Over in Illusionism etc there has been some discussion of illusionism versus participationism.

Mike wrote: Hal, to extend your metaphor, the theoretical functional illusionism is where your wife says, "Go ahead and sleep with other women, just don't let me find out about it." Does that make it more clear? All this talk about "lies" is confusing the issue because the term is being bandied about without context. Again, again, again, it's about having a social contract that allows for illusionism. I'd agree that in many cases you don't have a contract at all, in which case, yes, if/when you get caught cheating, you're going to have a problem. Note that all my theorizing about such dishonest play being functional is not condoning it. I'm merely saying that, for understanding's sake, that you should note that illusionism is functional even when not a valid part of the social contract up until the point where it's discovered. Which I think is almost certain to happen. So no, don't ever do this, despite the possible temptation.

In participationism, there's no veil at all.

Illusionism GM: "There's a fork in the road, which way do you go?"
Player: "We go left."
Illusionism GM (ignoring map subtly): "You end up at the city."

Participationism GM: "There's a fork in the road. The city is to the left, so you go that way."

Mike

What is it when the GM asks and the players give an answer, all the while everyone knows that the answer was merely Color?

Something in between.

As I've said, it's a spectrum, not a binary thing. "You're going to go left to the city, correct?" asked Rhetorically is not much of an illusion of free will. I think that, practically, you don't start calling it illusionism until there's a true intent to hide the truth of the control. Rather than just a thin linguistic veneer.

Put another way, with true illusionism there are likely to be times when the player actually doesn't know that the GM is using illusionist techniques when he does so.

Mike

M. wrote:
What I see here is the wife saying, "I know he's cheating on me, and he knows I know, but we both pretend that I don't know and that he isn't, and it all works fine."

Mike, you coined the term participationism, so I'm not going to try to tell you what it means; but please explain to me, how is this not participationism?

Mike wrote:
In participationism, there's no veil at all.

Illusionism GM: "There's a fork in the road, which way do you go?"
Player: "We go left."
Illusionism GM (ignoring map subtly): "You end up at the city."

Callan wrote:
What is it when the player gives a rather convincing explanation of why the city would be on the left road, and the GM quietly shifts the city to that side to reward the explanation or be in synch with that?

In keeping with the example of the city, what if it has been established the city is to the left but is only known to one or two in the group? Do they keep with participation and shift accordingly, or do they break the illusion and say the city is to the left, we're going to the right, and in a way dare the gm to break the illusion themselves?

I would say it may be necessary to break this into two parts. Illusion and participation of the established and the unknown. Each one gives a different answer.

Mike wrote:
t's a spectrum, not a binary thing.

Halzebier wrote:
(A) MJ calls it participationism if the players know THAT illusionist techniques are used (and accept this).
(B) Mike calls it participationism if the players know WHEN illusionist techniques are used (and accept this)

Assuming my summary is correct, I'd posit (And I'm not the first person to do this, right?) that (A) does not exist in actual play, except for isolated freak instances.

I need to edit myself. As I was rereading this thread, I realized that Mike would probably agree with what I just wrote, but that first example of his needed some clarification.

Callan wrote:
What is it when the player gives a rather convincing explanation of why the city would be on the left road, and the GM quietly shifts the city to that side to reward the explanation or be in synch with that?

timfire wrote:

Halzebier wrote:
(A) MJ calls it participationism if the players know THAT illusionist techniques are used (and accept this).
(B) Mike calls it participationism if the players know WHEN illusionist techniques are used (and accept this)

Assuming my summary is correct, I'd posit (And I'm not the first person to do this, right?) that (A) does not exist in actual play, except for isolated freak instances.

I disagree.

Isnt a certain amount of participationism / illusionism inherent in functional sim gaming?  Or at least at natural offshoot of it?

Sim play by it's nature sets up a system that controls so much of the tone and theme of the game that controlling the plot seems like a simple step forward.  The DM in the typical sim game already controls the game world, decides what the players encounter and what the repurcusions of said encounters are.  I think the players are deluding themselves if they believe they have control of where the game goes.  With sim what is hoped for is that the gm and players have an agreed upon destination for where the game is going.  That's why they require the detailed modeling.

I think Jay (Silmenume) is right in his asssertions about sim play.  I dont like the term bricolage but I do believe that sim play is about seeing what you can make of the system, setting, characters, situation, theme, by taking them as predefined and trying to blend them together.  Participationim is just a part of that blending.

Hi Tim,

You know, now that I think about it, I can't agree with Mike's definition of participationism, or more precisely, I think his example, "You see a fork in the road and turn left" is flawed. Isn't the whole thing with illusionist techniques that you hide your use of force? If you outright say, "you turn left", that's straight up force, not illusionism.

That's probably Intuitive Continutity... but maybe I'm wrong, maybe it's plain illustionist technique.

Hi Caldis,

I think not, if it's genuine sim. It's like address of premise - if the GM is presented with a problematic situation for an NPC he will either A: Address premise and do just what that NPC would do or B: Decide whats best for the story and have the NPC do that

The second would be the GM typhoid marying himself. He's just not going to do that, unless he just doesn't care about the problem being presented (and although he'll do B, he'll probably push the story towards problems he does care about).

Simulationist play is the same. When the players present him with actions which require consequences to be worked out, he'll either A: Address causality and do just what the game world would do in reaction or B: Decide what's best for the story and have the game world do that.

He'll only do B if he doesn't care about the actions being presented.

PS: This is the crux of my 'The impossible challenge before breakfast thread. Where the GM doesn't care about the actions and chooses B. Meanwhile those actions were more than that, they were an address of challenge.

Hey Callan

The problem with causality is that it's not a binary thing, there's never a single accurate response to a given situation.  If you're playing a game set in the Star Wars universe standing out in the open and crying about a fallen comrade while dozens of enemies fire at you is going to give you a different result then one set in Saving Private Ryan.  The GM is in charge of maintaining that tone and can fully claim to be responding to causality and following his plot design, genuine sim includes play with story used in such a fashion.  The plot design is the basis of causality.  Play where sim players are free to move about the environment is just a different type of plot, more of a travelogue than a recreation of drama, yet they still remain the same the gm controls what the players encounter and they participate in his vision. 

Just my quick 2 cents here from the peanut gallery –

Given the example of the fork in the road, Mike if you don’t mind too much, I’d like to reexamine it as such:

Participationism GM: "There's a fork in the road. The city is to the left, so you go that way."

Illusionism GM: "There's a fork in the road, which way do you go?"
Player: "We go left.  We hear there’s a city on the right that we’d like to avoid."
Illusionism GM (ignoring map subtly): "You end up at the city."

Stock GM scene creation: "There's a fork in the road, which way do you go?"
Player: "We go left.”
Stock GM scene creation: (ignoring map subtly): "You end up at a city."

The difference between Illusionism and GM scene creation is that in the former the Players were making a specific choice about something they had some knowledge about and thus had stakes in the outcome – which the GM nullified by fiat.

In the latter case, since the Player’s have stated no intent about destination then it does not matter where they end up – there are no stakes and thus nothing to deprive the players of.  All the players have done is to make a choice between right or left which they were granted full freedom to choose – they did not make any specific mention of their intention or goals for making such a choice.  They made their choice, but it had no real bearing on their desires so nothing was deprived to them by the GM fiat.  No Force, no Illusion – just the introduction of new Setting elements.

Silmenume wrote:
The difference between Illusionism and GM scene creation is that in the former the Players were making a specific choice about something they had some knowledge about and thus had stakes in the outcome – which the GM nullified by fiat.

In the latter case, since the Player’s have stated no intent about destination then it does not matter where they end up – there are no stakes and thus nothing to deprive the players of.  All the players have done is to make a choice between right or left which they were granted full freedom to choose – they did not make any specific mention of their intention or goals for making such a choice.  They made their choice, but it had no real bearing on their desires so nothing was deprived to them by the GM fiat.  No Force, no Illusion – just the introduction of new Setting elements.

Hmmm, good point, Jay. I agree. And handily, it answers my question.

Callan wrote:

Mike wrote:
In participationism, there's no veil at all.

Illusionism GM: "There's a fork in the road, which way do you go?"
Player: "We go left."
Illusionism GM (ignoring map subtly): "You end up at the city."

What is it when the player gives a rather convincing explanation of why the city would be on the left road, and the GM quietly shifts the city to that side to reward the explanation or be in synch with that?

Callan, I'm not sure what you're describing, and see even less how it's pertinent.

We're talking about gross methods of play that seem to constitute, whole subcategories of sim play.

I agree that it's a question of whether or not the players know when the GM is using Force. I should simply refer back to the original discussion, but there are two axes by which you can look at these types of play. The first is whether or not the GM is using "Force" meaning authority to make the player's characters do what he wants them to do. Secondly, are the players aware of when he uses this ability? This gives us three types of play:

Visible Force = Participationism
Hidden Force = Illusionism
No Force (in which case it can't be hidden) = Open Sim

I agree with Callan in disagreeing with the idea that one has to have illusion. One does not. That is, a GM can play "honestly" at all times and never Force the PCs to do anything, always leaving play open. I think true open sim is rare, in part because if players aren't charging around creating action themselves for their characters, nothing happens. And if they're really playing sim, then they probably shouldn't be noted at least shoving their characters around. That is, if nobody is intent on creating drama, it probably won't get created.

I ran this way for a while in a standard fantasy campaign, and my players ended up having their characters buy a house together, settle down, get jobs, etc. Dull, dull, dull. Which is not to say it can't work for others.

Does it require "stakes?" Well, that's a loaded term because of it's recent use with Conflict Resolution. But I think I understand the point. And I'd agree. But I'd say that the "stakes" in this case can be the feeling of an objectively real world. That is, if the illusion is botched, then the feeling is lost in theory. Let's say we have the illusionism GM using Force to get the PCs to the town and he says, "OK, left, goes to the forest. Oh um, wait, no, um, yeah, left goes to the city" as he's checking his notes and picking up the map he didn't want the players to see, and obviously has down that he needs the players to go to the city.

That is, the players seeking this feeling have a contract with the GM to maintain the feeling of an objective world either via actually telling the "truth" about how the world is laid out, or using illusion to change it without the players noting the change.

So, yeah, the example could be trivial, but even if trivial, it's still indicative of the sub-modes in question. There could be better examples, and ones that would cause more problems with the CA if detected, but even just the potential break in the illusion being a tiny bit dismaying is enough to display that there is such a CA going on.

If the argument is that this "objective world" thing isn't important enough as a goal for people to play this way, then I'd like to hear what it is that other people think is the motive behind this sort of play. Note that the "objective world" idea is synonymous with the desire that a player has to feel that his decisions for his character are having a "real" effect on the plot, or course of action of play. Because it's only in a world devoid of GM motive to control this sort of thing that such is actually possible.

Mike

Hey Callan,

I’m a little lost too.  Mike was certainly correct to raise some warning flags about the term “stakes” with regards to Sim, but I don’t have another appropriate word yet.  However, its not enough that the Player “wants/desires” the city as per the example to someplace, but rather whether the city is there or not and that condition has consequences for the Character.  The in game consequences to the Characterof the city being there or not is what is at “stake” to the Player.  IOW if the Character has nothing to lose (has no vested or compelling interest) about where the city is located, then there is nothing to potentially take away or cheat the Player out of – Force is not possible.

If I recall properly, Force deals with important CA relevant decisions and an effort to try and steer them one way or the other against the wishes of a Player by another Player (including GM).

Now if the Character “knows” (i.e., Player knowledge is “limited” to what the Character knows) that there is a city at such and such a location and has a vested interest as to whether or not he gets to the city – changing established SIS facts to get the Player to do something he’s chosen not to do is Force.

If the Player knows there’s a city someplace but his Character is ignorant of said knowledge then the Character cannot have a “vested interest” in the choice of where to go with regards to said city simply because he has no knowledge and thus no “destination,” that is “the consequence of his choice,” that is being deprotagonized.

You know, I think I just talked in circles…  Let me know if I need to clarify the above.

Those last two sentences could have been seperated better, but this is where were getting a disjunct:

I’m a little lost too.  Mike was certainly correct to raise some warning flags about the term “stakes” with regards to Sim, but I don’t have another appropriate word yet.  However, its not enough that the Player “wants/desires” the city as per the example to someplace, but rather whether the city is there or not and that condition has consequences for the Character.  The in game consequences to the Character of the city being there or not is what is at “stake” to the Player.

Silmenume wrote:
In the latter case, since the Player’s have stated no intent about destination then it does not matter where they end up – there are no stakes and thus nothing to deprive the players of.  All the players have done is to make a choice between right or left which they were granted full freedom to choose – they did not make any specific mention of their intention or goals for making such a choice.  They made their choice, but it had no real bearing on their desires so nothing was deprived to them by the GM fiat.  No Force, no Illusion – just the introduction of new Setting elements.

Hi Mike,

That is, the players seeking this feeling have a contract with the GM to maintain the feeling of an objective world either via actually telling the "truth" about how the world is laid out, or using illusion to change it without the players noting the change.

Callan, not precisely. I'm saying that there are two ways to get the objective feeling, and if that's the only goal, then either may suffice (note "may," not "must").

One is for the GM to be relating some agreed to "truth." The oddity here is that this is acually an incomplete fiction. For example, a map is not a real world, nor does it show everything in the world upon it. But the idea is that what is on the map is reflective of the reality of some objectively real world. So if the character is in that world, they must see what the map would indicate that they see. If the map says that they city is to the left, then it's to the left. In any case, the map is only a part of this agreement, which overall is that any fact established about the setting prior to play is not subject to change in play.

The second method is to use illusion. That is, to portray the world as being "hard" like relating it above would indicate, but to be altering the details behind the scene as neccessary in order to ensure some other effect like dramatic events, or a continuing plotline.

Now, for some wanting a really objective world, illusionism will not be acceptable. Because, as stated, honest illusionism doesn't misinform the players about the fact that it's happening. I hesitate to get into this, because it's a mostly unimportant distinction, but when I created the model of these forms, I also included yet another axis. Which is the "agreement to play this way" axis. This is not the same as the "visibility" axis that differentiates illusionism from participationism. Let's look at the two "forms" this creates.

The first is where the GM uses force, the players can see it, but they don't agree to it's use. This is a dysfunctional form of play that is usually refered to as railroading (meaning, of course a dysfunctional removal of player ability to affect the game in the manner that they wish to), though that term can be used to mean a lot of things. The other is illusionism used without the consent of the players who think they're playing in an open sim world. This is "Secret Illusionism" which becomes railroading the moment the players detect that it's going on, and is dishonest.

So let's provide the complete list, including a couple that haven't been discussed here so far.

• Illusionism (Force, Relatively Invisible, Agreed To) - which can be functional.
• Participationism (Force, Relatively Visible, Agreed To) - theoretically functional much like having a story told to a person. But in practice I've never met a player who indicated that they like this, nor a GM who admits to using it.
• Secret Illusionism (Force, Relatively Invisible, Not Agreed To) - kinda functional until discovered. Then it's revealed as railroading.
• Sim Railroading (Force, Relatively Visible, Not Agreed To) - quickly dysfunctional.
Open Sim (No Force - Visibility of Force Irrellevant, Agreed To) - theoretically functional, but likely drifting to some other sort of play or players tend to find it dull.
• GM Not Doing His "Job" (No Force - Visibility of Force Irrellevant, Not Agreed To) - this is dysfunctional because the players are expecting the GM to use Force to make the game interesting, when he's "just playing the world."
• Trailblazing (Intermittent Use of Force, Any Visibility, Agreed To) - MJ's addition. Where the GM uses Force to get the PCs to some location where he then switches to Open Sim play. The classic example being forcing PCs to a "module" but then allowing it to be explored in any fashion one likes.
• Intuitive Continuity - this is illusionism, but back-ended illusionism. This is yet another axis that we discovered. Basically instead of using Force to head characters to adventure, the GM uses his authority (not precisely Force per the definition) to tailor the world as it comes to the players so that it is dramatically interesting as they encounter it. The "fork in the road" example, sans context, could be Int Con depending on whether or not the GM had a pre-planned plot.



Jay, Callan is right. For purposes of CA, characters don't matter. You don't even have to have a character. Remember, that the GM is playing using the CA, too. Bringing character goals and such into the equation always creates problems with the definition of CA. CA is about how players (including the GM) make decisions. So, yes, even if it doesn't make a whit of difference which way the city is to the character, the player can still object to it being placed using GM authority, and not by following the "objective world" protocol. In fact, what I'm describing is not too uncommon - not a theoretical phenomenon, I've seen players object to the use of illusionism in actual play.

And I've also seen players demand illusionism. I had one player tell me, "Go ahead and manipulate things like that, but just make sure that I only know what my character knows." The point is that these are about how we decide what gets into the SIS, what's agreed to, and what's seen as objectionable.

Mike

Hi Mike,

Good post! I agree for the most part, but of course I have questions. Intuitive continuity is what I was refering to, but I notice you don't have any braket after it which indicates force use, visibility level and agreement.

I think the Int Con your refering to is intermittent Use of Force, nearly invisible, agreed to.

I think the Int Con I'm refering to has a really ambiguous 'agreed to'. For example, if something makes you happier than following procedure does AND you did agree that your playing for fun, then perhaps you have agreed to any means which brings you more happyness (like Int Con) than the agreed procedure. Can you be really sure of what you want, when your excitement runs high?

Also I think it's harder to detect force when it actually brings you happyness. This furthers the illusion...kind of like how the magicians sexy assistant will tend to distract you from trying to figure out what's actually going on.

From a personal standpoint, I really find this type of gaming unsatisfying. Even though, if I just didn't think about it too much, I'd find it extremely fun (just like a magic show is fun).

So what would you call that?

Callan wrote:
Good post! I agree for the most part, but of course I have questions. Intuitive continuity is what I was refering to, but I notice you don't have any braket after it which indicates force use, visibility level and agreement. I think the Int Con your refering to is intermittent Use of Force, nearly invisible, agreed to.

I think the Int Con I'm refering to has a really ambiguous 'agreed to'. For example, if something makes you happier than following procedure does AND you did agree that your playing for fun, then perhaps you have agreed to any means which brings you more happyness (like Int Con) than the agreed procedure. Can you be really sure of what you want, when your excitement runs high?

Also I think it's harder to detect force when it actually brings you happyness. This furthers the illusion...kind of like how the magicians sexy assistant will tend to distract you from trying to figure out what's actually going on.

From a personal standpoint, I really find this type of gaming unsatisfying. Even though, if I just didn't think about it too much, I'd find it extremely fun (just like a magic show is fun).

So what would you call that?

Hi Mike,

Thanks. Now, that differentition between int con (and it's lack of force) and illusionism uses this foundation:

But I think understanding it is key to a deeper understanding of the phenomenon as a whole, and that we can break it up into two parts for discussion. For the sake of discussion, I'm going to call this GM Authority, or GMA. GMA, again, is the authority that the GM is given to create whatever is neccessary to fill in the blanks in the world.

You dig some deep philosophical holes sometimes Callan.

Callan wrote:
- I'm genuinely not interested in determining where the city goes myself. Instead, because the player is so invested in the left road leading to the city, I'm putting it on the left.
- However, the reason I'm putting the city on the left is that, although I'm not interested in controlling where the city is, I am invested in controlling how happy the player is. Not in an evil way, I just want to use this control to make him have a fun game.

For this example the important thing is, as a player you know that your investment in using the map as printed means this: you might end up not being happy (GM "The city isn't on the left", Player "DAMN!"). And you DIG that. Having the posibility of disapointment is what's really important...more important to you than always being happy.

Note: I'm mostly thinking about gamist players having this investment. In regards to this, there is a very problematic middle ground player who is invested in the possiblity of disappointment, but screams blue murder and blames the GM when it happens ( This is a recent actual play example). This probably drives many GM's to this sort of illusionism. Certainly that thread contains many suggestions which support this type of illusionism.

* Because of Jays post, I'd say backloading actually means 'base the in game events on what's important to the players'. While frontloading means 'base the in game events on what's important to me, the GM, despite what's important to the players'.

Caldis wrote: Isnt a certain amount of participationism / illusionism inherent in functional sim gaming?  Or at least at natural offshoot of it?

Sim play by it's nature sets up a system that controls so much of the tone and theme of the game that controlling the plot seems like a simple step forward.  The DM in the typical sim game already controls the game world, decides what the players encounter and what the repurcusions of said encounters are.  I think the players are deluding themselves if they believe they have control of where the game goes.  With sim what is hoped for is that the gm and players have an agreed upon destination for where the game is going.  That's why they require the detailed modeling.

I think Jay (Silmenume) is right in his asssertions about sim play.  I dont like the term bricolage but I do believe that sim play is about seeing what you can make of the system, setting, characters, situation, theme, by taking them as predefined and trying to blend them together.  Participationim is just a part of that blending.

Hi Mike,

I'm not sure that's Force, or Illusionism. Player wants his character to go to the city, the character goes to the city. How has the GM forced the character to do something here that the player didn't intend? How is the player not controlling what happens here? This is an illusion, but not the Illisionism one. That is, in this case illusion is being used to give the player control, instead of taking it away. Quite the opposite effect. Illusionism is making changes to make it seem like the player has control of where things are going, when in fact the GM has this control.

No, not at all. In both cases, the GM controls what the plot will be, and he does it (assuming this is a coherent CA), for everyone's enjoyment based on what he thinks will be entertaining for all.

You dig some deep philosophical holes sometimes Callan.

All I can say, MJ, is to ask you to read here: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=4217.0

Nothing in this current thread is new, it is, in fact, merely me going over again what we discussed in the thread linked above. You can also see where Ron and I have differences in what Force means at first.

Yes, participationism is what you give examples of. Again, it being a spectrum, this would be rather the extreme end of participationism, but you forget to include the GM telling the players what their characters say. In fact, there's a point at which the GM simply plays all the parts and the players have no interaction with the game. At which point it's hard to distinguish from storytelling, except that, perhaps, the GM might be using second person: "You go to the smithy, and say, 'Can I get a sword?'"

Now, I've said that this is only a theoretical sub-mode of play on many, many occasions since I invented the idea (which happened just a bit prior to the illusionism thread above). That is, I can envision players in theory being satisfied with it, but in practice I've never seen anyone who likes it. I've seen GMs who railroad claim that their players like what they're doing, but if you ask the players the play amounts to railroading.

To recount the full version of why I came up with this definition of participationism, I had read a module that Marco had written for JAGS called "The Bell Tower" (IIRC). In it, Marco had put box text for the players to read in place of their own character's narrations, and it largely read like a script. I asked him if when he playtested it if the players liked it, and he responded in the affirmative. So taking him at his word, I had to assume that there was this odd mode of play that these people liked. Well, as it turned out, when he described how he actually ran the game, it wasn't scripted much at all. Yes they read the box text, but they had lots of places where they had input on how things worked out in the game. So participationism was invented out of a misunderstanding about a fictional form of play.

When confronted with a script for a scenario design, apparently GM's do one of two things. Either they run it as a railroad, and players hate it in all cases from what I've seen. Or they use it as a thematic guideline, and the play is much more Illusionism or other mode, and the players usually enjoy the play. So, again, I don't know that Participationism exists other than to hold down the end of the spectrum of "visibility" of GM force.

Callan, the only thing I can say about your post is that in your example that you may be correct that the player in question does not agree to the CA. So that makes it "Not Agreed To." So, lets see, Not Agreed to IntCon is....unheard of? You come up with a name for it.

Yes, gamism where the end result is fixed is common and dysfunctional (usually the result of gam/nar incoherence). And has nothing to do at all with anything under discussion here.

Mike

Mike wrote: Callan, the only thing I can say about your post is that in your example that you may be correct that the player in question does not agree to the CA. So that makes it "Not Agreed To." So, lets see, Not Agreed to IntCon is....unheard of? You come up with a name for it.

Yes, gamism where the end result is fixed is common and dysfunctional (usually the result of gam/nar incoherence). And has nothing to do at all with anything under discussion here.