Participationism?

[Mike Holmes]

I think a difficulty here is Participationalism is needed to a small degree for Simulationism.

Yep. I've been thinking the same thing too. Even simple framing has to be agreed on.

GM: "You all start out in a Bar.'

Player: "My character never goes to bars!"

To an extent there is a point where one just has to accept some of what the GM says. OTOH, I have seen play where the questions of where to start, what to do, and where to do, were all left to the players. No plot prepared, the biggest "problem" with this is that the GM has to populate things physically, and mechanically as necessary, which is much more often than in plotted games. For any fight he has to have stats. Usually such GMs just fall back on printed materials, and stock mechanical descriptions of NPCs and creatures. But despite the extra effort, some GMS are good at it, and it can work.

Perfect example:Old DnD modules. The GM was basicly an interface between the module and the players.

Hmmm. The only place the GM has high control in this case is in deciding to play the adventure (if that's the case). OTOH, the players have fairly high control with the exception of the decision to play the adventure. This is classic pinball. Once into the machine (dungeon), its entirely up to what the players decide that determines the nature of the action. OTOH, the "wandering monsters", and the preplanned reactions of the denizens can be considered to be some level of control by the game. Hmm...

Mike

[Mike Holmes]

What I mean is the players aren't necessarily aware of what is going on and usually, with a skilled GM, cannot tell how their game is being run.

This may be your experience Steve, but it sounds like you're describibng an Illusionist GM to me, the "skill" in question being his talent at Illusionism. What I'm describing in Participationism are games in which the GM controls things but does it in such a manner that he's not really making much of an attempt to hide his control. The players do realize that he is controlling everything.

Does the Bobby G example above help? They are very obvious. Or the agressive framing? Ever played with a GM that just told you what your character was doing, or how he felt? This last is an extreme form, but with the right social contract is still valid, theoretically. These are the indications of Participationism. I can give you actual examples of games that I've played where this was the mode (dysfunctional in this case as I don't like it). And I can point to my own play as a GM for examples of both.

Players know the difference. And it takes a very different mindset to appreciate one or the other.

Interestingly, that made me speculate what the complaint would be from the Participationist player to an Illusionist GM. They would likely say things like, "Hey, why aren't you giving us better cues as to what to do and where to go? I keep feeling lost, and don't know what to have my character do."

To which the Illusionist GM responds, "Just do what you're character would do." Leaving the Participationist in a dysfunctional situation. Hmmm..

Mike

Mike

[Marco]

What I mean is the players aren't necessarily aware of what is going on and usually, with a skilled GM, cannot tell how their game is being run.

This may be your experience Steve, but it sounds like you're describibng an Illusionist GM to me, the "skill" in question being his talent at Illusionism. What I'm describing in Participationism are games in which the GM controls things but does it in such a manner that he's not really making much of an attempt to hide his control. The players do realize that he is controlling everything.

Does the Bobby G example above help? They are very obvious. Or the agressive framing? Ever played with a GM that just told you what your character was doing, or how he felt? This last is an extreme form, but with the right social contract is still valid, theoretically. These are the indications of Participationism. I can give you actual examples of games that I've played where this was the mode (dysfunctional in this case as I don't like it). And I can point to my own play as a GM for examples of both.

Players know the difference. And it takes a very different mindset to appreciate one or the other.

Interestingly, that made me speculate what the complaint would be from the Participationist player to an Illusionist GM. They would likely say things like, "Hey, why aren't you giving us better cues as to what to do and where to go? I keep feeling lost, and don't know what to have my character do."

To which the Illusionist GM responds, "Just do what you're character would do." Leaving the Participationist in a dysfunctional situation. Hmmm..

Mike

Mike

IIRC the Bobby G example was defined by its dysfunction (i.e. if it wasn't dysfunctional it wasn't Bobby G.)

I think we have to start with defining some terms.

1. The GM's Story. Last weekend the GM's story was a series of events in motion concerning an ex-general, religious fanatics, a psychitraist, and the end of the world.  Mike suggested (although he admitted he could be wrong) that it was probably illusionism.

2. Someone (mike or val) suggested that since the game was played in Actor Stance it was the players "following their cues."

3. Mike sees participationism in the vampire game--and sees it in the Gnostic game.

NOW
1. Since the Gnostic game is over and all the cards are on the table, I want to know this: if, say, it was a module describign the situation, listing some potential scenes (some that happened, some that didn't), and the time-lines of the parties involved, where would there need to be any illusionism at all? If so where? Why?

2. In the vampire game we have this quote:

And all there was to the game was us wandering around "in character" marvelling at the GMs presentation of what the future of the World of Darkness will be like after all the major conflicts in all the games are resolved. That's it. No conflicts. No quests. No villains to over come. Just interacting with random NPCs, wandering around and research to figure out how things got this way.    

I read this as pure pinball-sim where the players didn't think of anything to do. I wasn't there--but I see no dis-empowering at all. No conflicts? No quests? No villains? Isn't this a bit like Mike's theoritical player saying "I'm lost--give me some queues?" Isn't sending the characters on a quest setting them up for an A->B->C series of encounters where there's only two basic outcomes (success or failure)?

Also: Actor Stance as defined has, I think, nothing do do with "taking queues." I thought it was instead about acting "in character." I think that's a misunderstanding on one of our parts (or maybe a mis-read)

I think the commonality is this: Mike is seeing immersive play by the players as implying illusionism on the part of the GM... and if it's really immersive then they're really being railroaded (in a non-dysfunctional way so maybe "guided" is a better term) i.e. Participationism.

In this case, I think that you're seeing immersive play that generates a story-like outcome as implicitly implying a guiding hand. I think that isn't so at all. I can't see why it would need to be true or even a common correlation.

-Marco
Contra: Once (with the same GM) I recall being so immersed in a haunted-house game in the middle of crashing thunderstorm that when we broke for lunch and we went outside into broad daylight I was temporarily disoriented--I'd expected rain and gloom.

[damion]

Mike,
How's this:Participationalism is where players have no choices and are aware of this while the game is being played.

Participationalism without player consent is known as railroading, not sure what it is called if they consent. Improv theater maybe.

If you say P* is when the players have no input, to a degree that is true in every game. There are very few actions a player can take w/o GM input in a Sim game.  Even in Mike's example, the GM creates the detail, which creates the allowable choices. "We want to go on a ship." "GM, well, your 500 miles inland, it'll take a while to get to one." Player Directorial powers is probably the only solution here.

[Mike Holmes]

IIRC the Bobby G example was defined by its dysfunction (i.e. if it wasn't dysfunctional it wasn't Bobby G.)

Yep. And that's been my point all along. Perhaps its not. Perhaps its a valid form called Participationism.

1. Since the Gnostic game is over and all the cards are on the table, I want to know this: if, say, it was a module describign the situation, listing some potential scenes (some that happened, some that didn't), and the time-lines of the parties involved, where would there need to be any illusionism at all? If so where? Why?

The potential scenes are problematic. To get to them one might have to use Illusionism of some sort or Participationism. OTOH, given players making the right decisions, no, it does not require any.

OTOH, the fact that the GM had "five more hours of material prepared" if the players had taken a particular rout, indicates to me that there was more than what you are saying there was. But again, I'm probably misreading. If you mean that the GM estimated that play would have gone on for another five hours or so given what he thought the players might do, or something like that, I'd have been inclined to think it was less pre-scripted.

But, as I've said before, I'm only telling you why I came up with the analysis I did. I trust your on-sight judgement. You were there, you know better. If you say the game wasn't participationist, I am willing to concede that it's not.

2. In the vampire game we have this quote:

And all there was to the game was us wandering around "in character" marvelling at the GMs presentation of what the future of the World of Darkness will be like after all the major conflicts in all the games are resolved. That's it. No conflicts. No quests. No villains to over come. Just interacting with random NPCs, wandering around and research to figure out how things got this way.    

I read this as pure pinball-sim where the players didn't think of anything to do. I wasn't there--but I see no dis-empowering at all. No conflicts? No quests? No villains?

We'll have to ask Jesse. Again, I could be misreading. But I've never heard Jesse be one to lament freedom of action. OTOH, sure it could have been Pinball Sim. Jesse, being a Narrativist, would then be waiting to find the conflict.

OTOH, he also said, "we were seven vampires of different clans who ended up getting sent to the future". This could be an opening set up. But it sounds like the characters were directed there. In pure Pinball they would just be told, you start at the nightclub, waht do you want to do. The way he described it sounded like they had little actual choice.

Isn't this a bit like Mike's theoritical player saying "I'm lost--give me some queues?"

Yes. The Narrativist in the Pinball Sim and the Participationist in the Illusionist game will say the same thing. They are both looking to the GM to provide direction to an extent. A framework for conflict in the case of the Narrativist. Cues to follow in the case of the Participationist.

Isn't sending the characters on a quest setting them up for an A->B->C series of encounters where there's only two basic outcomes (success or failure)?

Classic Participationism or Illusionism. The latter if the players think that they chose the quest somehow but did not.

Also: Actor Stance as defined has, I think, nothing do do with "taking queues." I thought it was instead about acting "in character." I think that's a misunderstanding on one of our parts (or maybe a mis-read)

Quite right. But then nobody plays soley in actor mode. And when one is in actor mode, all the GM has to do is push the character's buttons. Again, the extent to which this is being done in an open sense makes the tactic Participationist. To the extent that its subtle, it's Illusionism. Note how much safer Participationism is than Illusionism. The Participationist player will step into Actor mode long enough to decide to go with the GM, and then retroactively identify the motivation (if neccessary, probably not, as the GM is tryng to play to the character's motives somehow). The Illusionist player may make the "wrong" decision, requiring more Illusioism to get things back on track.

I identified this mode of play (actually back then I was calling it Audience Stance) long ago as requiring Author mode to be enjoyable. Instead of making decisions based on what the character would do, you must make decisions based on what you think the GM wants your character to do. Again, as in all modes, there will be times when these align and you can't discern the difference.

To that extent, I agree with you that your description of the play as being all "Actor" mode would make it more likely Illusionism. But it has to be one or the other. If you weren't using Author mode to come up with the nifty plot, then possibly the GM was directing things. Or, possible as well, the neat plot all came out at "random", as the result of nothing but Actor stance play and Low actual GM control. Just seems unlikely from the description. But then you were there. In that case it was a case of Pinball Sim.

I think the commonality is this: Mike is seeing immersive play by the players as implying illusionism on the part of the GM... and if it's really immersive then they're really being railroaded (in a non-dysfunctional way so maybe "guided" is a better term) i.e. Participationism.

In this case, I think that you're seeing immersive play that generates a story-like outcome as implicitly implying a guiding hand. I think that isn't so at all. I can't see why it would need to be true or even a common correlation.

Again, I think nothing like that. In fact I didn't even say that, it was Ralph. You have me confused with somebody else.

I am the big advovcate around here for exactly play such as Pinball Sim and Illusionism both. I think they do produce excellent "Story-seeming" Sim. As would Participationism. The only queston is one of enjoyment of the play; the result after the fact is mostly irrellevant. Which Sim is fun is a matter of personal opinion.

Mike

[Mike Holmes]

Mike,
How's this:Participationalism is where players have no choices and are aware of this while the game is being played.

Too general, but essentially correct.

Participationalism without player consent is known as railroading, not sure what it is called if they consent. Improv theater maybe.

If they consent it's called Participationism. Just as players who agree to Narrativist play are Narrativist. Don't need another term.

If you say P* is when the players have no input, to a degree that is true in every game. There are very few actions a player can take w/o GM input in a Sim game.  Even in Mike's example, the GM creates the detail, which creates the allowable choices. "We want to go on a ship." "GM, well, your 500 miles inland, it'll take a while to get to one." Player Directorial powers is probably the only solution here.

Yep. I keep saying that. It's a mode. People use it all the time, therefore, or it woudn't be a mode. But if I use it 1% of the time and use Illusionism 99% I'll probably call it Illusionist play.

Mike

[GB Steve]

To an extent there is a point where one just has to accept some of what the GM says.

This just made me laugh. Not in a bad way. In a 'Mike really doesn't want anyone telling him what's happening to his character' kind of way.

Do you want a GM in your games? If so what does that GM do?

As a GM, I feel it's my responsibility to provide an illusiory framework (as it - it's not real, it's make-believe, but believable make-believe) in which the players can express themselves through their PCs.

Some of the time this means giving choices to the PCs and hence the players. That's because I'm the World, and the world throws up choices. Heck, it's the choices that make it interesting for me.

What is the alternative?

It seems to me that all roleplaying has some illusionism involved.

[GB Steve]

With regards to participationism and such I've been thinking about what a  player does with a PC. Here are some rambling thoughts.

It strikes me that there are two spheres in which the PC can be played.

There's the external sphere, the one where the PC does things and interacts with other characters (PC or NPC).
There's the internal sphere, the one where the PC asks questions of themselves, where moral dilemmas are answered, where changes to the PCs outlook.[/list:u]These spheres aren't just where the player can make things happen, they also are where the player can situate themselves vis-a-vis the character

Now I think of it, I think Fang may have said something along these lines somewhere.

Your typical pinball style game tends not to worry about the internal sphere and your typical narrativist game tries to show the effects of one on the other. I'm not sure if you can have a game that is mainly about the internal sphere.

Illusionism is something to do with freedom of action.

You can never have complete freedom of action. There are always bounds, externally imposed by the World and internally imposed by the logic of the character concept.

Illusionism and participationism to me, don't seem to be about the external bounds. These exist in all games. They seem to be more about the internal bounds.

In the Bobby G example, it's not about whether the PCs are being dragged along physically, it's whether going to see Bobby G is a valid choice for that character to make on an internal level, whether the PC can justify it to themself (or the player can justify the PC doing that and still be the PC they want to play).

I can see where you are going with your metrics but there are other situations envisaged that are not really covered. There are cases where players will go along with the GM (participationism) because they know it leads to some kind of situation they feel they might like to explore.

We had such a case in a Delta Green game at Gen Con.

I won't say too much about it in case Balbinus reads this and I don't want to spoil it for him if he plays it at SteveCon.

In short what happened was that the GM set up an interesting situation that we wanted our PCs to be in. We had to find ways to justify this to ourselves so that the scenario worked, we also had to justify it to the external parameters surrounding our PCs (job, family etc). Once in the situation, we were free to explore it as we saw fit. The control of the situation was not fixed and we all participated in creating the game we wanted to play - and a damn fine game it was too.

One place that Participationism can become problematic is where Fortune systems get in the way. In the case of the "Climactic Battle" that Fang mentions, if you want it to come out with a specific outcome, you either must use Drama, or Illusionism, or risk the "unsatisfatory" ending.

I'm not sure it's that simple. Fortune can create an 'unsatisfactory' outcome whatever your style of play.

Cheers,
Steve

[Le Joueur]

It strikes me that there are two spheres in which the PC can be played.

There's the external sphere, the one where the PC does things and interacts with other characters (PC or NPC).
There's the internal sphere, the one where the PC asks questions of themselves, where moral dilemmas are answered, where changes to the PCs outlook.[/list:u]These spheres aren't just where the player can make things happen, they also are where the player can situate themselves vis-a-vis the character

Now I think of it, I think Fang may have said something along these lines somewhere.

This was largely what I was talking about in the Scattershot Gaming Model.  You are noting the distinction between what I called the Avatar Approach (the prefered frame of reference is the Internal elements of Character) and everything else (Swashbuckler - External of Character, Joueur - Internal of Game, and Auteur - External of Game).  Note the character-centric and game-centric difference between Avatar/Swashbuckler and Joueur/Auteur; this also speaks of how players situate themselves versus the game as well.

Personally, I consider these the defining points of one's Approach to gaming rather than focusing on relationship to author/director interests or 'challenge.'  But hey, everyone has their own opinion, right?

Fang Langford

[GB Steve]

This was largely what I was talking about in the Scattershot Gaming Model.  You are noting the distinction between what I called the Avatar Approach (the prefered frame of reference is the Internal elements of Character) and everything else (Swashbuckler - External of Character, Joueur - Internal of Game, and Auteur - External of Game).  Note the character-centric and game-centric difference between Avatar/Swashbuckler and Joueur/Auteur; this also speaks of how players situate themselves versus the game as well.

And also in communications to me. Trouble is, I found it hard to relate to your vocabulary. I'm still not sure what you mean by Internal of Game for example.

Personally, I consider these the defining points of one's Approach to gaming rather than focusing on relationship to author/director interests or 'challenge.'  But hey, everyone has their own opinion, right?

I find it hard to relate to a model that stands outside of the the way the players play the game. That's the main problem I have with what Mike says.

Mike seems to be looking at the game going on from outisde of the game whereas I want to look at it from the subjective point of view of the participants. For me, from this point of view, illusionism doesn't really exist. It's an artifact created by a particular point of view. If the players don't know that they are under illusionism, why does it matter?

It's quite possible, and I'd submit usual, for several players to play the same game and have very different experiences of the game. I've seen at least two examples of this at GenConUK.

Cheers,
Steve

[Le Joueur]

Hey Steve,

Good questions, I hope nobody will mind if I take a moment to explain a few things.

This was largely what I was talking about in the Scattershot Gaming Model.  You are noting the distinction between what I called the Avatar Approach (the preferred frame of reference is the Internal elements of Character) and everything else (Swashbuckler - External of Character, Joueur - Internal of Game, and Auteur - External of Game).  Note the character-centric and game-centric difference between Avatar/Swashbuckler and Joueur/Auteur; this also speaks of how players situate themselves versus the game as well.

And also in communications to me. Trouble is, I found it hard to relate to your vocabulary. I'm still not sure what you mean by Internal of Game for example.

This part of the terminology has always been a tough one.  What does "Internal" and "Game" mean?  (Or "External" or "Character" for that matter?)  Well, it comes from a bit of dichotomous comparison.  Game is compared to Character; you've got a character, this is your fixed relationship point to the rest of the game (except in games like Universalis).  And that's what game means, all the stuff outside of the character.  The background, the 'extras,' the narrative, the system, and everything is "Game."

The other dichotomy is "Internal" and "External."  Internal, here, means all the stuff on the 'inside.'  On the 'inside' of the game is the stuff I just listed (background and et cetera) taken as separate subjects.  You 'look' at them individually because you're 'on the inside.'  So the opposite is "External;" you 'look' at the listed items 'from the outside.'  This forces something of a collective perspective; the "External" frame of reference calls for looking at the game as a unit.

How do these apply to "Character?"  Well, the "External" perspective looks at the 'whole character,' what they can do with all of what they have and how they relate to the rest of the game.  (Remember how "Internal of the Game" dealt with the parts of the game individually?  This is a single 'step down' where you only deal with one part of the game, the character.)  This is opposed to "Internal" where you 'look' at 'the stuff' that makes up a character independently.

'Guts of the character matter' is Avatar Approach.  'Parts of the game' is the Swashbuckler Approach.  'What the character can do' is the Joueur Approach.  'What good the whole game is' is the Auteur Approach.  Does that make more sense?

Personally, I consider these the defining points of one's Approach to gaming rather than focusing on relationship to author/director interests or 'challenge.'  But hey, everyone has their own opinion, right?

I find it hard to relate to a model that stands outside of the way the players play the game. That's the main problem I have with what Mike says.

Mike seems to be looking at the game going on from outside of the game whereas I want to look at it from the subjective point of view of the participants.

That sounds like you don't get what I'm saying.  All of the Scattershot Model Approaches are about nothing but the player's point of view.

Avatar Approach is all about how the player plays their character, about how that play affects the player's preferred frame of reference, their character.  If you play to see how your character reacts to what happens in the game, you're playing Avatar Approach.

Swashbuckler Approach isn't "outside of the way the players play," its about taking your character and seeing what's 'in' a game; see this, see that, do this, do that, the character is a window to finding what's in the game.

Joueur Approach focuses on the capabilities of the character.  What they can do, what they can get done, what impact they can have; in this Approach you use your character as a tool and place value on it thus.

Finally, and I suppose the closest to "standing outside," is Auteur Approach.  This Approach is about the value of 'the game as a whole' to the player.  If you 'work hard' to make the game turn out to a 'satisfying conclusion' then your using the Auteur Approach.  If your choices lead you to doing things that make the game 'hang together better' rather than any of the other Approaches, you're playing Auteur Approach.

Now the Scattershot Model isn't supposed to be something you think about while you're playing, but after awhile you probably notice a pattern of preference.  Maybe not a career preference, but certainly for distinct episodes you'll hang to one.  (Or the alternative, you keep switching, an Approach that is neither common nor subject to categorization.)  Its main facility is helping everyone 'fit' their play styles together in a deliberate fashion.  It also helps differentiate how to run (or which kind of) Scattershot game you play.  (For example, if players all play with the Joueur Approach, then a Noir game will be about using character abilities to 'solve the case,' an Auteur Approach would be about the build-up and the climax, the whole story as it hangs together.)

I hope that makes things clearer.  If you want to discuss this in further detail, you're more than welcome to come on down to the Scattershot Forum and I'd like a chance to discuss what needs better explanations in the Model.  (Sorry if this has hijacked the thread; we now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion.)

Fang Langford

[GB Steve]

My use of internal and external relate to what the player does with the character. It is very phenomenological in this sense. It is about the experience of 'being' (or playing) a character.

Internal is about the character's thought processes. Typically in a 'pinball game' these are of little interest. You don't care what your PC really thinks about what they are doing, you just want to find the dragon and rescue the princess. You might care that you get your correct share of the treasure or you might care about sticking to your alignment. In essence however, you are not really playing in the internal sphere, you are just looking up something on the character sheet and following the rules. There is no dialogue.

In a narrative game a la Forge, you have a moral dilemma that the game is addressing. In this way you need to have quite an active internal side to the way you play the character. There is an internal dialogue within the character that is sustained by the player. You might for example be looking at whether princess rescuing is the right thing to do, given that dragons are pretty thin on the ground these days, and anyway it was she who tried to turf the dragon out of its lair in the first place. This may become apparent in the external sphere or it may not, it really depends on the nature of the game.

Immersive gaming is obviously very heavy on the internal sphere but so might be someone who runs their PC in the third person and treats the internal sphere as just other obstacles to overcome in their quest for the perfect PC (something that occurs in powergaming).

Pendragon is a kind of half-way house as it formalises the internal dialogue but does leave some amount of choice to the player.

The external sphere is the interaction that happens external to the character. This can be between the PC and the make-believe physical world in the shape of actions, or it can be between the PC and other characters in the shape of dialogue.

Players in the same game can sustain different levels of interest in the various spheres.

That said, I still don't understand the Scattershot model. I'll have a look at that forum. I'm finding the vocabulary a problem.

[Le Joueur]

My use of internal and external relate to what the player does with the character. It is very phenomenological in this sense. It is about the experience of 'being' (or playing) a character.

'Being the character,' as in 'thinking like them,' would be Avatar or Swashbuckler Approach; the character is the players 'frame of reference' and everything is considered from that point of view.

Internal is about the character's thought processes. Typically in a 'pinball game' these are of little interest. You don't care what your PC really thinks about what they are doing, you just want to find the dragon and rescue the princess. You might care that you get your correct share of the treasure or you might care about sticking to your alignment. In essence however, you are not really playing in the internal sphere, you are just looking up something on the character sheet and following the rules. There is no dialogue.

And that pretty much describes a major portion of Joueur Approach.  Often token play characterizes Joueur Approach; the character isn't the player's 'frame of reference,' the game is, and what the character can do to it.

In a narrative game a la Forge, you have a moral dilemma that the game is addressing. In this way you need to have quite an active internal side to the way you play the character. There is an internal dialogue within the character that is sustained by the player. You might for example be looking at whether princess rescuing is the right thing to do, given that dragons are pretty thin on the ground these days, and anyway it was she who tried to turf the dragon out of its lair in the first place. This may become apparent in the external sphere or it may not, it really depends on the nature of the game.

I think you're overly-limiting Narrativist play to Actor Stance, in Director Stance your character's internal dialogue is only of interest if it colors on the manner the moral dilemma is addressed.  If the internal dialogue has no bearing, it can be ignored; it's funny how often people forget you can use token-play in Narrativism.

If the character is thinking about the 'rightness' of princess-rescue and the player doesn't care how it 'situates' within the game as a whole, it'd be Avatar; if the player addresses the moral 'rightness' outside of the character's thoughts, especially in how it addresses a overall moral dilemma posed by the 'larger game,' then it is clearly an thematically-ambitious Auteur Approach.

Immersive gaming is obviously very heavy on the internal sphere but so might be someone who runs their PC in the third person and treats the internal sphere as just other obstacles to overcome in their quest for the perfect PC (something that occurs in powergaming).

Again, immersive play with accent on 'character mindset' is Avatar Approach.  If it goes more in third person, with the personality of the character 'as just another obstacle,' then it is Joueur Approach.  (Overcoming obstacles is looking at the character in terms of 'activating it' in the game sense.)

The external sphere is the interaction that happens external to the character. This can be between the PC and the make-believe physical world in the shape of actions, or it can be between the PC and other characters in the shape of dialogue.

That happens for all characters regardless of Approach or GNS mode, is differentiating it of any practical use?  It doesn't seem to be in any way related to all of the 'character orientation' material you've given up to this point.

If you just want to find the dragon and rescue the princess, they are your external sphere.  In the 'moral dilemma' game, you still have the princess and dragon, but now your internal sphere dictates a different interaction.  The 'third person with obstacles' player still has the very same external influences but now they're similar obstacles.  I really don't see how the 'external sphere' as you put it has any bearing to how you look at things.  The relationship to the 'external sphere' seems nothing more than an extension of the orientation of the 'internal' one and redundant.

Players in the same game can sustain different levels of interest in the various spheres.

In the linked article, I point out that nobody, but nobody, stays in one Approach.  Stealing stuff from other Approaches is half the fun.  The only point in making them explicit is to help negotiate a more formal social contract in terms of what people can expect from each other and to help illuminate Transition.

That said, I still don't understand the Scattershot model. I'll have a look at that forum. I'm finding the vocabulary a problem.

Feel free to point out the terminology problems you have when you're down there.  I am still willing and able to make changes.  I want them to be as clear on the 'first read' as possible.  Thank you for your interest.  I hope we can continue this dialogue in that location; I'm not sure how much this has to do with Participationism (I know the Scattershot Gaming Model does not break play down into such fine detail).

Fang Langford

[Mike Holmes]

Very well stated points, Steve. I can see where there is some confusion.  In answering your questions I am refining my statements to a much better level of functionality. Thanks.

Illusionism is not a mode of play employed by the players, and neither is "Pinball". First I'll point out that the definition of Illusionism is problematic as people have attached all sorts of meanings to the term since it was coined by Paul Elliot a while back. But since then I and others have worked on hammering it out into a useful term. Though we do not all agree on it, here is my definition:

Illusionism - play by the GM employing certain techniques to create a feeling in the players that their control of their character's actions is at least in part, creating new events in the world, while, in fact, the GM ratains most if not all of that control.

A classic example of Illusionism is the Force technique. As an example of that technique, the GM has the players come to a fork in the road. They can choose to go North or South (or go off the road, or anything else). But no matter which rout they go, the GM has them encounter the dragon (for whatever reason the GM has).

The usual use of Illusionism is to cause a plot to come into existence, though there is no reason why this has to be so. A GM could use Illusionism to hose the characters for some reason of balance, for instance. That further goal isn't important. It's just that the GM wants something to happen, and he want's the players to think that they caused it to happen. more or less.

Contrast the example to Pinball for a moment. In that case, the GM consults a map, or random monster charts, and finds that the player's choice of routs leads to a goblin rather than a dragon. In any case, the player's decisions actually are creating the course of events in this case.  

Contrast to Participationism by the GM where the GM will have the characters just run into the Dragon, not haing the fork come up prior to arriving at it. In fact, the GM may have put the characters on the road in the first place. The players then are quite aware that they are being led to the dragon, and that their choices (perhaps what dialog occured on the road), have nothing to do with the course of events that are occurring.

So, from the player POV, these are all Simulationist tactics, and ones that are shifted between frequently. Assuming that the player is responding with Sim play of some sort, the player is deciding to have his character do what he does because it makes sense in the context of the situation that the character is in. But further down we can divide this up even more. In some Sim play, lets call it Character Sim (this is a terrible term in this case, as it probably does not capture even half of the possible other means of decision making; but it will suffice for this example), the player considers only his own interperetation of what the character would do in the situation as presented (probably sticking to Actor Mode, mostly). In Participationist play, he considers what the situation is, and what he thinks that the GM thinks is the most likely thing for the characters to do (IOW, that which continues the plot), and has the character do that (necessarily employing a bit of Author Mode play, likely).

So, from the player POV, this is the split (Participationism vs Non-Participationism for the moment). Note however that this has no coodination with what the GM is doing, necessarily. In the case of Character Sim, the GM could be doing Illusionism, or Pinball, and they might get along famously. But if the GM is doing Participatioism, and the player is doing Character Sim,  then we're going to have trouble (this is where I get all bent out of shape at such play). The CharSim player is trying to make decisions, but the GM is constantly taking them away. Leading to the feeling by the CharSim player that he is being railroaded, or that his character is being played for him.

Again, for the zillionth time I am not advocating any style of play. I can tell you that I prefer to have some Pinball and/or Illusionist play from the GM so that I have the feeling of control that I desire. But I can't say that other players don't like "Participationist" GMs. They might.

Anyhow, what I am trying to do is to model both player and GM behavior separately. This has been discussed before (Contracycle, maybe?), and the choices and techniques that the GM uses to effect a mode of play may have more or less correllation to the player decisions that are made. But they are not the same. Thus, there is no Illusionist mode of play for players or Pinball mode of play.

As such, I should diffentiate between player Participationism and what it is that the GM is doing in play. Perhaps I could term it something like "Storyteller" style play. That would be loaded, but, indeed, it relates what many people here see as a problem in the whole presentation of the role of the ST in WoD products. And if you remove the negative bias (but still have it indicate open strong control of events) it suddenly fits the mode. Still, we'll lose that bias, and the "story" indication as well; indeed such a GM may not be trying to lay oput a plot at all, necessarily. That's just the stereotypical reason. What to call it, then? I'd call it Narrativism (as in the GM reserves the right to the Narrative power), but, while accurate, that would be confusing. How about just High Control GM play for the moment?

Then, Participationist players enjoy play as presented by more High Control GM play. While Non-Participationists will probably desire more Illusionist or Pinball play from their GMs.

To recap:
Some GM styles of Sim play --
Illusionism
Pinball
High Control

Some player styles of Sim play --
Participatioinism
"Characterism"
"Situationalism"

whatever it is that the player is making their decisions based on. The point of all this has been to point out not a dichotomy between Player types of play (hence the reason that I put the others in quotes; they are purely to point out that there are other styles that the one discussed), but to postulate that Participationism exists such that we can then consider whether or not High Control GM play is appropriate. Applying the simple rule of compatibility we can just come to the standard determination about any mode of play. That being, if you truely have Participationist players, then certainly High Control is a viable form of GMing.

Is this helping to elucidate my points, or am I just further muddying the water?

Mike[/i]

[Valamir]

Contrast to Participationism by the GM where the GM will have the characters just run into the Dragon, not haing the fork come up prior to arriving at it. In fact, the GM may have put the characters on the road in the first place. The players then are quite aware that they are being led to the dragon, and that their choices (perhaps what dialog occured on the road), have nothing to do with the course of events that are occurring.

In the midst of preparing for my Pendragon campaign, it occured to me how much like the above description Pendragon can be.

Adherance to the source material particularly requires a big chunk of play to be "Participatory" for this is how the adventures in Malory take place.

When a dog runs into Arthur's court during Pentacost Feast being chased by a lady, and the lady being chased by a knight, knights in Malory have really only two choices.  They can continue to eat, or they can jump up and pusue the adventure that has just presented itself.

Games of Pendragon designed to mirror the type of events one would see in Malory, similiarly take a frequent approach.  Arthurian knights spend most of their time on adventures not of their own making but they've wandered into and wish to see where it takes them and what adventures there are along the way.  

There are countless times where a knight simply finds himself (in the midst of his journey) at a castle with some ill-tradition that must be stopped or some wrong that must be set right is.

Thus, in running a Pendragon campaign is it emminently suitable to begin an adventure... "you are on the road to Lincoln, ahead of you are three large knights, one in black, one in red, and one in green.  They stand ready to issue challenge to all who come this way".

The players had no choice to be on that road, no chance to notice the knights before they neared them...and being knights seeking adventure no real choice but to accept the challenge (because that's what round table knights do).


Anyway, the point being that such Participatory play, as Mike is calling it, is not only completely valid (as he has said), but in some circumstances, the "best" way to organize a campaign.  Especially on interested primarily in Exploration of Color.