Theory 101: The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast posted

[Stefan / 1of3]

GM-Controlled, Players Unaware: Illusionism
GM-Controlled, Players Aware: Participationism
Player-Controlled, Players Unaware: ???
Player-Controlled, Players Aware: Bass Playing

Nice. I like that.

The third is like:

Player: "Hey, Mr. Garibaldi is surely the murderer."
GM: *thinking* Wow. Yeah, I'll make Garibaldi the murderer.

"Unobtrusive Listening" might be good name.

[contracycle]

This thread bugs me a bit.  Firstly, refereeing styles assumes the presence of a referee, and surely that is not a given.  Second, I do not see why the word "story" appears, surely we should discuss "the action" rather than "the story".  

We have seen a couple of "automated" game styles of late, in which much of the action arises from completely mechanistic processes, like Power/Evil.  I think this is potentially a fifth playing style, but whether it would be a refereeing style I'm not so sure.

[Marco]

This thread bugs me a bit.  Firstly, refereeing styles assumes the presence of a referee, and surely that is not a given.  Second, I do not see why the word "story" appears, surely we should discuss "the action" rather than "the story".  

For that matter, I think the change from "author/protagonist of the story" to "complete control of the story" is important and not explained (this is, I think, a change from the canonical statement of TITBB). Any game that uses dice to resolve things is certainly moving away from anyone being able to say they have complete control of the story (pretty much however that's meant).

-Marco

[Callan S.]

GM-Controlled, Players Unaware: Illusionism
GM-Controlled, Players Aware: Participationism
Player-Controlled, Players Unaware: ???
Player-Controlled, Players Aware: Bass Playing

Nice. I like that.

The third is like:

Player: "Hey, Mr. Garibaldi is surely the murderer."
GM: *thinking* Wow. Yeah, I'll make Garibaldi the murderer.

"Unobtrusive Listening" might be good name.

I'd just call it illusionism again, as in the players have a expectation of what play will contain, which will turn out to be false because of the GM.

[Andrew Morris]

Wouldn't it be the reverse of Illusionism? Instead of the GM using Force to control the story, the players are using Force for the same purpose. As I understand it, "expectation of what play will contain" isn't part of the definition of Illusionism.

[EDITED to add:]

Firstly, refereeing styles assumes the presence of a referee, and surely that is not a given.

I'd assumed that it was only applicable to those games which have a central referee. Just like if we were talking about different types and classifications of tires, we wouldn't expect that to deal with boats.

[contracycle]

Any game that uses dice to resolve things is certainly moving away from anyone being able to say they have complete control of the story (pretty much however that's meant).

An excellent point IMO.  And reinforced, I think, by the prevalence of fudging in order to execute illusionism - clearly, the decisive roll of the dice must be subordinated to the grand plot if it is to be achieved.

[Callan S.]

Wouldn't it be the reverse of Illusionism? Instead of the GM using Force to control the story, the players are using Force for the same purpose. As I understand it, "expectation of what play will contain" isn't part of the definition of Illusionism.

I'm presuming the GM isn't under any illusion about the players control. So they are still going exactly where he wants them to go. It just happens to be where they would like to be.

Sounds great, but basically all it does is make you the player become the (participationist) GM. Except like the illusionist definition, you the player do not necessarily recognise this.

[Andrew Morris]

Callan, how does the GM's awareness about player control mean that they will go where he wants them to? I'm clearly not understanding you here, because this sounds like "John is driving the car, but because I'm aware of that, I decide where the car goes, since he's already going where I want." This doesn't make any sense to me. Can you clear this up?

[brainwipe]

There is another referee style I've often witnessed. I am not sure if it quite fits into the ones above.

[*]Combative. This is where the GM and the players fight for control of the game. The more the GM tries to railroad, the harder the players fight for freedom and the more they buck the plot, the harder the GM pulls them back into line.
[/list:u]

This, of course, needs to be all within the bounds of the setting. Neither side is really in control for long but the story is created by a constant fight between the two. A battle of wits, if you will.

[Vaxalon]

"Unobtrusive Listening" might be good name.

I'm known in my local area for running games this way.

Sounds paradoxical, doesn't it?  If the players know I run the game this way, then how can they be unaware of it?

Because they can never be sure.  Since they can't look at my notes, they don't know if the suppositions they made at the table were incorporated into my notes before or after I initially prepared them.

More than once, I've heard the following exchange at the table:

"Oh, my God... I think I know what's going on here... and if I'm right, things are going to get hairy really fast."

"Shh!  He's listening.  C'mon, let's have a smoke break and we'll talk about it outside."

[Callan S.]

Callan, how does the GM's awareness about player control mean that they will go where he wants them to? I'm clearly not understanding you here, because this sounds like "John is driving the car, but because I'm aware of that, I decide where the car goes, since he's already going where I want." This doesn't make any sense to me. Can you clear this up?

The phrasing I'm focusing on is: "What I want is for John to drive where ever John wants to drive"

In traditional illusionism, the GM doesn't react to your input. In this case, the GM still doesn't react to your input, because he's merely repeating your input. Is parroting your input actually responding to that input?

If it needs a different name, it should be called ELIZA-ism. After the old computer program that felt like it was responding with you, but really was just a reflection of your own words.

[Andrew Morris]

I think I get what you are saying, but who says it has to be that way? Why couldn't it be actual responsiveness? For example, you might have a game where the players think they are in a Trailblazing game, when the GM is actually creating the events based on the players' small talk.

[Vaxalon]

The trailblazing paradigm doesn't say anything about where the GM is getting his ideas for where the trail goes, does it?

[Andrew Morris]

The trailblazing paradigm doesn't say anything about where the GM is getting his ideas for where the trail goes, does it?

Nope, but it does say when -- before play. So, as defined in the article, Trailblazing would not encompass this kind of play.

[Vaxalon]

"Before Play" is pretty vague.

I could trailblaze by planning the game session by session, couldn't I?  Do I have to have the entire campaign, beginning to end, mapped out before session 1 in order to have a trailblazing campaign?

If so, then you're right.

If not, then you're wrong.