Does Module Play Equal Participationism?

[Mike Holmes]

If people want to create different labels I'm cool with it. It's just that I think that the sort of play described here can be broken down into constituent parts that are described by other terms.

Thus, as I see it, "trailblazing"* is Participationism in a small way to the module "front entrance", and then Open play for the rest of the module to play out in. We can speak of the social contract that allows for the GM to use the overt Force that gets the player there. So, yes, we can talk about the mode in these terms.

But that doesn't mean that there's no use to talking about it as an aggregate phenomenon as well. In fact, I see El Dorado as shifting between Sim and Narr play (and all sorts of stuff regarding Illusionism and No Myth play as well). I could describe it that way, but using El Dorado, for those who know, is an easy shortcut.

So if people find value in Rollercoasterism, or Trailblazing, I can't see a downside. I mean, sure, we can worry about everyone coming up with their own terms for their composites of styles they play, or have noted. But to the extent that they are actually useful, they'll be retained. To the extent that they're not they won't.

As long as we know what the term is about. If one thinks that it's really a new GMing mode, that is, say, mutually exclusive of the terms being used, well then that's a subject for debate. But if it's just a descriptive composite, it seems cool to me.

So the question is, is Trailblazing mutually exclusive from, say Participationism and Open Play? Or is it just a description of a composite?

Mike

*I agree with MJ that too much was being made of the fact that the description of Module Play only pertained to a subset of the sorts of actual play that occurs in the presence of modules. The new term does make that clear, however.

[Kester Pelagius]

Greetings All,

Well, let's step back a bit. These are things and behaviors that are and we are just slapping labels on them. It's sort of like sorting apples by roundness and squareness. Rare indeed is the apple that is perfectly round or square.

What I took from this thread were the concepts of Force, Overtness, and Flexibility. This strikes me as a more useful way of viewing these things that to coin yet another -ism.

As long as we know what the term is about. If one thinks that it's really a new GMing mode, that is, say, mutually exclusive of the terms being used, well then that's a subject for debate. But if it's just a descriptive composite, it seems cool to me.

I think Jack and Mike's comments pretty much sum it up.  On the one hand we really do not need new "-isms" to be coined, then again for everyone having a near revelatory epiphany about a aspect of gaming that leads to a new insight there does need to be common terms to describe the insight in such a way that everyone can understand it.

To an extent I think that this is what M. J. Young is in the process of doing, putting down in words an attempt to set terms to a insight about the nature of gaming.  Which is well and good, unless one starts to use terms that others know under a different applied meaning.  Thus leading us back to the phenomenon of the "-ism".

True, there are often extant terms out there for many of the concepts being discussed here.  Yet much of the discussion and debate here is about ideas, theory, and possible ideas and potential theories.  

Problem is such ideas come from observation of our individual groups, and are thus based on a dynamic with which we are familiar.  For instance much has been made about the use of the term "module" here, thus the term has been replaced with 'Trailblazing'.  A word with conotations that may or not be best suited for MJ's concept.

But that's a matter of opinion and...

If people want to create different labels I'm cool with it. It's just that I think that the sort of play described here can be broken down into constituent parts that are described by other terms.

...so long as the person trying to coin a term can make us of it, define it in context, and keep their usage consistent then...

It doesn't matter to Grandad that the prince's name was Kester; you added something to the color of the story, but you didn't change the story.

The terminology doesn't really matter, just the explanation (read: the story) behind the terminology.

Alice laughed.  'There's no use trying, she said: 'one CAN'T believe impossible things.'

'I daresay you haven't had much practice,' said the Queen.  'When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day.  Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.'

It's not the willingness, nor even the ability, to accept the impossible as possible; rather it's the ability to imagine and envision something beyond what our preconceptions tell us is possible.  In that I look forward to seeing where M. J. Young takes this theory.  For with each new imagining of what gaming is, IMO, we learn something new.  Even if that is just that something old has been rediscovered and polished off.


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

[Jason Lee]

I still take Trailblazing to be a composite.

Interacting with the predefined plot is not forced, just searched for.  This makes me think of it very similar to Open Play (Plotless Background-Based, Pinball, Whatever-Ya-Call-It).  The plot is actually just another piece of the environment to explore.  Gamist to be sure, if the point is the challenge of locating the plot.  It's just like searching for the holy-wand-of-bad-guy-smackdown in a dungeon.

Why it is a composite is because, a Transition to Participationism is made at specific points (when plot elements are encountered).  I suppose you could start with Trailblazing and define styles around it, but I don't think Pinball or Participationism could be included in that model.  Do you like CMYK or RGB?  I can make purple out of either.

Huh, I suppose all I've done here is repeat myself, repeat Jack, and repeat Mike...in various fashions.

[Tim C Koppang]

I would argue that Trailblazing (a technique that seems very familar to me) is really just a way for the players to get back some of the "coolness" they felt when Illusionism was happening.  The players want to think that they have power, but are convinced that the GM is the one who should be telling the story.  So they tell themselves that they can alter the GM's plot, but in reality they spend their time adhering to it.  If they do make use of their power, then in my expirience the GM just ends up integrating those changes, for the most part, into his pre-mapped plot.  So in reality, nothing really changes.  Thus, Trailblazing is a specific type of Participationism.

This is of course only observed from my expriences in play.

[M. J. Young]

To an extent I think that this is what M. J. Young is in the process of doing, putting down in words an attempt to set terms to a insight about the nature of gaming....

For instance much has been made about the use of the term "module" here, thus the term has been replaced with 'Trailblazing'.  A word with conotations that may or not be best suited for MJ's concept.

It's not the willingness, nor even the ability, to accept the impossible as possible; rather it's the ability to imagine and envision something beyond what our preconceptions tell us is possible.  In that I look forward to seeing where M. J. Young takes this theory.  For with each new imagining of what gaming is, IMO, we learn something new.  Even if that is just that something old has been rediscovered and polished off.

I suppose I should be interested in where I'm going with this as well.

Periodically here at The Forge, someone reads about The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast, and comes onto the forums claiming that it is not impossible, because, from their perspective, they have done it. Then the argument arises that they could not have done it because it is inherently impossible: it cannot be true both that the referee has complete control over the story but the players have complete control over the actions of their characters. Thus we wind up reading a lot of words about how each individual believes the matter is resolved, and try to show once again that this is a valid way of resolving the problem, but it is not consistent with the actual words of certain texts--that is, at some point, this person has made an interpretive gloss on the text that causes them to believe that what they are doing is consistent with what the text says, resulting in functional play.

We've attempted at times to recognize various forms of functional play. One of those is the bass player and band analogy Ron uses, in which the referee sets things up and cuts them loose, and lets the players create pretty much everything else within the framework of the baseline. That resolves TITBB by having the referee cede control of the story to the players, leaving him control of the world and background characters and creating an interaction between them.

Illusionism is another resolution to TITBB which we tend to regard as dysfunctional. In Illusionism, the referee surreptitiously siezes power, such that the players feel as if they are in control of their characters but they actually control nothing that matters to the story. One of them will carry the ring to Mount Doom, whether that's what they planned or not--it will somehow be forced upon them in a way that persuades them it was what they chose. There is a sense in which Illusionism is perfectly functional as long as it is not discovered (my objection a year or so ago to someone's attempt at developing an illusionist game--the players will find out, and then it's all over). The players believe they control their characters, and in a sense they do--but the referee still has complete control over everything that matters.

Participationism is a more functional resolution to TITBB which, I think, amounts to the players ceding complete control to the referee of everything that matters. They have accepted that the referee is going to tell the story and bring them to the places they are supposed to be, and that all they can do--all they are supposed to do--is make their characters interesting in the process. Participationism has been described as Illusionism By Consent, and that in itself is suggestive of this analysis, that the players have ceded power over the plot to the referee.

I'm suggesting that Trailblazing is a very common and functional resolution to TITBB which manages to blend the referee's control over the story with the players' control over their individual characters through a normally unrecognized compact at the social level: that the players are committed to discovering and playing out the referee's story, and the referee is committed to not interfering with their efforts to do so.

As an aside, I commented at one point that you might call the starting point "railroading", and I think this was taken out of context as well. At least one person objected that establishing the starting point of the game is not railroading (which was what I meant), and at least one other person has derived from that that Trailblazing includes periods of railroading. I do not mean that there is any use of referee force within the game. I mentioned it in connection with the starting point, because it occurs to me that someone has to say, "this is where the game starts, this is why you're here, this is the information you have". Even if you began with "your character is born today; what do you want to become?" at some point the description of the world into which he is born is establishing starting parameters for the game. It is solely those starting parameters that are in any way "forced" in this type of play, as the referee might say "you meet in a bar in Freeport" or "your liege sent you here to investigate this rumor" or "you wake up apparently in a cargo hold of some ship; the last thing you remember was a drink with a lady". You can't start the game without the referee saying, "you are here"; if someone wanted to characterize that as force, I couldn't answer that. I do not believe it to be force; I also do not mean it to be part of ongoing play, but merely the starting point for play.[/list:u]

In Trailblazing, the referee will have created signposts, pointers, clues, ways for the players to discover what the story is. The referee has actually ceded all control over the unfolding of events to the players, but in doing so has trusted them to honor the social contract that says they are going to make every effort to tell him his story. If they got lost, that would be part of functional play. If they refused to follow the clues, that would be a violation of the social contract which underpins this particular style of play, and thus dysfunctional.

The other point I would draw out of this is that my experience suggests it to be rather common. I think that most of the games in which I played, prior to meeting the great Illusionist referee who really broadened my horizons on the possibilities for how to run games, were run this way. It is not exactly my most common approach as referee--I tend to create places in which people can have adventures, and cut them loose--but the other referees for whom I played tended to run prepared modules. Within those, we always made the decisions; but we always made the decision to do what seemed like the next thing we were supposed to do. We would complete part of the adventure, and there would be a reason for us to go to the next place, so we would go there. The referee never tricked us into anything, never played games with the reality, never caused things to come about. We made everything happen. We had complete control over our characters and through them the direction of the story. Sometimes we changed the story in critical ways. But always we were dedicated to discovering what the next step was supposed to be, and doing that.

I've read other functional approaches to play described in these forums; I haven't seen this described coherently, but I expect it's a much more common resolution of TITBB than people realize.

I think that's where I'm going with it.

Thanks for asking.

Oh--I'm curious as to why "Trailblazing" has inappropriate connotations. My great uncle used to blaze trails. The concept is rather simple: you take a knife or hatchet, and as you move through the woods you strip patches of bark off trees at intervals, creating a "blaze" of exposed wood which can be followed by you or someone else later. Thus I suggest that in the Trailblazing technique, the referee marks the path he wants the players to follow, and they look for those blazes and try to follow them. Success in part depends on whether the blazes are clear without being blatant, and whether the players are able to identify and follow them. It is agreed up front that the players are looking to follow the trail that has been blazed for them.

How is this inappropriate? Or does the word suggest something to people unaware of the simple meaning that confounds this understanding?

Thanks.

--M. J. Young

[John Kim]

Participationism is a more functional resolution to TITBB which, I think, amounts to the players ceding complete control to the referee of everything that matters. They have accepted that the referee is going to tell the story and bring them to the places they are supposed to be, and that all they can do--all they are supposed to do--is make their characters interesting in the process. Participationism has been described as Illusionism By Consent, and that in itself is suggestive of this analysis, that the players have ceded power over the plot to the referee.  

Hmmm.  You alternately refer to the GM's power as being over "everything that matters" and "the plot" -- as if they were the same thing.  My common impression is that a Participationist GM only seeks power over the overall plot -- i.e. aspects like characterization and others may be in the players' power.  Many people seem to feel that non-plot aspects do matter, and indeed are important enough to play out for their own sake. There was an interesting recent thread on http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=6177">Necessary Risk which discusses this.  

I'm suggesting that Trailblazing is a very common and functional resolution to TITBB which manages to blend the referee's control over the story with the players' control over their individual characters through a normally unrecognized compact at the social level: that the players are committed to discovering and playing out the referee's story, and the referee is committed to not interfering with their efforts to do so.  
...
We always made the decisions; but we always made the decision to do what seemed like the next thing we were supposed to do. We would complete part of the adventure, and there would be a reason for us to go to the next place, so we would go there. The referee never tricked us into anything, never played games with the reality, never caused things to come about. We made everything happen. We had complete control over our characters and through them the direction of the story. Sometimes we changed the story in critical ways. But always we were dedicated to discovering what the next step was supposed to be, and doing that.

OK, Participationism and Trailblazing seem pretty similar to me, but let me check here.  In both cases, the GM has a pre-prepared plotline of things which are supposed to happen.  In both cases, the players are commited to going along with that.  So in practice these will look very similar, at least on the surface.  I guess where the difference is noticeable is that if the players mess up -- say misinterpret some clue, and fail to recognize the next place they should go.  In this case, the Trailblazing GM will simply let them wander about aimlessly.  If they didn't catch his pre-written clue, then he won't improvise another one and the session may simply end with them not finding anything interesting.  A Participationist GM, on the other hand, will improvise a new clue if the players are stuck.  

Since by the definition the players want to follow the predefined story, that seems to be the only problem case.  As long as the players don't get lost, Participationism and Trailblazing appear identical, right?

[Jason Lee]

Having a thought...

This relates to two other running threads:
The switches and dials formerly known as Illusionism
Relationships Between GMing Styles

Wasn't sure which thread to put it in, but for some reason this seems the best place.  Not because this discussion is about Illusionism, but because it includes it.

To me, Illusionism seems less and less like something you can pin down and define in any other way than 'Force relating to something done Covertly'.  Covert Participationism would be one form of Illusionism, Covert No Myth would be another, Covert Open Play yet another, and so on.  Since Covert and Illusionism seem synonymous, and nothing else can be clearly defined for Illusionism, what's the point in having both Illusionism and Covert as terms (other than that's how things happened to develop).  This seems to very strongly support Jack's PoV in the switches and dials thread.

Covert Trailblazing seems impossible; making it obviously not Illusionism.  Trying to make it Covert would make it play just like Covert Participationism; making it Overt again would make it Participationism.  I know this is like running a sentence through a translator a few times...it's not supposed to be a proof, just a different angle.

[Tim C Koppang]

MJ,

Riffing off of what John was saying: what do you think "everything that matters" is?  This may be the source of my hang-up.

As I see it now, I still place Trailblazing in the Participationism camp.  Let me explain.  If players can "leave" the GM's pre-designed plot and wander off on their own, but they are expected to (via social contract) "find" the GM's plot eventually, then how much control do they actually have?  I mean can they really have control over their character's development if there is only one way for the plot to unravel?

For example, let's say that my character, Bob, decides that he will go off and do his own thing because he just had a major realization that defines him as a person.  This little personal discovery quest was in no way part of the GM's plan.  So, does the GM humor me and improvise Bob's quest, or does he just try to lead him back to the "real" plot of the game.  Moreover, simply by instigating a personal discovery quest wouldn't I be violating the social contract once I find out that the GM never planned for this?  I'd say yes.  So I indeed have lost control of my character by nature of the social contract.

Perhaps I can develop my character along the way, insomuch as I adhere to the GM's story, but that's a very limited amount of leeway.

I'd restate John's question: In your vision of Trailblazing, would or should the GM give up his pre-defined story if the players don't want to follow his clues?

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Since by the definition the players want to follow the predefined story, that seems to be the only problem case.  As long as the players don't get lost, Participationism and Trailblazing appear identical, right?

Also riffing off of what John said. I was going to quote the entire section where he compares the differences between Participationism and Tailblazing, but just scroll up :)

In Illusionism: a new look and a new approach there are definitions for "gm oomph" or Force, overt/covert, which in this case applies specifically to the Force, which is either overt or covert, and flexibility. If this is the main difference between Trailblazing and Participationism, then Trailblazing is just a form of Participationism with low flexibility.

#3 (Flexibility)
= how flexible the outcome is permitted to be. The GM in question might be the kind who'll do anything up to actually picking up your dice for you in order for you to talk to "that guy," or he might be the kind who's happy to let the characters miss the clue, either 'porting it to another character or letting its absence go ahead and affect the outcome.

...he might be the kind who's happy to let the characters miss the clue, ... letting its absence go ahead and affect the outcome.

Isn't this what John had just determined?

[Kester Pelagius]

Greetings,

I hope this missive finds you well and in good health.  

I suppose I should be interested in where I'm going with this as well.

Well if you aren't sure step back, take a breath, and decide if this is really something you want to sped time with.  Theories, I've heard it told, are a lot like lovers.  They need coddling and caressing. . . or something.

Illusionism is another resolution to TITBB which we tend to regard as dysfunctional. In Illusionism, the referee surreptitiously siezes power, such that the players feel as if they are in control of their characters but they actually control nothing that matters to the story. One of them will carry the ring to Mount Doom, whether that's what they planned or not--it will somehow be forced upon them in a way that persuades them it was what they chose.

Ah, but the entire point is in the how, not the why.

The story that develops is about how the ring gets to Mt. Doom, not why poor Frodo felt like he was forced to take it.  And, really, in this example Frodo wasn't forced to do anything by the heavy hand of the evil GM Gandalf.  Sure, that's what Gandalf likely wanted, but Frodo could have refused.  Then what would you have had?  Nothing.  No story.  Nada.

Then again Bilbo didn't want to leave his comfortable Hobbit hole either, yet he did, and because he did this set Frodo up to have to take the ring.  Ah, but then the ring was supposed to have a malignent sense of direction in and of itself, as had its master Sauron.  Sauron, whose goal was to rule or see the world destroyed if he couldn't reign over it.  Which is exactly what the destruction of the ring brings, the destruction of the world that was up until that time.

So who railroaded who here?

The players believe they control their characters, and in a sense they do--but the referee still has complete control over everything that matters.

Before I offer comment I would like to know why you feel this way?

Participationism is a more functional resolution to TITBB which, I think, amounts to the players ceding complete control to the referee of everything that matters. They have accepted that the referee is going to tell the story and bring them to the places they are supposed to be, and that all they can do--all they are supposed to do--is make their characters interesting in the process.

That's not the role that I played when I DM/GM the campaigns I ran.  Properlly a GM is a referee.  A Referee's sole function is, in the traditional RPG, a arbiter of rules.  It's not my job to dictate a story to anyone.  The story should resolve itself from the actions of the characters as guided by their players.

That said I feel you have a specific game in mind (and perhaps a specific style of GMing) that you are referencing here.  Yet I felt that you wielding your brush in broad, bold, strokes painting a landscape about the generic phenomenon of gaming.  Or am I misreading you?

In Trailblazing, the referee will have created signposts, pointers, clues, ways for the players to discover what the story is.

I'm going to step outside the bounds of this theory for a moment.

This is called (amongst other things) foreshadowing.  Droping hints and clues about the direction in which the flow of a story goes is intrinsic to creating a good story.

The referee has actually ceded all control over the unfolding of events to the players, but in doing so has trusted them to honor the social contract that says they are going to make every effort to tell him his story.

Is it really the GMs story?  Or is it "the" story.

If you are talking about a storyteller system then this works fine, but this may not apply to other systems or styles of play.

If they got lost, that would be part of functional play. If they refused to follow the clues, that would be a violation of the social contract which underpins this particular style of play, and thus dysfunctional.

*LOL*

Then every group I've had would be dysfunctional.

But it's not.  It's human nature.  Also it's what the GM is there for, if need be, to provide those illusiory guide posts to lead the characters back in the right direction.  But, really, this tends to happen in long drawn out meandering campaigns that last for hours on end.

What it is is not dysfunctional gaming, it's loss of focus.  Happens a lot when friends are together and having so much fun they forget all else.

Within those, we always made the decisions; but we always made the decision to do what seemed like the next thing we were supposed to do. We would complete part of the adventure, and there would be a reason for us to go to the next place, so we would go there.

Yes, there are modules like that.

For those who like a immersive gaming experience such modules will not be suited for their style of role-playing.  However, for tabletop play, or those more strategic minded that don't mind the "board game" elements of play such modules tend to be well recieved.

I'd say that establishing the social contract here should also determine what sort of gaming experiance the group wants.  Just be aware that certain modules aren't well suited to certain styles of gaming.

Oh--I'm curious as to why "Trailblazing" has inappropriate connotations. My great uncle used to blaze trails. The concept is rather simple: you take a knife or hatchet, and as you move through the woods you strip patches of bark off trees at intervals, creating a "blaze" of exposed wood which can be followed by you or someone else later.

Mark and note this.

How is this inappropriate? Or does the word suggest something to people unaware of the simple meaning that confounds this understanding?

Because trailblazing suggests that the natural environment is an obstable that has to be overcome and hacked away.  Which means leaving dead branches in your wake.  Sure, you can think of it as pioneering.  Problem is the Pioneers weren't really, since the Aboriginals/Indians/Picts are already there.

It's a matter of perspective.  Nothing against you or your theory, which is interesting.  Lots of neat ideas.

But, if you treat the games as an obstacle that needs to be overcome to achieve a goal, then aren't you're locking yourself into certain approach to role-playing, however unconsciously?

Personally I viewed games a canvas and the players the strokes of color and shadow that came together to create the picture.  Or, to put it another way, the game was a cold clump of clay and the players each took up bits of it and sculpted the world as they went along.

And that, too, is a approach that creates a environment where certain styles of gaming will flourish over others.  I think we need an example to pick apart, hack at, pick nits out of, and otherwise discuss.  Guess I volunteer.  ;)

# # #

"I probably have a slightly different pespective than most." Kester intone in his best put-on haughty manner, "I had two core gaming groups, once upon a time, but ran through the *same* material for what was essentially the *same* world setting."

In a whispered aside Kester says:  It was a City.  Only some minor background details were different, and the panetheon of deities were set up slightly differently.  One was a HIGH magic world the other a median magic world.

"A world setting that began with yet another earlier group.  We took notes.  Those notes developed into my campaign world.  When the two groups went their own ways something happened.  A while later I ran a game for group in which there were players from both former groups present.  They got to talking, as players do, and wanted to revisit the old campaign world.  (Figuring they must have missed something since they had slightly different experiances.) So I took my notes, put them in a folder, then started a new folder incorporationg various bits and pieces of the old campaigns..."  Kester's voice trails off as M. J. Young stuffs cotton into delicate sensitive ears.

Ok, there's the set up.

How did I resolve the fact these were different games in the same yet different world?

Simple, I now decided that I had two parallel worlds.  Similar yet different.  Thus the players were able to run their old characters. . . sort of.  Obviously the new dimension of two parallel worlds altered things slightly.

No, the players didn't know about each other, or their games, until they came together in the later gaming group.

Yes, I decided that this is how this were/would be from that point on.

Given the current theories being discussed how would you classify this?

Why?




Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

[M. J. Young]

O.K., I keep thinking that the reason I'm not getting through is because there is a disagreement about the definition of Participationism. As I understand Participationism, it is Illusionism By Consent; that requires that we understand the definition of Illusionism.

Whichever way the character goes will ultimately be toward the city; from this far out, the city can't be seen, so when the character has traveled enough the city should be discovered.

Although I did not know it when I wrote that, this is an illusionist technique. I've since written several articles on integrating illusionist techniques among your refereeing tools--the most notable being http://www.gamingoutpost.com/content/index.cfm?action=article&articleid=613&login=">Game Ideas Unlimited: Left or Right, and at least one (http://www.gamingoutpost.com/GL/index.cfm?action=ShowProduct&CategoryID=54411&ProductID=66383&publisherid=54849">Game Ideas Unlimited: Ephemeral Illusion) suggesting that you can't build an entire game around such techniques. Yet I have seen games run this way.

I suppose I need to answer

You alternately refer to the GM's power as being over "everything that matters" and "the plot" -- as if they were the same thing. My common impression is that a Participationist GM only seeks power over the overall plot -- i.e. aspects like characterization and others may be in the players' power.

Mea culpa. I have certainly confused that.

I agree that characterization can be a very enjoyable part of play. It may be one of the key aspects that makes Participationism (as I understand it) enjoyable. What I'm after is something a bit more than what I understand by "the plot" and a bit less than "everything that matters", for which I don't have good words. What I means it that in Illusionism, the story is going to unfold exactly as the referee has imagined it, with only color, characterization, and maybe a bit of who-does-what-part subject to definition by the players. That is, if the players come to a closed door that they are supposed to open, it will open for them, whether the fighter kicks it or the thief picks the lock or the wizard uses his knock spell on it, or if it just happens that it swings open when they start to walk away--or if not, then whatever was behind that door that they needed to get to next is actually behind the next door that they do open. I'm currently working on a scenario with an extremely illusionist formula. It takes place in a modern office building. Rather than map out the entire building and placing each encounter location within it, I'm providing a few standard floorplans to define each of the fifty stories and putting the encounters in the order in which they will occur. The player can go in any direction he chooses, but he can't get to the end before he has played through the events in front of it no matter what he does. If the scenario says the first thing he encounters is a lone guard, that is the first thing he will encounter whether he goes in through the front door, the garage, the roof, or one of the windows. His choices are all his--but the order in which things happen cannot be changed by anything he does. He doesn't realize this because no one has told him he can't change the sequence, and he doesn't know what the sequence actually is. To him, if he runs into ten well-armed men, it was his bad luck to have chosen a left instead of a right at that last turning; to the referee, he ran into those ten men because that was the next event on the storyline, and it was just a matter of deciding where it was going to happen. At that point, he will fight them--whether he attacks and they defend, or he flees and they pursue. In many cases of Illusionist play (although not in the one I'm writing), the referee has already decided things like whether he will kill them all or some will escape, how much injury he will suffer in the process, and to what degree this will deplete his resources. At no point in this does the player impact what is going to happen next. He is given the illusion that he has control when he really does not.

Now, Participationism is exactly that with the caveat that the player knows he has no control. I've compared it to watching an action movie. Everyone knows the first time they watch Die Hard or Under Siege that Willis or Segal aren't going to be killed; yet it's exciting to feel like it might happen. Everyone in Participationist play knows that their characters are going to save the day (or, in a different game, be gruesomely killed). The tension comes from watching the story unfold. Just as in illusionist play, they make choices that don't matter. They know these choices don't matter, but they enjoy making them, because it gives them the feeling that they are part of the story. If the next encounter is going to be ten well-armed adversaries, it doesn't matter where they go, that's what they will encounter. The story will happen; they're along for the ride. The players are the audience; they are participants only to the degree that they get to say, "wouldn't it be neat if the fighter broke down the door" or "in this fight I should kill them with my bow and arrows". They watch; the referee makes the story happen.

Trailblazing is exactly opposite to that. In Trailblazing, the referee has no control whatsoever once the game begins. The encounters are probably set; the signs are in place. But at this point, everything depends on the players. They must make the story happen. If they decide that entering the building through a window on the twenty-second floor will give them time to set up before they encounter anyone, and the scenario doesn't happen to have anyone on the twenty-second floor, they don't encounter anyone there. The choices they make matter. The referee might want to have them come in through some other door, and might even have left bread crumbs on that path, but it's not his decision.

I'd like to go back a few years to a problem someone posed on the GO forums. He told of a scenario (similar in some ways to the one I'm designing) in which there was a bomb in the building. The players were "supposed" to go in through a certain entrance and encounter several other enemies, then rescue the person who knew how to disarm the bomb, then find the bomb and disarm it. Instead, the players chose an unexpected direction of entry, reached the bomb almost immediately, and one of them with no skill or knowledge in the subject attempted to disarm it, detonating it immediately.

That's Trailblazing. They missed the path. It would not happen that way in Illusionism or Participationism--either they would not have found the bomb because it wasn't there, or having found it they would not have been able either to disarm it or to detonate it prematurely, and so would have to have found the man who knew what he was doing. The Illusionist or Participationist referee would at this moment prevent the story from going awry; the Trailblazing referee would not.

A couple of other examples of Trailblazing technique and outcome.

I played in the Volturnus modules in a Star Frontiers game. There's a point at which you raid a high-tech pirate base. It proves to be an outpost, and there is information in the computer which points you to the main base. These are the breadcrumbs; the module, and thus the referee, wants you to travel to the main base next, and find a way to bring down the pirates. However, it's two hundred miles as the crow flies, hostile terrain, and thus far you've been walking everywhere. Now, there's this jetcopter there you could fly--but it won't hold all of you plus the neat stuff (a couple of security/combat robots, weapons, supplies) you've just acquired. The module wants you to whittle down what you've got to the essentials.

I won't go into how we did it, but Bob and I proceeded to play out an end run. We got the pirates to bring us another copter, managed to capture one alive and interrogate him, and were then able to load everything we wanted into the now two copters and fly out to the next point in the module. The referee didn't even see it coming--she had no idea what we were up to as we staged our little deception, and was quite surprised that we had managed to get around the limit.

In an illusionist or participationist game it would not have worked. Sorry, you can't work the security codes on the new copter; sorry, they can't send anyone to you now; sorry, one of the copters has malfunctioned and will take weeks to repair. You're stuck with the limit, because you're supposed to be stuck with the limit. In a Trailblazing game, what mattered was that we knew where we were supposed to be next, and we found a way to get there on our terms. The referee pointed; we accomplished.

The other example, which I eluded to before, is the vast majority of CRPGs. I used a text-based game when I discussed this earlier, because I stopped playing CRPGs before they had gotten much beyond text-based games, and probably partly for this reason. Yet it seems to be true of at least the bulk of the successful Nintendo and Sega games.

If you play one of the Final Fantasy games, there is a sequence of events you have to accomplish. Sometimes it's a flexible sequence; sometimes there are substitutions built into it. By and large, though you have to go through the steps the game requires, or you've lost the game.

The game will make no effort to coerce you into success; if you fail, you fail. It will not allow you to change the objectives. It provides the clues you need to move from point to point, but leaves it entirely up to you to get there. When you put the game into the console, you've committed yourself to attempting to achieve the goals established by the game. This is not Participationism; in Participationism, you wouldn't be able to go off the course established by the program, nor, in a sense, lose the game. The game would tell you what was happening to you, and you would respond with all kinds of color- and character-enhancing details, but the story would happen no matter what you did.

Thus, with a lot of role playing game play, the referee has created a story, but whether or not that story gets told is entirely in the hands of the players. Illusionism and Participationism say that the players cannot prevent the story from being told; the referee will tell the story, no matter what they do. Trailblazing says that the story will only be told if the players pursue telling it and are successful, but that they have committed themselves to undertaking that.

I think that Jack is using a definition of Participationism that is, too my mind, too broad--it seems to him to mean that the referee contributes a central story idea and then by some means it is played out. Since Participationism was introduced initially as a refereeing style, juxtaposed to Illusionism solely on the question of whether the players knew that they had no control over the outcome, I don't see how it can be broadened to mean "either the referee is controlling the outcome or he isn't" and still be a style of refereeing. I say if the referee controls the flow of events, it's Participationism as Mike originally defined it; but if the referee merely lays out a path and leaves it entirely within the power of the players to follow it or fail, that's Trailblazing.

Why isn't that distinction clear?

--M. J. Young

[Jack Spencer Jr]

I think that Jack is using a definition of Participationism that is, too my mind, too broad--it seems to him to mean that the referee contributes a central story idea and then by some means it is played out. Since Participationism was introduced initially as a refereeing style, juxtaposed to Illusionism solely on the question of whether the players knew that they had no control over the outcome, I don't see how it can be broadened to mean "either the referee is controlling the outcome or he isn't" and still be a style of refereeing. I say if the referee controls the flow of events, it's Participationism as Mike originally defined it; but if the referee merely lays out a path and leaves it entirely within the power of the players to follow it or fail, that's Trailblazing.

Why isn't that distinction clear?

Possibly because the definitions of these terms, like pretty much all of the terms coined here are the subject for debate. And the term as Mike originally defined it seems to differ from the term as Mike is currently using it (or so it seems to me. Mike will set me straight if I am wrong). We also seem to be talking past each other here because I am looking at the variables that make up Illusionism and the other terms and I am finding it more useful to look at them as a series of switches and dials that can be adjusted during play vs identifying the distinctive styles.

Consider a GM running a trailblazing game, which as you had defined above "the referee merely lays out a path and leaves it entirely within the power of the players to follow it or fail." Let's assume that the last session fizzled because the player failed indeed to find the path or anything else of interest. So this time it's a new game, new characters, new path and once again the players are stumbling. Not wishing to have two failed sessions in a row, the GM exerts a little Force to help bring the characters on the right track (exactly what or how much is irrelavant).

Now, there a a couple ways of looking at this. It is possible to see this as drifting, if only for a moment, from Trailblazing into Particiaptionism and then back again. But I simply see it as turning up the flexibility for a moment to help the players find this path they seem to have trouble with and then turning it back down with the path already in place. In either case, this is simply what happened and we're labeling stuff to try to understand it.

[deadpanbob]

M.J.,

I've been following this thread - and everything you've said is perfectly clear to me in terms of your distinction between Participationism and Trailblazing.  Just so you don't think you're going psychotic.

Still, from a functional standpoint, do you think that Trailblazing has variability in terms of the Overt/Covert and/or Consensual/Non-Consensual scales discussed in this other thread: Illusionism: a new look and a new approach?

I think that if you're saying, in you're definition, that Trailblazing can have variability along these lines (that is to say that it can functionaly be placed in multiple places along the Covert/Overt and Consensual/Non-Consensual scales) - then I agree with you that it seems to be yet another discrete style of GMing to add to the taxonomic mix.

Cheers,



Jason

[Tim C Koppang]

To use your example:  Let's say that the players decide not to enter the building at all, not to disarm or even hunt after the bomb.  Let's say they go visit the circus instead.  This would be Trailblazing, but dysfunctional Trailblazing, right? -- because the players are breaking a stipulation of the social contract that says that the GM's general plot must be followed.  Is this correct?

In other words, there is no plot outside the GM's?

[John Kim]

Participationism is a more functional resolution to TITBB which, I think, amounts to the players ceding complete control to the referee of everything that matters. They have accepted that the referee is going to tell the story and bring them to the places they are supposed to be, and that all they can do--all they are supposed to do--is make their characters interesting in the process.

That's not the role that I played when I DM/GM the campaigns I ran.  Properlly a GM is a referee.  A Referee's sole function is, in the traditional RPG, a arbiter of rules.  It's not my job to dictate a story to anyone.

Hold on.  If your GM is purely a rules referee and doesn't determine story, then the simple answer is that your style has not been "Participationist".  M.J. is not advocating Participationism here as the one true answer -- he is simply describing a style which some people play in.  

It seems to me that it is much more common for GMs to be more than a rules arbiter.  Most traditional RPGs suggest that the GM work before the game itself to design or adapt "adventures" which the PCs go through -- though the meaning of what a prepared adventure is varies.  The D&D3 DMG has a decent treatment of the traditional two approaches: adventures based on a single location, and adventures which involve a sequence of locations (i.e. a mission or quest).  More on this later...

In Trailblazing, the referee will have created signposts, pointers, clues, ways for the players to discover what the story is.

I'm going to step outside the bounds of this theory for a moment.  This is called (amongst other things) foreshadowing.  Droping hints and clues about the direction in which the flow of a story goes is intrinsic to creating a good story.

OK -- I am guessing based on the positive tone here that you do foreshadowing.  However, this involves being more than just an arbiter of the rules.  In order to foreshadow, you have to have some idea about where the story is going to go, don't you?  

One of the faults of calling styles "-isms" is that it suggests really strongly adhering to a style in a religious manner, when really there is a range.  For example, you might as GM have pretty strong control over where the story goes, but still not dictatorially control all the nuances (as is implied by the description of Participationism).  

If they got lost, that would be part of functional play. If they refused to follow the clues, that would be a violation of the social contract which underpins this particular style of play, and thus dysfunctional.

Then every group I've had would be dysfunctional.

But it's not.  It's human nature.  Also it's what the GM is there for, if need be, to provide those illusiory guide posts to lead the characters back in the right direction.  But, really, this tends to happen in long drawn out meandering campaigns that last for hours on end.  

First of all, I think that M.J.'s phrasing here is poor.  I suspect when he says "dysfunctional" that he means "dysfunctional for Participationism" -- i.e. it just indicates that particular style isn't working, but it could actually functional non-Participationist play.  Your original statement, at least, suggests that your play isn't in the style M.J. is describing.  

One of the points of this discussion is that the GM plays different roles depending on your style.  The GM isn't neccessarily there to point out the "right direction".  For example, my style in my Vinland game is pretty clearly to not have a "right direction".  I will regularly throw in events to spice things up, but more often direction is determined by the PCs.  

(game description snipped)
Given the current theories being discussed how would you classify this?

I can't tell from what you have said.  I would recommend starting out with some more basic things: what do you do to prepare for a session?  What generally happens?  What sort of activities do the PCs engage in?