Dramatism and Illusionism

[Marco]

Something about my post wasn't coming through. I was posting a counter-example to the idea that illusionism was problematic.

[snipped]

Mike

Understood. Would you characterize yourself as playing "to see what it would really be like" (even given some complex, perhaps unlikely, starting situation) or to "see what the GM had in store for you" (given that, most likely, you didn't think about it at the time that way, how would you characterize it in retrospect?)

If the latter then I don't think Ralph's conflict-centered idea of playing to-see-what-it'd-be-like is directly applicable to your goals of play, per-se.

In other words: Force or Railroading or whatever is not compatible with "what if" goals.

That's what I'm suggesting.

It might also be incompatable with story-structure goals since, as you pointed out, that made for a bad story (in a certain sense, anyway--it could be ret-conned into a decent story but in a real-time sense the guys suddenly got a lot more powerful in a way that would sort of break SOD in a movie or book, I'm guessing).

-Marco

[Mike Holmes]

I'm really not getting the distinction you're making, Marco. The game was MERP, and I was playing, personally to feel like I was a Dunedain wandering around in Middle Earth. Pretty sim, in that I wasn't really too concerned with "story" or anything, just in playing around in Middle Earth. I spent a lot of time trying to get money to start my own kingdom, as a goal that I'd given the character.

It really wasn't "Story" at all. It was that we liked to feel that we were making our way in Middle Earth on our own, but expecting that the GM would make it interesting along the way. As such (especially given that Middle Earth is sparsely populated in terms of places where interesting things can happen), he had to force us to go where the action was. Typically with hints of treasure or the like.

Does that help?

Maybe I shouldn't have put in a personal example?

Mike

[M. J. Young]

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.

Force

   The Technique of control over characters' thematically-significant decisions by anyone who is not the character's player. When Force is applied in a manner which disrupts the Social Contract, the result is Railroading. Originally called "GM-oomph" (Ron Edwards), then "GM-Force" (Mike Holmes).

I've thought that the glossary definition needed revision, as it appears to be saying that "force" only exists if it interferes with thematically-significant decisions, and therefore only impacts narrativist play in a negative way. I note that this is not the meaning Ron presents here, and so suggest that the glossary needs to be revised to recognize this.

--M. J. Young

[Ron Edwards]

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

[Marco]

I'm really not getting the distinction you're making, Marco. The game was MERP, and I was playing, personally to feel like I was a Dunedain wandering around in Middle Earth. Pretty sim, in that I wasn't really too concerned with "story" or anything, just in playing around in Middle Earth. I spent a lot of time trying to get money to start my own kingdom, as a goal that I'd given the character.

It really wasn't "Story" at all. It was that we liked to feel that we were making our way in Middle Earth on our own, but expecting that the GM would make it interesting along the way. As such (especially given that Middle Earth is sparsely populated in terms of places where interesting things can happen), he had to force us to go where the action was. Typically with hints of treasure or the like.

Does that help?

Maybe I shouldn't have put in a personal example?

Mike

Okay--I hear you. I'd have thought that the GM mutating situation as he did would be antithetical to the Middle-Earth experience--but I wasn't there and while you describe it as a minor problem, I can see that it clearly didn't ruin anything for you.

I think the difference I'm seeing is this:

The kind of social contract I identify with has a very strong commitment to cause and effect in play. That is: I wouldn't want the GM to ret-con the riders because it was "important to the story" or even "important because otherwise interesting things wouldn't happen."

In the case of the former, there's all kinds of associated problems for virtuality.

In the case of the latter, I have a lot more sympathy but I think interesting things can still progress from us engaging the riders--if the GM decides that, no, we've got to be captured then I think it's probably a really bad call on his part and we might need to stop play and discuss what went wrong.

Essentially, when the GM starts doing this, I think the GM has abandoned "virtuality" (GDS Sim) and has instead moved on to something that's, IMO, more GDS Dramatist.

This is, IME, a very big, very deep difference in play and the two forms tend to be extremely incompatible (again: IME--and most times, not all the time).

What Ralph has defined as "what-if" seems to me to fall more squarely inside the Virtuality space than the Dramatist space. In fact, although there are techniques to have the two overlap somewhat (and I'm a big fan of some of them) if you're driving force of play is best described as "what would it be like" then the GM changing the riders for reasons of story-progression (pushing the PC's to an interesting place) is definitely outside the bounds of Virtuality play.

Virtuality seems to be a lot closer to Ralph's what-if than to what I'd describe as a commitment to 'story' or 'interesting stuff happening' or other ways of phrasing a GDS Dramatist agenda.

-Marco

[Mike Holmes]

You keep using social contract. The part of the social contract that was the CA was that the agreement was that it would seem as though there was a set universe to play in, while in fact the GM would do what it took to make sure that interesting things happened.

Again, the breakdown wasn't that he did something that was a ret-con, but that he did it in such a way that it was visible. It's like watching a movie, and seeing the wires holding up the starship. The illusion of player control in an objective world is broken.

Also, it's not so much that it was a ret-con, as that we saw that the GM was making things up on the spot. In fact, I'm pretty sure that he didn't have a level set for the guys in question, or any stats. I'm sure his notes read, "the PCs are approached by guards who tell them that the Mayor wants to see them." (To be precise we were in Tharbad, and the ruler - whatever he's called - was the one who wanted to see us for a job). It was the way he presented the information, telling us that they were high level, and therefore weren't to be resisted, that was so obvious.

The obvious interpretation wasn't, "I'm going to make this an interesting challenge for you guys, should you try to go the other way," it was, "Quit trying to buck the road that I've got set to the adventure." Or, more literally, "I'm taking away your power here." The CA says that it's fine for him to take away our power to affect the course of events, he just can't shove it in our faces.

Now, this all said, even in a game like you describe, Marco, where there's a commitment not to change things, the GM still has this sort of power. That is, the GM is allowed in the CA that you describe to create the adventure up front, no? So, if, in the adventure, he has written that there are very powerful guards that the PCs can't resist, who come to make the PCs go somewhere, this can be just as obvious. That is, this is still amongst the most heavy handed of illusionism techniques, one that's likely to be seen through. In truely "open" sim, there are no pre-planned adventures of any sort, because to do so is to make the game not "open". In open sim, the players just say where they're going, and what they're doing. Anything else is either Illusionism, or Participationism, at least in part.

Mike

[Marco]

You keep using social contract. The part of the social contract that was the CA was that the agreement was that it would seem as though there was a set universe to play in, while in fact the GM would do what it took to make sure that interesting things happened.

Emphasis added for second italics.

This seems a different CA than the one Ralph is describing. It's designed to look like a higher commitment to virtuality than it really is. In GDS terms this is closer to Dramatist than Simulationist. In present terms, the GM changing things for the purpose of making interesting things happen is, IMO, at odds with a "what if?" agenda.

In this case it's a question of the purpose of the new information (or the precieved purpose)--not the content.

Again, the breakdown wasn't that he did something that was a ret-con, but that he did it in such a way that it was visible. It's like watching a movie, and seeing the wires holding up the starship. The illusion of player control in an objective world is broken.

Also, it's not so much that it was a ret-con, as that we saw that the GM was making things up on the spot. In fact, I'm pretty sure that he didn't have a level set for the guys in question, or any stats. I'm sure his notes read, "the PCs are approached by guards who tell them that the Mayor wants to see them." (To be precise we were in Tharbad, and the ruler - whatever he's called - was the one who wanted to see us for a job). It was the way he presented the information, telling us that they were high level, and therefore weren't to be resisted, that was so obvious.

The obvious interpretation wasn't, "I'm going to make this an interesting challenge for you guys, should you try to go the other way," it was, "Quit trying to buck the road that I've got set to the adventure." Or, more literally, "I'm taking away your power here." The CA says that it's fine for him to take away our power to affect the course of events, he just can't shove it in our faces.

Now, this all said, even in a game like you describe, Marco, where there's a commitment not to change things, the GM still has this sort of power. That is, the GM is allowed in the CA that you describe to create the adventure up front, no? So, if, in the adventure, he has written that there are very powerful guards that the PCs can't resist, who come to make the PCs go somewhere, this can be just as obvious. That is, this is still amongst the most heavy handed of illusionism techniques, one that's likely to be seen through. In truely "open" sim, there are no pre-planned adventures of any sort, because to do so is to make the game not "open". In open sim, the players just say where they're going, and what they're doing. Anything else is either Illusionism, or Participationism, at least in part.

Mike

Emphasis added.

Here you've asked and answered the "what if" question.

What if the GM has only written that the Mayor has dispatched eleven "Dark Riders" (bad-ass rider/tracker horsement) to bring the PC's?

1. The riders might not find the PC's if, for example, they are covering their tracks, hiding, and keeping observation posts.
2. If they do find the PC's they have an incredbily powerful force but one that *might* concievably lose.
3. The riders might be persuaded to negoitiate or simply deliver the message (and the PC's could decide whether or not to go) if for example, the PC's could make it hard to take them (they hole up in a ruin with narrow access and the riders consider that half their number dying for the characters isn't worth it).

HOWEVER: if the PC's (who are unaware they are being hunted) simply do what they have been doing (travel from point A to point B) they will (as is clearly likely) be tracked, approached, and brought to the Mayor ...

Under what CA's would the above be:
a) Force?
b) Railroading?
c) Illusionism?

In this case the "what-if" question is not answered by the GM's notes--although the situation is obviously *likely* to play out in the manner your game did.

-Marco

[contracycle]

Under what CA's would the above be:
a) Force?
b) Railroading?
c) Illusionism?

What is the question here?  Why would they need to be any of them?  I can't understand what this has to do with the scenario you give, or even what it has to do with Mike's point.   The GM just setting up seom events that probably have a certain outcome does not need, it seems to me, to be described as either your a or b or c.

[Marco]

Under what CA's would the above be:
a) Force?
b) Railroading?
c) Illusionism?

What is the question here?  Why would they need to be any of them?  I can't understand what this has to do with the scenario you give, or even what it has to do with Mike's point.   The GM just setting up seom events that probably have a certain outcome does not need, it seems to me, to be described as either your a or b or c.

The point is to distinguish between someone with (for lack of better terms) a GDS Dramatist vs. a GDS Sim player's social contract. If my example isn't seen as Force or Illusionism under any CA (as you postulate) then I would contrast that to what *I* certainly see as 'railroading' (which might or might not be called Force or Illusionism) in his example of play.

I'm saying the Sim-as-"What-If?" play is a distinct social contract from Sim that includes allowances for the GM to change things as necessary to ensure that interesting things happen.

-Marco

[contracycle]

The point is to distinguish between someone with (for lack of better terms) a GDS Dramatist vs. a GDS Sim player's social contract. If my example isn't seen as Force or Illusionism under any CA (as you postulate) then I would contrast that to what *I* certainly see as 'railroading' (which might or might not be called Force or Illusionism) in his example of play.

OK.  I'm not an advocate of GDS.  This is a GNS forum.  So you may well be the best placed person to tell us what the distinction between two aspects of the GDS model might be.  

I'm saying the Sim-as-"What-If?" play is a distinct social contract from Sim that includes allowances for the GM to change things as necessary to ensure that interesting things happen.

Under GNS, or GDS, or both, or neither?  You question seems to borrow from two separate models and I find it very difficult to follow.

If my example isn't seen as Force or Illusionism under any CA (as you postulate)

Once again Marco, that is NOT what I said.  What I said was it NEED NOT be a or b or c necessarily.  I didn't say it definitely was not; your scenario only seemed to show an intended effect following from cause.  But no resolution is given so we don;t know what actually happened, or why.

[Marco]

The point is to distinguish between someone with (for lack of better terms) a GDS Dramatist vs. a GDS Sim player's social contract. If my example isn't seen as Force or Illusionism under any CA (as you postulate) then I would contrast that to what *I* certainly see as 'railroading' (which might or might not be called Force or Illusionism) in his example of play.

OK.  I'm not an advocate of GDS.  This is a GNS forum.  So you may well be the best placed person to tell us what the distinction between two aspects of the GDS model might be.  

I'm using GDS terminology because it's the "best fit" here, IMO--GDS Sim is pretty well described as playing "to see what would it really be like" ... or the usual take on the word "Simulationism."  Also called Virtuality here recently.

Here it's more specifically: What I see Ralph as talking about in terms of a Sim CA.

That's opposed to play "for the story" where the GM is expected to manipulate things covertly or overtly to ensure a certain story-like outcome (plot-protection to save PC's from meaningless death, for example).

These concepts get a lot of play here--especially recently.

I'm saying the Sim-as-"What-If?" play is a distinct social contract from Sim that includes allowances for the GM to change things as necessary to ensure that interesting things happen.

Under GNS, or GDS, or both, or neither?  You question seems to borrow from two separate models and I find it very difficult to follow.

Under what Ralph is describing as GNS Sim on this thread and in his take on the theory thread which, as it turns out, is a lot like GDS Sim as I understand it (and that goes both for what Ralph is saying and GDS Sim--I might be misunderstanding either). That's what' I'm referencing.

If my example isn't seen as Force or Illusionism under any CA (as you postulate)

Once again Marco, that is NOT what I said.  What I said was it NEED NOT be a or b or c necessarily.  I didn't say it definitely was not; your scenario only seemed to show an intended effect following from cause.  But no resolution is given so we don;t know what actually happened, or why.

[/quote]

I have a hard time following this. What do you mean when you say you don't know "why" things happened? I'm, you know, assuming 'in-game cause and effect.'

Given the set up and a commitment to virtuality (i.e. the GM doesn't change things with intent to create a specific outcome--if the players get away, they get away) then what more would you need from "why" or "what happens?"

Are you asking me to pick a CA for the player's play? I don't see it as relevant to, for example, illusionism. If you think it's relevant to Force or Railroading just state your assumptions and then your conclusions.

-Marco

[contracycle]

I'm using GDS terminology because it's the "best fit" here, IMO--GDS Sim is pretty well described as playing "to see what would it really be like" ... or the usual take on the word "Simulationism."  Also called Virtuality here recently.

As I understand it, John Kim proposed that there was an aspect of GDS-Sim not accomodated by GNS-Sim, and for this he proposed the term virtuality.

Not to beat about the bush, I think John is wrong, that GNS-sim describes all aspects of sim to my satisfaction, and that GNS has de facto superceded GDS rather than standing as an alternate view on an equal plane.  Please note this is a strictly personal opinion.

That's opposed to play "for the story" where the GM is expected to manipulate things covertly or overtly to ensure a certain story-like outcome (plot-protection to save PC's from meaningless death, for example).

Its precisely becuase it is not clear whether "story-like" means "like a story addressing of premise" or whether it means "following the structure of the (for example) the 3-act play".  As I recall, the latter is identified as a subset of Sim and the former was re-badged Narratavism to underline the distinction.

Under what Ralph is describing as GNS Sim on this thread and in his take on the theory thread which, as it turns out, is a lot like GDS Sim as I understand it (and that goes both for what Ralph is saying and GDS Sim--I might be misunderstanding either). That's what' I'm referencing.

I agree a lot of GNS-Sim and GDS-Sim will look much alike.  But, I could mercilessly railroad players through a scenario and claim that it was Dramatism if I had an introduction , rising tension and a climax.  While there may be differences, I think the primary distinction between GNS and GDS is the N/D part, with implications for some forms of play that used to fall under D now falling under S.

Given the set up and a commitment to virtuality (i.e. the GM doesn't change things with intent to create a specific outcome--if the players get away, they get away) then what more would you need from "why" or "what happens?"

OK.  But in the scenario Mike offered, there was a clear-cut signal of the GM's purposeful intervention rather than a developement of cause and effect; so I don't follow what your example is trying to identify.

[Marco]

I don't think GDS Sim isn't covered under GNS Sim (and I don't think that's what John said)--it's that, IMO, GNS Sim lumps in various dramatic techniques that GDS Sim guys would (IME) think are railroading. It puts them all together.

When Ralph wrote his essay I noted that under his take on Sim I thought GDS Dramatism did not apply, he started this thread.

Under his take on Sim I would think that Illusionism would be considered dysfunctional. It's, commonly, not considered dysfunctional under normal GNS Sim, IMO.

Its precisely becuase it is not clear whether "story-like" means "like a story addressing of premise" or whether it means "following the structure of the (for example) the 3-act play".  As I recall, the latter is identified as a subset of Sim and the former was re-badged Narratavism to underline the distinction.

Oh, okay, sure: I agree that we don't know exactly what the GM is enpowered to do under GDS Dramatism--but clearly it is some kind of super-set that encompsses Narrativism and forms of forceful or railroaded play that aren't Narrativist as well (Illusionism).

What I'm interested in is whether or not under Ralph's definition of GNS Sumulationism illusionist play (or Force?) is considered dysfunctional. It seems to me it would be. Just as it is under Narrativist play (but for different reasons).

OK.  But in the scenario Mike offered, there was a clear-cut signal of the GM's purposeful intervention rather than a developement of cause and effect; so I don't follow what your example is trying to identify.

I'm identifying the difference. I'm saying that what Mike's ref did would be counter to how Ralph has defined GNS Sim in his essay as I read it. In other words: Mike's CA would not, IMO, fit neatly under Ralph's Sim definition.

I anticipated that someone might say: "When the GM constructs a 'tight' situation such that even when run from a cause-and-effect standpoint a given outcome is likely then the GM is just employing Force in a different (and more subtle) manner from the guy who amps the level on the riders ex-post-facto."

And I'm asking if anyone would say that. Because if you do say that then what Ralph is describing needs, IME, some clarification.

-Marco

[Mike Holmes]

I see what you're trying to get at. And I agree with the Dramatism vs. Illusionism point, in general. But I don't think that Ralph's Sim is GDS Sim. That is, I think that Illusionism definitely falls under simulationism in GNS. And not dysfuncitonal simulationism, either. Because the area of conflict between these things is not in what's produces, but in how things are presented. This is the key distinction between the two models. Nobody actually cares about whether or not a "story" is produced, for instance. The only question is whether people feel that they have the ability to make these sorts of changes at the time in question.

Simulationism wants to seem like players have the ability to autonomously move their characters about inside of the SIS. Illusionism seeks to provide just that feeling, while actually giving the power of control of events to the GM. Yes, this is so that a certain outcome will happen, but that's precisely why Illusionism isn't a CA, but a sub-CA. It has the same goal as Simulationism in terms of feel, but varies in terms of results of play by wanting to create a story (or interesting action, or whatever). Wheras "open" sim wants to allow the players the same feel, but makes it easier by allowing most any outcome of play.

Does that clarify it for anyone?

Again, this is not to say that outcomes of play aren't important, they are. Just that GNS classifies three categories of CAs that are prone to conflict when decisions that indicate them in use are noted. As opposed to looking back at the product created.

Mike

[John Kim]

But I don't think that Ralph's Sim is GDS Sim. That is, I think that Illusionism definitely falls under simulationism in GNS. And not dysfuncitonal simulationism, either. Because the area of conflict between these things is not in what's produces, but in how things are presented. This is the key distinction between the two models.

I'm going to quote Ralph's expansion on Simulationism from his first post in the thread, http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=12181">The Model as seen by Valamir, because I think it addresses this.  

Simulationism has long been a problematic agenda to understand. In my effort to more clearly define it I have elected to replace the Right to Dream with Discovery, not as an additional term, but because I think Discovery more accurately relates to what Simulationism is about. In my opinion, the Right to Dream is what all of role playing is about and is thus more accurately applied to Exploration than to Simulationism. Dreaming is a rather passive endeavor. But Discovery requires decisive action and focus and is more appropriately on par with the other two agendas.

I have also tried to return Simulationism to its roots which have been lost in the mists of ancient Forge discussion. The goal of Simulationism must be, can only be it would seem to me, to simulate something. Not to explore, not to just "see what's out there". Those are passive acts of observation. Simulation is like an experiment which seeks to answer the question "what if". Before one can observe the results and get that answer, one has to set up the experiment and start it in motion.

So as I read this, here Ralph (Valamir) is trying to merge GNS with its roots in the rgfa Threefold -- by redefining GNS Simulationism.  It is perhaps a problematic redefinition, but I think it's something worth considering.  

Simulationism wants to seem like players have the ability to autonomously move their characters about inside of the SIS. Illusionism seeks to provide just that feeling, while actually giving the power of control of events to the GM. Yes, this is so that a certain outcome will happen, but that's precisely why Illusionism isn't a CA, but a sub-CA. It has the same goal as Simulationism in terms of feel, but varies in terms of results of play by wanting to create a story (or interesting action, or whatever). Wheras "open" sim wants to allow the players the same feel, but makes it easier by allowing most any outcome of play.

Does that clarify it for anyone?

Just to be clear, you are talking about GNS Simulationism here, correct?  So in your opinion, Participationism is not within GNS Simulationism.  i.e. Suppose the illusion is broken and the players consciously give power of control of events to the GM.  This is generally done by openly "following the GM's lead" -- i.e. the majority of players might openly tell a rebellious player, "C'mon, play along or you'll ruin the GM's story."  This, as you picture it, is not GNS Simulationism, right?