GMless D20

[ffilz]

Darrick: you might want to read the provisional glossary in the articles section. Participationism is where the players consent to force on the part of the GM.

Frank

[darrick]

yep, i gathered that i had interpreted the gaming jargon wrong there.  i'll check that article out, although some of the theory in those are beyond me.  speaking as a devil's advocate:  isn't participation a misleading word for that behavior?  maybe it should be re-named Sheparding or Shepardist...?

D

[M. J. Young]

hey guys, i thought participationism was allowing the players to create or advance the story as much as the GM...?  that was my definition of a participationist game; having everyone involved in the game participate.

...isn't participation a misleading word for that behavior? maybe it should be re-named Sheparding or Shepardist...?

Jargon develops from use, of course; now that you say it, I can see why that particular word might seem to mean something other than how we use it. Since I was around when it came into use, it doesn't usually occur to me that it might be otherwise.

At the time we were discussion illusionism. The concept of illusionism (as distinguished from illusionist techniques) is that the referee is in absolute control of the story, everything that happens furthers his plan, no one can derail it because he has sufficient force through techniques to reign everything into what he wants, but the players are completely unaware of this--they think that what they're doing makes a difference, when it all it does is add a bit of color to the story the referee is telling. Illusionism is generally regarded dysfunctional, because there is an inherent lie in the social contract: the players believe they are creating a story, but the referee is telling his story without their consent.

Mike Holmes recognized in connection with this that there were gaming groups in which the referee was fully in control of the story and was guiding everything to his conclusions, but the players knew this and assented to it. They were there for the purpose of adding color to his story. Everyone knew that the characters were going to solve the mystery and defeat the big boss in the end; that was never at issue. The referee had it all planned out. Players got to add inconsequential details like whether it was the sword or the bow that was used in that final battle, or who found the secret compartment in which the vital clue was hidden. They are along for the ride, enjoying the tale spun by the referee, and fully aware that they have no real impact on what's happening. There may be a certain amount of denial involved (players like to feel like what they do matters, even if they know it doesn't), but in the end everything unfolds as the referee has planned, and that's how the players want it.

It is viewed as "partipating in the illusion"; hence the name "participationism".

Does that help?

--M. J. Young

[darrick]

yep, clear as an unmuddy lake.

although, a chill went through my body as i had the impression that the foundation of gaming is inherently flawed and evil.  

as if whenever i played i wasn't real at all but only dreamt by the imagination of a mad god.  something a few of us have suspected for awhile, i assume.  perhaps free will is an illusion (on any scale), but i intend to end the determinist nightmare now.

a very sincere thank you, D

___________________________
http://www.lulu.com/content/113758
Empire of Satanis

[ffilz]

M.J. -

Could you point me to a good thread (or set of threads) on trailblazing?

Frank

[M. J. Young]

Um--Maybe?

The seminal thread in which the concept was hashed out initially was entitled Does Module Play Equal Participationism?, in which I argued that it did not, and the name "trailblazing" was created.

A search for the terms "module" and "trailblazing" drew only eleven threads, of which the other that I think might be on point (without looking at them all right now) is "Unconscious" Accommodations for TITBB.

It's addressed in my forthcoming series Theory 101, but I'm not sure when that's going to be published.

--M. J. Young

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Return to topic, please. All of the referencing and clarification is great, but the topic concerns GMless D20. If that's resolved (your call, Frank), then new topics need to go to their own, new threads.

Best,
Ron

[ffilz]

I am still have some interest in exploring the concept I proposed, but I'm not sure how to proceed. If anyone has thoughts on the concept, please share them.

I'm going to go back to actual play for discussion of what I want from gaming.

Frank