Control and Restrictions in RPGs

[M. J. Young]

O.K., I wrote a lot, I got a lot back--that's reasonable, even if I am having a rough week. So let me see what I can address here.

So, let me re-state one of my hypotheses:  If the game design gives sole control('credibility') of the 'plot' to the GM, some styles of play available to the GM include Participationism, Trailblazing, and Bass Playing.

I think this is still going to be a point of contention, and I'm going to have to address it, but I'm not sure if it's best to start there.

In fairness, I was called on my example in a private message, and the messager (Elliot Wilen) was correct--that's an example of stance that is not necessarily required for the discussion at hand. I was groping for something that was inconsistent with participationism, and that was the first thing I found.

In terms of the definitions of "stance", I don't know if I can answer your question directly. As with many things, the understanding of stance is still in flux. Some time not too long ago there was a thread in which someone attempted to split stance into two concepts, and as I considered their argument I started to see stance specifically as a matter of player credibility, that is, what sort of statements are legitimate for players to make. As far as I am aware, the Theory 101 article is the first place that that credibility-based explanation of stance was raised, and I have not gotten any feedback from Ron on that point, so I cannot speak for him.  In private messages with Elliot over the past couple weeks, I realized that in a very real sense Stance and Referee Style are definitions of credibility "packages" as it were, in a sense being labels for what kinds of statements specific individuals are permitted to make.  These are of course negotiated within the social contract, but there is a significant degree to which the referee chooses his style and then the players must find their stance in relation to that.

More on point, though, it appears to me that understanding stance as a defined set of limits on credibility solves many of the problems that were being bandied about a year or so ago. As to whether the statement as presented was "actor stance" is more difficult to say; the expectations, though, were probably broader, as the player in my ill-chosen example clearly expected that if he successfully looked for proof of something he suspected, that would make his suspicions true.

While "I don't want to go to the ball!" is a *possible* thought going through the head of the player in question, it is by no means the *only* possible thought.  Maybe the player is having fun watching the GM sweat.  Maybe the player wants to make this re-telling of Cinderella about a suicidal Cinderella.  This 'shared imagination space' is much bigger than you're giving it credit for.

Not guilty here.  While you are correct that the player might not be thinking he doesn't want the character to go to the ball, what matters in our examination here is that the referee has decided the character is going to go to the ball and there's nothing the player can do about it. That's the point of participationism, and really its distinguishing factor (from everything other than illusionism): the character is going to go where the referee wants, without regard for what the player wants the character to do.

I see your point about Star Wars being "different" if someone else played Luke Skywalker, but since it is what George Lucas wanted it to be, I take that as "different in completely inconsequential ways about which very few people would care".  Mark Hamill had little control over what Star Wars was, and if you want to say it's different if we're talking about him identifying with Luke as opposed to you, fine. It's still the case that who Luke is is defined by what he does, and what he does is defined by what George Lucas wants him to do, so Mark Hamill contributed nothing of consequence. He added color to the story Lucas was telling.

Moving to another post:

Let's say the GM's idea is to have the PC play the part of Cinderella.  We'll say it's a system like d20 where the GM has control of everything but the physical actions of the PC.  The PC picks up a gun and shoots herself.  The next thing the GM had planned was to have the fairy godmother show up.  He hadn't considered the possibility of the PC trying to commit suicide before that moment.  Here's some possible options that GMs using different styles could use:

- The Railroader:  "*Click*.  The gun wasn't loaded.  *Poof*  Your fairy godmother shows up!  'Having trouble getting to the ball, dearie?  Let's see what I can do to help.'"  [ignore character action, continue with the plan]

This would be either illusionism or participationism. It is participationism if the player was already aware that he couldn't get out of the referee's story and was going to wind up at the ball one way or another. It is illusionism if the player doesn't realize that he has no choice about where he's going or what he's doing, but he is in fact going to the ball no matter what he tries to do instead.

- The Trailblazer:  "*Click*.  The gun wasn't loaded.  What do you do now?"  [wait for character action to match up with the plan]

Actually, having identified and named trailblazing, I think I can speak with some authority when I say this is exactly not what happens in that style.

What happens is the referee says, "You're dead, the game is over. I'll see you next week." He then sends everyone home, because the players have mistreated him. His understanding of the social contract (and thus of the rules of the game) is that the players have to do what he wants them to do if he provides sufficient "bread crumbs" to lead them to it. If they ignore everything he has prepared and do something different, they haven't "cheated" in a technical sense, because they are fully in control of what they choose to do; but they have insulted the referee by openly refusing to do what he wanted.

There was a Knights of the Dinner Table strip not long ago in which the referee (I'm afraid I don't follow it well enough to know the character names) says they're going to play a particular module, and the players have mixed feelings about it because they'd heard it wasn't very good.  He starts them in a bar, in which a farmer comes over and wants to talk with them--obviously the hint and hook that's supposed to get them started on this adventure. The players ignore the farmer, not wanting anything to do with him. The farmers become persistent, then the players become angry, then it escalates into a huge bar fight in which all the locals are killed. The players are then raving about what a great adventure it turned out to be after all, while the referee is fuming about the way they completely ignored what they were supposed to do.

That is what makes trailblazing what it is: the players are supposed to do something, but it's entirely within their power to miss it or even ignore it. Because they like the referee and want to continue playing his games, they try to figure out what that thing is that they are supposed to do, and to do it. If they fail, or if they ignore it, it's game over--there is nothing else for the trailblazing referee to do but recognize that for one reason or another they missed the path, and failed to complete (possibly even to start) the intended adventure.

He certainly can't change the facts of the world to prevent them from doing what they want to do. He owes it to them to allow their choices to have full effect; they owe it to him to stay within the parameters of the material he has prepared. That is trailblazing.

- No Myth:  "*Boom*  Your body slumps to the floor, blood pooling around it.  And... you're watching, standing over it, oddly detached.  You hear a sigh from behind you, and turn to find a see-through figure of a girl about your age in very old-fashioned clothes.  'And the house claims another victim.  We had such hopes for you, you know.  But now you're trapped here with the rest of us.'" [use character action as inspiration to improvise a new plan]

- The Bass Player:  [after an OOC discussion with the player about what they wanted to have happen] "The retort from the gun alerts the night watchman, who, hearing no answer at the door, breaks in to find your dead body in your room.  Horrified, he searches the room and finds your suicide note and your diary.  He begins an investigation into your stepmother and stepsisters that ends in their incarceration, and new laws are passed that ensure the horrors you went through will not happen again.  OK, what do you want to play now?"  [use your credibility to describe the player's plan]

Actually, these are both potential bass player approaches, as I understand them. So is, you died, let's start a new game. What matters is that the player could take the story in any direction he wished to take it, and the referee saw his job as facilitating that.

Now, you'll have to tell me how systems like Multiverser that distribute 'plot credibility' do this, because the mechanics are somewhat mysterious to me.  In the last 'Postman' example, for instance, who decided that the character's death inspired the nation to return to democracy?  The player or the GM?  How did that work out as far as the game design went, and how much was simply agreed upon between the two of you?  Were there dice rolled?  Because I could imagine all of the stories happening in, I dunno, d20 Modern or some such.

Multiverser is tricky in this regard, because it gives the referee a fair amount of leeway in controling the distribution of credibility, but does not allow him to override player choices except in the sense that the dice may indicate failure at an attempted task.

I think, though, that there is some confusion concerning what I said about The Postman example. Multiverser is always about the player character. It is rare in the extreme for a player to find out what happened in a world after his character died, because that puts him in another world and another story. Ah, I see the confusion. I wrote, "He was killed in a fire fight about half way there, but before that he built a tideswell for the reestablishment of a constitutional democracy in the United States." You took that to mean that after the character was killed we announced that this was what was going to happen. It didn't mean that. Rather, what it said (or meant to say) was that he built a growing movement pressing for the reestablishment of democracy, which (the movement) existed when he died.

I apologize for any incoherence in this post, as I have been getting short-changed on sleep all week and am way behind on everything to boot, so I might not be fully aware of what I'm writing. I hope it helps.

--M. J. Young

[lpsmith]

O.K., I wrote a lot, I got a lot back--that's reasonable, even if I am having a rough week. So let me see what I can address here.

Aww, sorry about your week.  I'm just having fun here; no need to continue the discussion unless you're up for it.

It looks like, in general, we've arrived at a basic consensus or at least understanding; there's a few points left over I want to touch on.

I see your point about Star Wars being "different" if someone else played Luke Skywalker, but since it is what George Lucas wanted it to be, I take that as "different in completely inconsequential ways about which very few people would care".  Mark Hamill had little control over what Star Wars was, and if you want to say it's different if we're talking about him identifying with Luke as opposed to you, fine. It's still the case that who Luke is is defined by what he does, and what he does is defined by what George Lucas wants him to do, so Mark Hamill contributed nothing of consequence. He added color to the story Lucas was telling.

I still seriously disagree with you here.  I'm simply never going to believe that the influence an actor has on a film is 'inconsequential'.  Or even that 'very few people would care' about the difference.  *I* care about the difference.  Very few movie reviews neglect to mention how well the actors and actresses did.  There are actors and actresses I like, and ones I don't.  There are movies where the script is blah, but the actors sparkle.  There are movies where the script is scintillating but the actors plod.  And there are particularly good movies where both the script *and* the actors are great.

Do you wonder to yourself why big-name actors get paid so much?  Do you think acting must be easy?  Do you get as much out of reading a script as you do from watching a movie?  Do you think that actors must just do it for the money, or maybe for the accolades?  If the answer is 'no' to any of those questions, the reason you said no is what I'm getting at.  If you answered 'yes' to all of those questions, can you at least imagine a different person saying 'no'? And that they might have valid reasons for doing so?

Now, I certainly am not saying that all people must care about the actors.  Many people care about the plot much more.  Or, you know, the setting or the writing.  All of them have their own unique impact on the overall experience (the 'story'), and different people care about and/or notice these effects differently.  Same's true of books.  And the same's true of RPGs.  That's my thesis.

I get that you personally don't care about who the characters are.  You're much more concerned with what effect they have on their surroundings.  That's all 'plot' to me.  OK, so maybe you could watch Carrot Top in Star Wars and experience the same movie.  There are presumably a variety of other who are the same way.  I couldn't.  I know there are many other people who couldn't, either.

I'm seriously floundering, here.  All I seem to be able to do is restate my premise because it seems so blindingly obvious.  I could enumerate all the things an actor brings to a role, but I feel like I've done that before.  I could enumerate all the things an actor experiences when acting in a role, but that too seems redundant.  And that's just the beginning--there are even *more* things a player brings to a Character in a Participationist game!  But understanding what's going on between an actor and a script seems to me to be key to understanding why people enjoy participationism (and, to some extent, trailblazing).  Remember, my essay was in part inspired by reading the 101 article and thinking, "he describes participationism OK, but he clearly Doesn't Get It."  And in the course of the essay, it was horribly maligned.  And you're still maligning it with terms like, "inconsequential", "few people would care", and "nothing of consequence", and marginalizing it by calling it 'color'.  I dunno what else to say except "no".

Moving to another post:

- The Railroader:  "*Click*.  The gun wasn't loaded.  *Poof*  Your fairy godmother shows up!  'Having trouble getting to the ball, dearie?  Let's see what I can do to help.'"  [ignore character action, continue with the plan]

This would be either illusionism or participationism.

Right, I know how to lump things into your other four categories.  I was trying to get at a finer gradation here.  In my 'Railroading' example, the plot happened without regard to character actions.  In my 'Participationist' example, the same plot happened, but character actions were used as its justification.  The two GMs will produce very different stories, even while using the same 'plot'.

- No Myth:  "*Boom*  Your body slumps to the floor, blood pooling around it.  And... you're watching, standing over it, oddly detached.  You hear a sigh from behind you, and turn to find a see-through figure of a girl about your age in very old-fashioned clothes.  'And the house claims another victim.  We had such hopes for you, you know.  But now you're trapped here with the rest of us.'" [use character action as inspiration to improvise a new plan]

- The Bass Player:  [after an OOC discussion with the player about what they wanted to have happen] "The retort from the gun alerts the night watchman, who, hearing no answer at the door, breaks in to find your dead body in your room.  Horrified, he searches the room and finds your suicide note and your diary.  He begins an investigation into your stepmother and stepsisters that ends in their incarceration, and new laws are passed that ensure the horrors you went through will not happen again.  OK, what do you want to play now?"  [use your credibility to describe the player's plan]

Actually, these are both potential bass player approaches, as I understand them. So is, you died, let's start a new game. What matters is that the player could take the story in any direction he wished to take it, and the referee saw his job as facilitating that.

Hmm. That wasn't what I was trying to convey.  In the first example, I said nothing of player intent, but I tried to pick an example that would have come out of left field from the player's perspective.  Maybe they didn't care what would happen.  From their perspective (assuming they didn't recognize the original plot), it could have just as easily been Trailblazing or Participationist.  But in the second example, the player was consulted directly.  They said what they wanted the plot to be, and the GM said, "OK" and made it so.

When credibility is distributed like this, there is no way that a player can tell the difference between a good Illusionist game and a 'No Myth' game.  They perform actions, and things happen in response.  Who's to say whether the GM thought it up beforehand or on the spur of the moment?  And, perhaps more importantly, why does the player care?

Multiverser is tricky in this regard, because it gives the referee a fair amount of leeway in controling the distribution of credibility, but does not allow him to override player choices except in the sense that the dice may indicate failure at an attempted task.

OK, so my tideswell of democracy question was misguided (thanks for figuring that one out), so I'll ask different ones.  Who decided that Eric's attacks terrified the Army so much that he could walk in unopposed?  Did Eric say, "I attack them enough that they'll be terrified of me" or did he say, "I attack them again," and you said, "OK, they're now terrified."?  Who decided that Graeme's pamphlets were brought back into the camp by other soldiers?  Did Graeme says, "I want to have my friends here sneak these to the village, and I want this other group of soldiers to be so moved when they read them there that they bring them back", or did he say, "I want to have my friends sneak these to the village," and you said, "OK, you start seeing them show up in the barracks again, as unknown soldiers start bringing them back."?  How much control, in other words, do Multiverser players have over 'Butterfly Effects'?

I think that's about it.  Thanks again for the responses; hope your next week is better than your last.

-Lucian

[Mike Holmes]

One quick note, when I came up with participationism, I postulated it as a hypothetical. That is, the idea of participationism comes from certain adventure texts, which if played by how they're written, would eliminate almost all of player input, including most of the "acting." Like the adventure At the Mountains of Madness where it says things like, "When the bad guys go running off, the adventurers chase after them, catching up in the next scene."

Or worse, "The PCs stand horrified, unable to respond to what's going on."

In practice, I've yet to find one player who says that they would like to play this way. GMs who at first seem to want to play this way, on examination, turn out to use such texts as guidelines for what might happen, and play pretty much strong illusionism. So participationism may not be categorizable to motive because it may be that nobody plays that way.

Actually the closest thing to Participationism that I can find is reading to somebody. The difference between these two activities is that in participationism (if it exists) the player associates with one character amongst all the protagonists (by default, he can associate with the others as well), and may in certain cases be allowed to deliver lines so long as they match the GM's need for them. That is, as previously indicated, the GM in this style is allowed to simply ignore their narration of dialog or decision, and supplant it with his own in order to get the story to go precisely where it needs to go.

It's also comparable to doing a "reading" of a script in which the dialog has not been decided on, but the director has right to edit the dialog.

Because the defining feature of participationism is that the GM has visible control of plot. That includes "character" to the extent neccessary to make the plot work. In illusionism, the player seems to have control of character, but no so that it affects plot. The impossible thing is not that the player can't add things to the SIS, if the GM controls plot, just that the things they add don't affect plot. Basically both the player and GM can't control plot at the same time (pretty obvious when viewed this way).

Mike

[lpsmith]

GMs who at first seem to want to play this way, on examination, turn out to use such texts as guidelines for what might happen, and play pretty much strong illusionism.

Wait--I thought the only difference between illusionism and participationism was that in the latter, the players knew what the GM was doing.  Is there another difference?  How could a GM try to play a participationist game but end up in an illusionist game?

-Lucian

[Mike Holmes]

That is the only difference. The question is what is it that "the GM is doing"? What the GM is doing is controlling whatever he needs to in order to have the plot turn out as it's supposed to.

Anyhow, what I'm saying is that GM's don't want participationism. That is, even if they write an adventure that seems like it's going to require them to take control of the characters to a great extent, still allow the more illusionist level of control. That is, they'll take At the Mountains of Madness and instead of running it like a script, once they get into play, they realize that's untennable, and come up with ways to cope, strategies that make the play illusionist.

For instance, where the text says, "The chase after..." the GM uses the standard illusionism "You're chasing after them, right?" If the player says no, they then escalate, "They took the only food!"

Now, as Ron points out, the question is how "invisible" all of this is. Is there a "real" illusionism where the players don't know that their actions are being controlled to create an end effect? Or is it in fact that the players do know what's going on, and it's just a matter of everyone pretending like the GM control isn't happening?

Which is to say that these two styles are, possibly, only one actual style that ever occurs (with some nuances, possibly, but nothing to really separate them). Or a spectrum that rarely or never strays to the theoretical endpoints. Given illusionism technique, players always at the very least suspect that the GM is up to something. With participationism-ish play, I can't actually believe that anyone actually does the control explicitly.

It's the difference between "You're chasing after them, right?" vs. "Your characters chase after them." Everyone tacks on the "right?" at the end, thus maintaining the illusion, no matter how badly, that the players have some choice in the matter. In practice, I think this may just be what everyone can agree is bad technique. I don't think that even when it's used, anyone wants to be using it. They'd much rather that the players made the "correct" choice and that this sort of correction didn't have to be used, no?

Mike

[Halzebier]

So participationism may not be categorizable to motive because it may be that nobody plays that way.

My Monday night group *might* qualify.

The GM uses all sorts of illusionist techniques all the time and the players are, to varying degrees, aware of this fact, if not the specifics. However, the GM will sometimes allow a look behind the screen.

The other night, the PCs were at a big banquet and a demon stormed in and stole the king's necklace. This was preposterous and not possible by the rules, so the GM described what happened (while holding up a hand to quell protests) and then said something along the lines of "Okay, guys, I know you don't like this and neither do I. It's required for the plot, so let's just move on. Oh, and Gary, don't use up that potion of speed - you can't catch the demon anyway."

We've had similar instances of the GM apologizing for heavy-handed railroading.

Is that participationism?

Regards,

Hal

[Mike Holmes]

I think that's participationism only for a moment. This is not a mode of play, so I won't get all "instance of play" on you. But I think that in noting that it's something that the GM had to apologize for, it makes my point. It's seen here as a neccessary evil at best. Not as a way to run a game long-term. I'm sure that most play of the game is heavy illusionism.

But it makes my point that all of these things are on a spectrum in between.

Mike

[lpsmith]

Hmm.  If the only difference between Participationism and Illusionism is that the players do/don't know what the GM is doing, why would there be a difference in 'control level' of what the GM controls?  Mike, you say, "even if they write an adventure that seems like it's going to require them to take control of the characters to a great extent, [they] still allow the more illusionist level of control."  Where did control come into play?  Is there an assumption that if the players know what the GM is doing, they will cede control of their characters to the GM?  That seems weird to me.

In Hal's example, there weren't even character control issues.  To put it in terms of 'control and restrictions', the issue seems to me to be the GM ignoring some of the restrictions he normally followed (i.e. 'game rules') in order to create a plot point (probably the 'setup', to use my own terminology.)

The 'Lumpley System' was strained in the process, but didn't break because the GM said, "OK, I know, I know, I'll only do this once, and I didn't write the adventure."  I don't think that Participationism/Illusionism come into play at all (as I understand the terms, at least).

-Lucian

[Darren Hill]

If the GM is operating under the assumption that the players think what's happening is a result of their actions, he knows he can get away with taking more liberties. When called on it, he might make some sort of concession ("don't use that speed potion, you can't catch him.")
If playing in an overtly participationist fashion, he'll know what he does has to meet some higher (but still low) level of player approacl - they've aggreed to particpate in his adventure, but if they think he is taking advantage, they have more freedom to challenge him precisely because things are above board. When they don't know if he taking liberties, even if they strongly suspect, as in illusionism, they'll be slower to challenge. They probably won't be happy, but that small doubt will cause them to hold back a little longer.

[Halzebier]

But I think that in noting that it's something that the GM had to apologize for, it makes my point. It's seen here as a neccessary evil at best. Not as a way to run a game long-term.

That makes perfect sense to me.

The 'Lumpley System' was strained in the process, but didn't break because the GM said, "OK, I know, I know, I'll only do this once, and I didn't write the adventure."  I don't think that Participationism/Illusionism come into play at all (as I understand the terms, at least).

The Lumpley Priniciple is always in place. Like a law of nature, it can't be strained. Here, agreement was reached by way of the GM openly apologizing and appealing to the players and the players accepting said apology and the effects in the SIS that went with it.

Regards,

Hal