most part. When it became problematic was when the Force became obvious.

(Once we were forced by the GM to see someone by men armed with crossbows - when it became apparent that we were going to fight them, he told us that they looked very high level. This was a mistake made from sudden need, not a problem with the overall CA).

Mike

Well, I'm clearly one of the people who doesn't understand Force (which seems to be key to understanding this thread).

It seems to me like the GM modified Situation there (which I would describe as Railroading), rather than employing Force: there was a clear consequence created to your attempt to attack the men with crossbows--but not an actual character hijack: the players are faced with a suddenly-stronger challenge but are still free to decide how to respond to it.

Is it Force because the GM changed situation to suddenly raise the stakes? If it is then, Ron, despite that that you say it's not railroading it sure does look like that to me. The players deviate from the rails and the GM increases the threat-level to force them back on (lowercase 'f').

If creating strong consequences from, say the start (i.e. the GM says "ten high-level riders approach") is/isn't Force based on the GM's intent then I still don't understand it (certainly consequences are part of all play--you might choose not to interact with the riders or to listen but discard what they say or choose death to surrender if they try to capture you).

So, no--I don't see how making the riders high level is "Force" (it limits your apparently thematic option of attacking) but not "Railroading" (it forces you onto the rails of interacting with the riders however that was envisioned by the GM).

Dramatism is, indeed, GDS. To my understanding (and John or someone else with a better grip can correct me) it means having the story-structure of the game held as more important than the what-if aspect (the how it'd really play out element). I think that makes it at least as discussable as GNS Narrativism.

Story-structure of play is easily understood--and, in fact, is even tangible from a transcript. I sumbit that while a given player might differ as to how to get that story-structure, the basic goal of play is perhaps more easily discussed than GNS CA's.

Especially since I don't think GDS goes into Story-Now vs. Story-later terriotry, for example, or observed behavior vs. intent (it's clearly delineated as a stated goal of play for the participant in question).

That might make it "less useful" than CA-analysis (depending on your take on analysis of play) but not, IMO, "less defined."*

-Marco
* Meaning the player might be 'lying' about wanting Dramatism--but if a player says they're interested in Dramatism then I'd think that play follwoing a three-act style structure with an emphsis on climax and perhaps some recurrent elements along the lines of 'theme' might be of interest.

Marco, if you want to discuss Force, then we can do that. I'm not sure that this is the right venue, and with respect, I'm not at all sure that you're entering the conversation with any desire to learn what I'm saying.

Again, this is not a slam. This is weary experience. I'm answering here in the idealistic hope that your recent participation at the Forge represents a new spirit of discourse for you, not just another iteration.

To review:

1. Force is when person A exerts control over the decisions and actions of person B's character. Note: not input, but control, or as Vincent would put it, person A has more credibility over the character than person B, despite how most people would say person B "owns" the character.

2. Force techniques vary widely, from pre-scene to post-action, from subtle to obvious, and more. Some GMs would be surprised to learn that I'd call their techniques Force, and might point to some other GM's very different set of techniques as a counter.

3. Force is a highly significant principle in play and cannot be neutral; either it's acceptable relative to every other aspect of play, by the group (most especially person B), or it's not.

When it is acceptable, then great! Participationism is the result, in which case person B doesn't care what the character decides as long as he or she gets to act it out, or as long as he or she gets input at one point or another, or similar. It is, I think, the core technique (or family of techniques) for Situation-heavy Simulationist play.

When it is not acceptable to the group or most especially to person B, then Force is a game-breaker. Railroading is only one manifestation of Force being judged unacceptable. One of my claims is that Gamist and Narrativist play both require very explicit limits, or even sanctions, on Force by the GM.

(Side note: yes, people other than the GM can exert Force.)

Illusionist techniques are, for the first time in our discussions, being discussed primarily as means of masking Force from participants who would otherwise object to it.

Am I making sense? When you read an example of Force, you might say "Ugh! Railroading," and you know what? Aesthetically and as a player/GM, I probably agree with you. But that doesn't mean that the same example of Force is going to be unacceptable to some other group (or even to me, if I've resigned myself to a form of play which, although I don't prefer it, I can enjoy now that I understand it better).

Best,
Ron

First, I haven't been following the whole "force" issue of late. I may be using an obsolete version of the term. In fact, my point is precisely that, at the point that it became obvious that the GM was manipulating the world to ensure that the plot he wanted would occur, that it became railroading, and not the functional forma of play that it had been previously. Railroading being defined as play in which control that the players demand, or at least the appearance of control, is visibly taken away from the players.

When I used the term "forced" (not force, but the other word in the latter paragraph) I was using it in a non-technical sense, to simply mean "made to comply." This wasn't merely "raising the stakes" this was promising to kill our characters if we didn't comply. There was no viable option not to comply - it would have made for a senseless end to the game. He knew that we would not go that way, so he wasn't offering a choice, but using his authority to ensure that the game went the way he needed it to go.

Mike

Hi there,

Mike, I'll clarify:

Quotemy point is precisely that, at the point that it became obvious that the GM was manipulating the world to ensure that the plot he wanted would occur, that it became railroading, and not the functional forma of play that it had been previously.

Predicating that the players do not want Force to be present, and that the GM is masking the Force with illusionist techniques, is certainly a common phenomenon - and yes, it's a recipe for disaster, and yes, it's railroading (or more accurately, they would raise the cry of "Railroading! You bastard!" justifiably).

I am also calling attention to another group entirely, in which such GM-authority over the plot may be desired by the group in question, and that they are Participating in it. In this case, no illusion was necessary from the beginning.

In this case, the Force is still Force, but there is no dysfunction, no resentment, no illusion, and no railroading.

I'm not seeing anything controversial or hard to understand in what I'm saying. Is there something I need to clarify further?

Best,
Ron

Mike,

I wasn't meaning to jump on the technical definition per-se. But the deal is this: If the GM had said "the hand of the plot comes down and prevents you from fighting the guys you could reasonably take on" I can't see players who are interested in a what-if style game being real happy with it--accepting it, maybe--but only in a "hey, we all need to get along" fashion.

Hence, Railroading. Maybe everyone went along with it--I might've--especially if the GM was inexperienced--but I don't know any gaming group that wouldn't consider that a hiccough.*

The reason I think Illusionist/Particiaptionist Sim (under Ralph's definition) play is basically non-functional is that it will break down explosively when someone's input is squelched and the rules or ambient situation say otherwise (i.e. when the GM changes situation to railroad the party by increasing the power of the men-at-arms).

It's my guess that any functional form of these games revolves around the  GM making sure that the choice the player's freely want to choose is the choice he'd prepared for. Basically the GM being quite slaved to the player's desires and staying at least one step ahead of them while being very, very attentive to their probable choices.

When that isn't the case you see rails (changes in situation to ensure conformation). Maybe Force(?) (where the player's decision is literally made for him?)

I'm not clear where the more sublte-Force-techniques fall on this spectrum (or, really, what they are): but I can't see them as being acceptable to someone who is trying to find out "What it would be like" no matter what since there's a strong hand of a GM there.

If Dramatism is going to contrast to that then it's easy to distinguish the preferred technique: if the player values story-structure over choice-freedom then you get something like participationism.

If the player values choice-freedom over story-structure (but still values story-structre over what-it-would-be-like) then you get a preference for Dramatist systems (hero points, I imagine) and situations designed to produce a satisfying climax (but not forced to).

That's my take.

-Marco
* I have heard descriptions of games where the GM does, in fact, dictate *everything* and the players are locked out of decision making. The descriptions I've heard are always extreme edge condition gaming.  They've usually been presented as such as well. I'm talking about important, during-play decisions here, mostly though. I've seen several PC groups catapulted into adventures with force/railroading/etc. techniques.

I draw a big difference between doing that at the start of play vs. doing that throughout play--although either is, IME, a mistake it's a matter of magnitude in difference and most of a "what is it like" POV isn't voilated by saying "so you're all in the King's dungeon" unless, like, the character can walk through walls and no one knows it ...

Hello,

Marco, that post of mine was too harsh. We've clarified the real point by private message, so on to discussing Force.

Best,
Ron

Something about my post wasn't coming through. I was posting a counter-example to the idea that illusionism was problematic. That is, for the vast majority of the play of that game, the GM used Force but in a non-visible way. We knew that he was using Force, and only objected to it when we could detect it. When we could, in the one case where the GM made the mistake in presentation, that was a breach of CA. Not because he used force, but because we could see him using force. Basically because it was ugly. Like a bad author using a deus ex machina.

Does that clarify at all?

I presented the "problem" because I felt that it illuminated the mode of play. Not to say that play was problematic. At the table, me and the other player frowned at the GM and said, "OK, we get the picture," and moved on with play. In dozens of sessions that was the only problem that I can remember.

Mike