Participation / Illusionism

[Mike Holmes]

Hello,

The posts so far were split from the Help w/vocab thread.

For what it's worth, I don't see any points of controversy in this topic at all.

Nope, just clarifications, so far.

Mike

[Jason Lee]

a) railroading (IMO no, railroading must refer to deception or dysfunction)
b) illusionism (the PC's can live their lives between letters but no matter what they do, that next letter will come, giving them only the illusion of direction).
c) participationism (they know several letters are coming--the GM said so in the set-up, they've agreed to play. They're being led around by the nose.)
d) something else.

I had a little trouble following that senario, but here's my opinions about how responses would map out.

Participationism:
Characters get the letters and the players agree to follow through with the plot the GM has just mailed to them.  If the players think the right way is to take it to the cops, the GM gives them the 'the cops are busy' bit; they get the hint and move on to dealing with it themselves.

Illusionism:
Characters get the letters and the players do what they want, such as take them to the police.  But, for one reason or another, they can find noone to help them no matter what they do, until they end up following up on the letters themselves.

Open Play:
Characters get the letters and take them to the cops.  The GM decides what the most likely action for the police would be and takes it.

Trailblazing:
Characters get the letters and the players attempt to find the correct way to solve the letter plot.  They might take the letters to the cops, and the GM would decide the most likely action, but because this is not the correct path through the plot it has no chance of solving the problem.

Railroading is harder to peg down, because anything involving force could be railroading if it violates the social contract.  But, railroading does not equal participationism.

There's my take on it.

[Nick the Nevermet]

Railroading is harder to peg down, because anything involving force could be railroading if it violates the social contract.  But, railroading does not equal participationism.

There's my take on it.

If I'm understanding what I've been reading, railroading occurs when the GM forces situations in ways that players believe violates the social contract of the game.  Railroading boils down to the GM using illegitimate force.

So, depending on what the social contract says, certain kinds of participationism, illusionism, or trailblazing may or may not be railroading.  I know several players who would be ready to kill if the GM said, 'OK, you all go to town', or made it clear there was 1 option for the players to take (Participationism).  On the other hand, I know several players who wouldn't have a problem as long as it's "not blatant" (i.e. specific illusionist practices with the curtain down are OK).

[Mike Holmes]

Railroading has lot's of colloquial meanings to it that basically boil down to "The GM controls something I don't want him to control". The problem with this definition is that it shifts for everyone as to what constitute railroading.

So we use our own little modification which is similar. Railroading is dysfunctional use of Force. That is, the GM using force better be sure he has a mandate to do so in the fashion that he is, otherwise he's ruining play for others.

All the "isms" are presented as functional styles. So whatever the mode entails it presumes that the players want to play that way. If not, the GM is Railroading.

This means that non-consensual forms of Illusionism are almost always Railroading. But there are consensual forms of Participationism, Illusionism, etc, etc. This is an important point. No matter how odd you think Participationism seems to you, you have to understand that the theoretical players want the GM to overtly control their characters.

GM: "Your character comes to the corner and turns left."
Player: "Cool, what's there?"

Mike

[John Kim]

I had a little trouble following that senario, but here's my opinions about how responses would map out.
...
Illusionism:
Characters get the letters and the players do what they want, such as take them to the police.  But, for one reason or another, they can find no one to help them no matter what they do, until they end up following up on the letters themselves.

My take on Participationism is similar to Jason's.  However, as I understand it, in an Illusionist style the players do not realize that the GM is narrowly controlling the plot.  i.e. There is the "illusion" of freedom.  Thus, in a successful Illusionist game, the letters are written in such a way that there is no reasonable way for the authorities to believe the PCs.  Perhaps like Marco says, the GM establishes a problem with the authorities in the first place.  Alternately, only the PCs can understand the cryptic meaning of the letters.  Thus, a smart player wouldn't even try the authorities -- while players who do try the authorities will realize how it makes sense ("Ah, that's right.  We should have known that").  

As an Illusionist GM, I would presumably design a sequence of events -- such as averting the the threatened disaster -- and then I would make sure that the PCs are dramatically motivated such that that is the course of action they will take.  I would probably look over PC design to make sure that the PCs are fairly altruistic, and I would put in a believable reason why the authorities can't help.  

Open Play:
Characters get the letters and take them to the cops.  The GM decides what the most likely action for the police would be and takes it.

There is more to open play than believability.  Open play requires that there be multiple approaches to dealing with a situation.  Depending on the set-up, the most likely action might be to railroad the PCs.  For example, the GM might establish that a powerful NPC psychic is sending the letters to manipulate or test the PCs.  Given this premise, the most likely result could be that the psychic prevents the police from helping.  

To support Open Play, the GM has to actively prepare for open-ended possibilities.  An example of Open Play might be if the authorities believe them, and the PCs are then catapulted into fame and power.  This is an open-ended result.  Unlike PCs-deal-with-it-themselves, this has no clear plotline that results.  This seems like a fairly open scenario to me.

[Marco]

Good replies--I have some comments:

Cruciel: yer take was pretty much on the money, I think.

Mike: Yeah, I don't see this as a debate per-se, just some clarification.

John: Your response leaves me a bit quizical.

You suggest that an Illusionist GM would make sure the letters were not clear enough to summons help. I disagree with that. Let me see if I can articulate what I'm thinking and then you can tell me if I was reading you right:

My take on Illusionism:
Under the preimise of Illusionism the GM has determined that *nothing* the PC's will do besides "deal with it themselves" would work. Therefore reasonable actions fail.

My reading of your take:
The GM has developed situation so that one possible mode of approach will not work, therefore that's illusionism.

I don't agree with that. I think it's all about how the GM handles resolution once play begins.

If the GM decides during set up that the PC's won't be handed a clearly smoking gun, I think that's just situation. Let's say a PC makes a character with a friend who's a Senator. If the GM says "no--not within starting parameters," is that Illusionism? It's control--but there's no 'illusion.' If the GM says "okay" and then the Senator can summon help even if the cause isn't clearly justified, I say that's open play. If the GM allows it but then has the Senator get sick when the PC calls for help, that's "railroading" or "Illusionsim."

Same with the set up in the begining: if I tell you "The authorities suck" and then you go to them for help and they suck, where's the illusion? Yes, the situation could be seen as contrived--and if the social contract is "the GM must never set up a contrived situation" then I think the players would have a good argument.

But if that's the case, what's up with the letters in the first place!?

-Marco

[John Kim]

You suggest that an Illusionist GM would make sure the letters were not clear enough to summons help. I disagree with that. Let me see if I can articulate what I'm thinking and then you can tell me if I was reading you right:

My take on Illusionism:
Under the preimise of Illusionism the GM has determined that *nothing* the PC's will do besides "deal with it themselves" would work. Therefore reasonable actions fail.

My reading of your take:
The GM has developed situation so that one possible mode of approach will not work, therefore that's illusionism.  

Well, first of all, this is a just word meaning.  Neither of us are right or wrong per se -- we just assign different meanings to the word "Illusionism".  

As I had pictured Illusionism, I would agree that the GM has determined that nothing besides "deal with it themselves" would work.  However, she has developed the situation with that in mind.  With a bit of skill, she doesn't have to make reasonable actions fail.  That is, she can always arrange the situation such that if they have to fail, then there is a good reason for it.  As you say, this situation might be somewhat contrived -- but that is pretty much expected.  

The illusion is that the players don't know that there is  only one path.  That is, as it turned out they tried plan B and it worked.  They don't know that none of the other plans would possibly have worked.  If the players keep trying routes and failing, then the illusion is broken.  i.e. The force is now overt rather than covert.

[Jason Lee]

As I had pictured Illusionism, I would agree that the GM has determined that nothing besides "deal with it themselves" would work.  However, she has developed the situation with that in mind.  With a bit of skill, she doesn't have to make reasonable actions fail.  That is, she can always arrange the situation such that if they have to fail, then there is a good reason for it.  As you say, this situation might be somewhat contrived -- but that is pretty much expected.

Maybe there isn't any disagreement here, the letter example is very plot-hook-esque, so it's kinda hard to define how it could be illusionism...it's almost certain to be obvious.  How about a different example?

Illusionism:
The letter basically says 'Go to warehouse, get magical artifact'.  The GM has planned for minions of evil to attack the warehouse when the PC's arrive and steal the magical artifact.
Characters get letters and take to cops.  Before the characters can even request aid minions of evil attack the cops.  They happen to be looking for a magical artifact the cops raided from a warehouse earlier today, which they happen to get before the players/cops can stop them.

[M. J. Young]

I'm going to follow Wayne's (cruciel's) listing, and give my take on it; I think I differ slightly on a few points.

Illusionism: The players discover that the police are no help; perhaps they've already been compromised--the commissioner is part of the plot. The letters are unpersuasive, not because they don't clearly say that the commissioner is behind it all, but because the police are convinced they must be forgeries. The players are forced to act without their support, or ignore the entire thing. If they want to act, they need to find the enemy's base of operations. Now, maybe they look, in which case they'll find it. Maybe, though, they don't look. In that case, when they go to the casino to relax, they suddenly are confronted with the fact that this is the base of operations for the enemy, and they've stumbled into it unprepared. If they don't specifically try to find the enemy, then wherever they do go, that will be where the enemy is. They see it as their bad luck, if they were trying to avoid this, because it never occurs to them that the original plan had this confrontation somewhere else--this is where it happens, so it "must be" where the referee intended it to happen all along.

Participationism: This plays out similarly to the other, but the players are aware of the illusion. They know somewhere within themselves that the referee is going to bring them into confrontation with the enemy when he wants it to happen. They get to color the story. They get to decide whether that confrontation will appear to be the result of their concerted efforts to find the villain, or whether it will be the chance occurence of their visit to the massage parlor. In fact, knowing that the referee has planned the next confrontation, they might decide where to go based entirely on where they want that fight to be--the sweat shop in the garment district, or the restaurant, or the temple. They don't know what is going to happen, or when, or where; but they know that the referee is going to spring it on them whatever they do, and they make choices to be ready for that moment.

Open Play: We've assumed that the player characters will take the letters to the police. In open play, the referee uses the mechanics of the game and his own good judgment; it may well be that at this point the police become involved; it may even be that they tell the player characters not to worry about it, and then proceed to truly deal with the matter. It may be that the characters and the police thereafter work together. Of course, depending on the setting, it still may be that the police are useless, or inhibit progress. It might even be that the police thereafter both do nothing and impede the characters' efforts.

Trailblazing: Obviously, for trailblazing to work, the players have to be committed to following the clues set out by the referee. What happens if they take the letters to the police may be any of several things. The police might assign someone to help them, or might say that it's not all that clear what's happening but they recommend a certain private investigator to assist them, or they assign someone from the department to help them get to the bottom of it. It might be that they take the letters to the police, and within a few days realize that the whole case is bogged down in bureaucratic nonsense and it's up to them after all. Whatever the result of the police situation, the players know up front that they have to solve this case, because that's what the game is about. Enlisting the assistance of the police in the matter might be a good thing, but if the players don't do it, no one will. Thus even when they go to the police, they know that the most they can expect is some assistance and encouragement, because this game is about them solving this problem, and doesn't work any other way. They might go to the police, but they do so only because they hope there will be more clues there to point them in the right direction, and possibly support on which they can call if they need it later. If they give up the case, they're breaking the social contract, which states that it is there job to find out what they're supposed to do and do it.

Railroading: the players receive the letters, which tell them what's going to happen next. Then the referee tells them that as the next scene opens, they're at the place where the event is going to happen. The players never decided whether they were going to do this; the referee merely put them there.

That's my take.

--M. J. Young

[John Kim]

How about a different example?

Illusionism:
The letter basically says 'Go to warehouse, get magical artifact'.  The GM has planned for minions of evil to attack the warehouse when the PC's arrive and steal the magical artifact.
Characters get letters and take to cops.  Before the characters can even request aid minions of evil attack the cops.  They happen to be looking for a magical artifact the cops raided from a warehouse earlier today, which they happen to get before the players/cops can stop them.

I'm not sure what the example is supposed to illustrate.  I would tend to agree that this is Illusionism, but it also seems fairly clumsy in its manipulation.  If I were the GM, I would plan from the start on an attack at the police station.  From the sound of it, the PCs don't have any real reason to follow the letter's instructions by themselves.  Thus, I'd assume they go to the police -- and define that the police already raided the warehouse.  If they go to the warehouse, they'll find police lines.  

Of course, one shouldn't really conceive of these as absolutes.  Obviously there is a range of plotting styles which smoothly vary.  Plus, individuals will vary in how well they implement the styles.  I think the important thing is what you are trying for.  As I see it, the ideal of Illusionism is that you have prepared in advance for each dramatically-important scene (i.e. you know the location, the goal, etc.), but the players never feel pushed or blocked.