Topic: Participationism?
Started by: Marco
Started on: 9/6/2002
Board: RPG Theory
On 9/6/2002 at 10:48am, Marco wrote:
Participationism?
From a quote by Mike Holmes in the Actual Play group.
Oh, if this was not participatinism, then I think that most likely it was Illusionism (but, hey, who knows). Yes, this is what I'm getting at. There was no possible outcome that wasn't prepared for prior to play. And it seemed pretty obvious as well. That combination is Participationism. I am along for the ride to a Predestined end, even if one of many.
So, if I've misjudged anything, I apollogise. If my bias against Participationism has made it seem invalid, again, I apollogise. But I've noted this phenomenon, and believe that it needs a taxonomy. Perhaps so we can begin to understand it more.
If I understand this right, Mike is classifying a game where the PC's have no real decisions to make as participationism--and sees it in an example of play that I wrote up.
I guess maybe it exists--but I'm calling into question here whether or not it's a meaningful classification in any real sense.
The game that I experienced (and wrote up) was a starting condtion (an evil ex-government agent working for Gnostic religious fanatics and looking for the characters) and a psychairtriast who believed in a sane world.
With these two agencies the players were exposed to two world views and, in the end had to make a choice:
To risk death to live in a sane world or to live in a nightmare reality. The choice was *very* real (as continually pointed out in the write-up and, I think, acknowledged by Mike) as the players didn't know for sure if choosing to "live in a sane world" would mean their deaths--and we had real reason to think it might.
Now, Mike sees lack of "plot altering choice" in the players hands.
He cites one example "could the PC's kill the bad-guy?" (at least before the end). He notes that the badguy was well protected (and security teams and such). I submit that a low chance of killing the badguy due to him employing realistic security measures is neither particiaptionism nor even illusionism.
In the end the characters were faced with a fork:
1. Flee Manhattan (maybe make it, maybe not--the city was flooded and the tunnels closed and the bridges choked--but we considered stealing a boat which the GM said would have worked.)
2. Behave as though the world wasn't going to end (even though we really, really thought it might and the GM kept throwing hints that it might at us)--choose to live in a sane world.
3. Go to a shelter and enter Gothe's nightmare reality.
1, and 3 would have resulted in additional plot. Choice 2 ended the game on a high note (the one we chose).
Mike concludes that the three "end conditions" means a pre-determined set-up and participationist play. I submit that given any premise (especially in a 2-day game) there will be a finite number of end conditions that I can choose and, as a GM prepare for under a Simulationist premise.
Another way of putting this:
If there are NPC's in motion and events in play that the PC's will have to react to and the GM will, during play conclude that some solutions are better than others, is that Participationism? Illusiuonism? A judgement call that's part of all Sim-GMing (I believe this is true and to say otherwise is to advocate a game where nothing but the PC's move and all their suggestions work as well as THEY believe they will).
So my question is this:
From a write-up of a game how would you determine illusionism from "straight" sim play from participationism? I just don't see it here and I don't think it can be deduced from a write up (if you go looking for it you'll see it--if you don't you won't).
So I don't think it's especially useful save as a dysfunction taxonomy.
-Marco
On 9/6/2002 at 1:49pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Participationism?
Hi Marco,
I agree with you.
I think this term serves fine as part of the crude "unofficial" lexicon of the Forge, which is to say, it describes something, but how that fits into the framework of any theory structure (mine, Fang's whoever's) isn't an issue.
Plenty of terms get proposed, chewed over, and tossed around. That seems like a worthwhile process to me. I don't think there's any danger of "terms bloat" going on, because most of them don't get picked up or turn out to be redundant.
Best,
Ron
On 9/6/2002 at 2:19pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Participationism?
Let's say that I totally misread Marco's transcription. Which is very much a possibility as I keep pointing out. Then what about the other post that was the inspiration for me beginning to speak about this? Namely the vampire game that Jesse had at the Con.
Does that qualify?
I do not care so much to qualify any particular game as being Participationist or not. I'm just trying to point out that it seems to me to exist, and that some people think that it's a valid form of play.
If there are NPC's in motion and events in play that the PC's will have to react to and the GM will, during play conclude that some solutions are better than others, is that Participationism? Illusiuonism?
Yes, your example is Participationism, or Illusionism. It is the former if it is obvious, and the latter if it is hidden. In either case the result is the same. Note that either mode could be used to do a more IntCon sort of plot as well (no prep).
A judgement call that's part of all Sim-GMing (I believe this is true and to say otherwise is to advocate a game where nothing but the PC's move and all their suggestions work as well as THEY believe they will).
Not true. Not all Sim GMs play to a plot at all, or have any idea of where the game is going. Take for example, a Sim dungeon crawl. The players go in. They roam about. They kill things, maybe. Or maybe not. They get treasure, or maybe not. They just do whatever they think their characters would do. And the GM lets the dice fall where they may, and if they die, they die, if they live they live. He plays a completely neutral arbiter of the world. What I refer occasionally to as pinball Sim. The world is the pinball machine, and the players are the ball. Only their choice of what to do and where to go has any effect on where play is taken. Does that mean that the pinball machine is "static"? Hell no. The targets are moving, and the NPCs are doing whatever then are doing. The world progresses as any real place progresses. Plotlessly, and by the whim of individuals. Does the "Equality" priniciple apply? No, players will fail if the dice say they fail, and it "makes sense" according to the setiing and system. Usually physics.
Does this sort of play exist? Yes, I've GMed this way quite a bit myself, and have seen it everywhere. It's what you get when Gamists decide that they want to play "In character" etc. instead of using similar concepts but playing "to win".
OTOH, I siuppose one could also speculate as to the existence of play like you think I was describing with Static and Equality options. Certainly I think some people play Pinball Sim "staticly"; that is, as in the dungeon crawl example, the world just waits there for the PCs to encounter it. This is not very "realistic" but would still count as Sim, and is probably at least a bit easier to pull off. As far as players always getting their way, however; that sounds more like Narrativism than anythig, and an extreme form of it at that.
Mike
On 9/6/2002 at 2:28pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Participationism?
Hey,
I'd like to ask both Marco and Mike to slow down in posting to one another. I'm seeing a touch of the "Clinton and Raven" effect, in which two guys who are perfectly reasonable turn into plain poison in concert. I'd hate to see this thread turn into a "I said that you said when you said that I said" kind of defensive situation.
For instance, above, I posed what seems to me to be an equitable and socially-pleasant interpretation of the topic. I'd like some feedback from both folks. Guys, use the Moderator (me) as a buffer; it's what I'm here for.
Best,
Ron
On 9/6/2002 at 2:48pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Participationism?
Ron,
Social, smocial. I'm not seeing the problem, but then, that's probably what's wrong with me. :-)
As to your reply, I'm not sure that I disagree with you much; not that you said a lot. You say you agree with Marco. But you don't say about what specifically. Well I disagree with a lot of waht Marco said, but until I know what you agree with, I cannot speak to it.
Then you say that Participationism describes "something", but that how it fits into a model is not an issue. Well, we are talking about modes of play here. Specifically one that I think that I've discerned as a subset of Simulationism. Characterized by certain specific things. It's like GNS was about Cars, Trucks, and Motorcycles. And I have discovered what I think is a subclassification of Trucks called Panel Vans. If I can point to the specific things that make a truck a Panel Van, and not a dump truck, then the only question is whether or not a) my observations were correct, and b) there is any usefulness to the subclassification.
Once we have decided that issue, then we can move on to other things like whether Panel Vans should be allowed on the road.
The odd thing to me in all of this is that I proposed Participationism as a valid form of play in order to point out to one poster than it may be just that: valid. That although we dislike it, perhaps it's just a matter of taste. Then I made the apparent accident of claiming that Marco's games were of that subcategory as an example.
Well, according to him they're not. Which is fine. Perhaps I am all wrong, and Jesse's example was just an aberration, an example of a dysfunctional form of Sim play, perhaps. Which is fine, too. But I've heard no arguments about that. Merely that Marco's game wasn't Participationist. Which only speaks to item a) above, but doesn't discount Jesse's observation, or my general experience.
So, I'll rephrase the general question.
If you were to observe a session such as Jesse describes in which the players were not empowered to affect the direction of the game in question much, if at all, and play proceeded in an obviously directed format to an end predestined by the GM, and the GM alone, would you say that the session in question was a valid form of play, or not? What if the players all claimed that they had a great time playing? Would that change your perception? Do you think that the latter is possible? Are there players who would enjoy such play?
Mike
On 9/6/2002 at 2:57pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Participationism?
Hi Mike,
Thanks for your re-phrase, because it throws the exact issue into a spotlight: "validity" of modes of play.
I don't see any point to discussing validity, for these things. We can discuss preference, which I can speak to quite solidly (as can anyone). We can discuss business-viability (which is the topic of a thread in the GNS forum right now). We can discuss coherence and our experiences regarding coherent or incoherent play and/or design.
But "valid" doesn't work for me as a topic, when it comes to game-play. It is perilously close to "good," which means confounding preference with universal value.
Points or claims may be evaluated for their validity, in terms of rigor. Game-play may be evaluated for its success in terms of enjoyment. But I don't see anything at all in evaluated game-play (or design) in terms of validity.
Best,
Ron
On 9/6/2002 at 3:24pm, Marco wrote:
RE: Participationism?
Hey Mike,
It might be a real phenomena and I'm sure someone would enjoy it (wouldn't a LARP session where people wetn and hungout in character be something a little like that?)
OTOH--what Jesse described (we wanederd around ... nothing happened) seems awfully, wildly different from what I described. To me at least (how is a decision that truncates hours of play and several scenes not a plot-altering choice?). So if the two modes of play seem indistinguishable to you then I'm not sure it's a good tool for categorizing anything.
And the crux is why the two *seemed* the same to you--and that's what I started the thread to try to get at. If the answer is "they seemed the same because, hey, that's how it hit me," I'm cool with that.
I assumed you had some metric for telling illusionism from straight sim from participationism. I understand the concept of a "tell" (i.e. "When the GM had the bodyguards grab me before I could draw my gun I realized I was being rail-roaded").
In the absence of someone who was there making that determination, I don't think it's possible for a reader to.
-Marco
On 9/6/2002 at 4:19pm, contracycle wrote:
RE: Participationism?
With the caveat that I think plot is "called into being" by the players:
Mike Holmes wrote:
If you were to observe a session such as Jesse describes in which the players were not empowered to affect the direction of the game in question much, if at all, and play proceeded in an obviously directed format to an end predestined by the GM, and the GM alone, would you say that the session in question was a valid form of play, or not?
Yes
Edit: I said yes and then I noticed "proceeded in an OBVIOUSLY directed format"... to which I say No. It only works if it is not obviously directed IMO.
What if the players all claimed that they had a great time playing? Would that change your perception? Do you think that the latter is possible?
Yes
Are there players who would enjoy such play?
Yes
On 9/6/2002 at 4:23pm, contracycle wrote:
RE: Participationism?
OTOH--what Jesse described (we wanederd around ... nothing happened) seems awfully, wildly different from what I described.
Sure, to me too. Thats where I think the difficulty arises; it really does not feel as passive, as inactive, as the criticism implies. In this mode of play, I don't feel that I am "powerless to affetc the plot" even if that is in fact the case in an objective sense; becuase the character is not aware of plot and hence the question is meaningless. I as player can affect anything that it would be plausible for me to affect. But the world is much bigger than I am, and it seems reasonable to me that it should have its own "destiny" that cares not a jot for what I do, or say, or think.
On 9/6/2002 at 4:40pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Participationism?
Marco wrote:
I assumed you had some metric for telling illusionism from straight sim from participationism. I understand the concept of a "tell" (i.e. "When the GM had the bodyguards grab me before I could draw my gun I realized I was being rail-roaded").
In the absence of someone who was there making that determination, I don't think it's possible for a reader to.
Hmm. I've tried repeatedly to describe exactly that metric. It's not tells because that would indicate that the GM is trying to be Illusionist, but failing. Which might end up being Participationist by default, I guess. But the intentional form of Participationism involves explicit control of the action and complicity on the part of the players (at least if a non-dysfunctional form exists).
So, say I want to set up a scene where the Players encounter a particular NPC. I can a) gice the PCs information that the NPC in question has something they need, thus requiring them to go to the NPC (presumably nothing ewlse happens if not; AKA Bobby G or whatever Ron calls it), or b) I can ask them what they want to do, and have them "Discover" Bobby G through their own decisions.
The first case is Participationist. The only way it works is if the players say, "OK, we go see Bobby G". The second is Illusionist. The players can decide to do anything, and the result is still an encounter with Bobby G. If done well, the Illusionist method may (not may, as in possibly), if done well, leave the players thinking that it was their action that led to the plot turning to Bobby G.
Again, these are just modes and as such shifting will be common. Another participationist method is just aggressive scene framing. In that case, the Gm says, "you find yourself at the appartment of Bobby G". Note that this is also what you use in a lot of Narrativism (as Ron pointed out earlier). The point of difference is that the Participationist GM has no intention of ever allowing any decision. The scene with Bobby G will be established such that there can only be one sensible course of action for the players.
This is, of course becomes a problem as soon as you have a non-participationist player. For example, if that player is expecting Illusionism, he will feel free to do anything he pleases, knowing that the GM will have tricks up his sleeve to pull things back on course in case the player's action threatens to "ruin" his plot. The Participationist GM must either then resort to Illusionism, or the dysfunctional case occurs, and he forces the characters action through GM fiat, which we know as railroading. Dysfunctional here because the Player has been defined as expecting to be able to do whatever he wants (Illusionism).
Note that I'm not saying that railroading equals participationism. In non-dysfunctional participationism, the player sees where the GM is going, and plays along to the best of his ability. The GM doesn't have to railroad, per se, because the player is, as I've said, already "along for the ride". Railroading defined as using GM fiat to contramand player statements is probably dysfunctional in all cases. If there was such a style, it would be very close to pure one-sided storytelling, just with suggestions from the peanut gallery.
So, as Ron points out this is, of course, a "valid" style. As is any style where the players are having fun. Invalid must equal dysfunctional. The only real question is whether or not any players like this form of play. If not, then forcing Participationism on players is always dysfunctional. There are certainly GMs who are of the opinion that this is an entertaining form of play...
Anyhow, the point of all this is that, for Jesse, this was dysfunctional. A constant hazzard of Con play is that you will end up playing in a game that has a mode that you are not fond of. What you must do in this case is either detach from the game, which is sort of rude, but understandable, or just change you're mindframe, and try to enjoy the game for what it is.
Further, as I said before, I'm now intrigued to see what a clinical examination of this form might reveal in terms of possibilities.
Mike
On 9/6/2002 at 5:12pm, Le Joueur wrote:
What About Meta-Plots?
This brings up an interesting question. A while back I ran a number of games closely set in and based on The Phantom Menace. The players required very strict adherence to the plot of the film¹. Every attempt bounced back and forth between what has been described here as Illusionism and Participationism (heck, at points I was just a 'participant'). And that brings up a couple of interesting points.
In some situations, wouldn't getting involved in intractible meta-plots (what I finally came to see the movie as, in hindsight) be a form of Participationism? I mean, there it is, everyone knows that they can't do anything about 'em, so aren't the players 'just participating?'
And secondly, every single time the game got to the climactic battle scene between Maul and the Jedi, the game broke down, sometimes catastrophically. I finally figured out the reason for the games¹, but it made an interesting point about just exactly how far you can go when the meta-plot functions as a really 'low ceiling.' When does willful Illusionism become Participationism?
Just thought I'd throw the meta-plot/Participationism idea out there, I haven't reached any conclusions myself, yet.
Fang Langford
¹ One of my players had the biggest crush on Quigon (not the actor) and just couldn't accept his death. It took at least 6 of these games before she opened up and we could begin to discuss how railroady the movie was in how it handled the battle and the point in its conclusion. (I mean really, Quigon can force Maul to 'fence backwards' faster than Obiwan can run, full out? And since when does a cauterized hole through the gut kill so quickly? It's just a movie!)
On 9/6/2002 at 5:50pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Participationism?
Sure, adherence to meta-plot is exactly what I'm talking about. This also explains the corresponding difference of opinion that Gareth has about the usefulness of Metaplot and his belief in the effectiveness of Participationist or Near-Participationist play (which it is, if you consider that players can do the "willing suspension of disbelief" thingm or Immersion; thus eliminating the belief problem in the definition as Gareth has it above).
Another important note is that Ron seems to me in previous posts to be of the opinion that, since Illusionism is known to exist to all players, or fails occasionally making itself known, that all players are to an extent "Participating" in when a GM attempts Illusionism. I think this is not entirely inaccurate, but the perception of a difference in these things seems strong enough to me to merit a different categorization. Namely that the player's play either tries strongly to follow the GM (participationism), or players are encouraged to "do what the character would do", and ignore actively trying to follow the GMs plots.
Some players want more apparent control, and some want less. Again, this is going to be a sort of spectrum, where some games have a lot of Participationism, and some have more Illusionism (and some have more of less control from the GM at all, as well). This depends on the mix of 'Instances of play" that are one or the other, just as with the description of the mode of any play.
One place that Participationism can become problematic is where Fortune systems get in the way. In the case of the "Climactic Battle" that Fang mentions, if you want it to come out with a specific outcome, you either must use Drama, or Illusionism, or risk the "unsatisfatory" ending.
-----
Interesting. Relatively speaking I see several different types of Sim as being defined by these different metrics. Especially with regards to control of events on the scale that they affect what would otherwise be called plot.
Illusionism: Low Actual Player control, High Player Appearance of Control, High GM control
Participationism: Low Actual Player control, Low Player Appearance of Control, High GM control
Open-Ended: High Actual Player Control, High Player Appearance of Control, Low GM Control
Random:Low Actual Player Control, Low Appearance of Player Control, Low GM Control
This last is speculative (the product of extending the model). It would look like Sim play where events were randomly generated, requiring the PCs to address them.
Note, again, there will obviously be times where the mix of decisions produces play somewhere inbetween these poles. They are not absolutes. Anyhow, just a simple stab at a model.
Mike
On 9/6/2002 at 6:51pm, GB Steve wrote:
RE: Participationism?
I've been thinking about the terms illusionism and participationism. They seem to me to be used in a rather strange context.
What I mean is the players aren't necessarily aware of what is going on and usually, with a skilled GM, cannot tell how their game is being run.
Roleplaying is about as subjective an experience as you can have and I find it difficult to talk about it in terms that are distanced from the individual experience.
Given this, how useful are these terms in describing the players' experience?
On 9/6/2002 at 7:06pm, damion wrote:
RE: Participationism?
I think a difficulty here is Participationalism is needed to a small degree for Simulationism. Simulationism/Illusionism requires a bit of work to create all the detail and it would be fairly impressive for the GM to do it all in realtime and be able to track it to prevent inconsistancies. If players totally ignore all GM plots, the GM will feel their work is wasted and sessions will be less fun as it is more difficult to preserve Illusionism without preparation. Also small amounts are necessary to make play work. A GM might say 'You've all been hired by X to do Y'. Now everyone knows that this is basicly a way of getting the group together. If charachter has a strong objection to this, the GM should have taken that into account, but if a characther rejects this offer for no particular reason, it hurts play. Illusionism requires a 'unspoken social contract' between the GM and players to the effect 'I will present you events in the world and you will react to the in a ractional manner'.
Mike:I think Participationalism is a valid term, but difficult to use since it low quantities it seems necessary and in high quantities it is railroading(which we have a term for). Also, the point between low and high is debatable.
Mike Holmes wrote:
Random:Low Actual Player Control, Low Appearance of Player Control, Low GM Control
Perfect example:Old DnD modules. The GM was basicly an interface between the module and the players.
On 9/6/2002 at 8:10pm, contracycle wrote:
RE: Participationism?
I'd just like to mention again that I sometimes suspect there may be an element of a trance state involved here. I am conscious of a moment when the "illusion" moves from me to the players and sort of becomes self-sustaining. Further, one of my "deepest" immersive experience included a moment of "waking up" or "returning to reality". If it were a sort of trance state, then the attention to subjective continuity makes sense as avoiding breaking the trance.
On 9/6/2002 at 8:19pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Participationism?
damion wrote: I think a difficulty here is Participationalism is needed to a small degree for Simulationism.Yep. I've been thinking the same thing too. Even simple framing has to be agreed on.
GM: "You all start out in a Bar.'
Player: "My character never goes to bars!"
To an extent there is a point where one just has to accept some of what the GM says. OTOH, I have seen play where the questions of where to start, what to do, and where to do, were all left to the players. No plot prepared, the biggest "problem" with this is that the GM has to populate things physically, and mechanically as necessary, which is much more often than in plotted games. For any fight he has to have stats. Usually such GMs just fall back on printed materials, and stock mechanical descriptions of NPCs and creatures. But despite the extra effort, some GMS are good at it, and it can work.
Perfect example:Old DnD modules. The GM was basicly an interface between the module and the players.Hmmm. The only place the GM has high control in this case is in deciding to play the adventure (if that's the case). OTOH, the players have fairly high control with the exception of the decision to play the adventure. This is classic pinball. Once into the machine (dungeon), its entirely up to what the players decide that determines the nature of the action. OTOH, the "wandering monsters", and the preplanned reactions of the denizens can be considered to be some level of control by the game. Hmm...
Mike
On 9/6/2002 at 8:27pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Participationism?
GB Steve wrote: What I mean is the players aren't necessarily aware of what is going on and usually, with a skilled GM, cannot tell how their game is being run.
This may be your experience Steve, but it sounds like you're describibng an Illusionist GM to me, the "skill" in question being his talent at Illusionism. What I'm describing in Participationism are games in which the GM controls things but does it in such a manner that he's not really making much of an attempt to hide his control. The players do realize that he is controlling everything.
Does the Bobby G example above help? They are very obvious. Or the agressive framing? Ever played with a GM that just told you what your character was doing, or how he felt? This last is an extreme form, but with the right social contract is still valid, theoretically. These are the indications of Participationism. I can give you actual examples of games that I've played where this was the mode (dysfunctional in this case as I don't like it). And I can point to my own play as a GM for examples of both.
Players know the difference. And it takes a very different mindset to appreciate one or the other.
Interestingly, that made me speculate what the complaint would be from the Participationist player to an Illusionist GM. They would likely say things like, "Hey, why aren't you giving us better cues as to what to do and where to go? I keep feeling lost, and don't know what to have my character do."
To which the Illusionist GM responds, "Just do what you're character would do." Leaving the Participationist in a dysfunctional situation. Hmmm..
Mike
Mike
On 9/6/2002 at 9:07pm, Marco wrote:
RE: Participationism?
Mike Holmes wrote:GB Steve wrote: What I mean is the players aren't necessarily aware of what is going on and usually, with a skilled GM, cannot tell how their game is being run.
This may be your experience Steve, but it sounds like you're describibng an Illusionist GM to me, the "skill" in question being his talent at Illusionism. What I'm describing in Participationism are games in which the GM controls things but does it in such a manner that he's not really making much of an attempt to hide his control. The players do realize that he is controlling everything.
Does the Bobby G example above help? They are very obvious. Or the agressive framing? Ever played with a GM that just told you what your character was doing, or how he felt? This last is an extreme form, but with the right social contract is still valid, theoretically. These are the indications of Participationism. I can give you actual examples of games that I've played where this was the mode (dysfunctional in this case as I don't like it). And I can point to my own play as a GM for examples of both.
Players know the difference. And it takes a very different mindset to appreciate one or the other.
Interestingly, that made me speculate what the complaint would be from the Participationist player to an Illusionist GM. They would likely say things like, "Hey, why aren't you giving us better cues as to what to do and where to go? I keep feeling lost, and don't know what to have my character do."
To which the Illusionist GM responds, "Just do what you're character would do." Leaving the Participationist in a dysfunctional situation. Hmmm..
Mike
Mike
IIRC the Bobby G example was defined by its dysfunction (i.e. if it wasn't dysfunctional it wasn't Bobby G.)
I think we have to start with defining some terms.
1. The GM's Story. Last weekend the GM's story was a series of events in motion concerning an ex-general, religious fanatics, a psychitraist, and the end of the world. Mike suggested (although he admitted he could be wrong) that it was probably illusionism.
2. Someone (mike or val) suggested that since the game was played in Actor Stance it was the players "following their cues."
3. Mike sees participationism in the vampire game--and sees it in the Gnostic game.
NOW
1. Since the Gnostic game is over and all the cards are on the table, I want to know this: if, say, it was a module describign the situation, listing some potential scenes (some that happened, some that didn't), and the time-lines of the parties involved, where would there need to be any illusionism at all? If so where? Why?
2. In the vampire game we have this quote:
And all there was to the game was us wandering around "in character" marvelling at the GMs presentation of what the future of the World of Darkness will be like after all the major conflicts in all the games are resolved. That's it. No conflicts. No quests. No villains to over come. Just interacting with random NPCs, wandering around and research to figure out how things got this way.
I read this as pure pinball-sim where the players didn't think of anything to do. I wasn't there--but I see no dis-empowering at all. No conflicts? No quests? No villains? Isn't this a bit like Mike's theoritical player saying "I'm lost--give me some queues?" Isn't sending the characters on a quest setting them up for an A->B->C series of encounters where there's only two basic outcomes (success or failure)?
Also: Actor Stance as defined has, I think, nothing do do with "taking queues." I thought it was instead about acting "in character." I think that's a misunderstanding on one of our parts (or maybe a mis-read)
I think the commonality is this: Mike is seeing immersive play by the players as implying illusionism on the part of the GM... and if it's really immersive then they're really being railroaded (in a non-dysfunctional way so maybe "guided" is a better term) i.e. Participationism.
In this case, I think that you're seeing immersive play that generates a story-like outcome as implicitly implying a guiding hand. I think that isn't so at all. I can't see why it would need to be true or even a common correlation.
-Marco
Contra: Once (with the same GM) I recall being so immersed in a haunted-house game in the middle of crashing thunderstorm that when we broke for lunch and we went outside into broad daylight I was temporarily disoriented--I'd expected rain and gloom.
On 9/6/2002 at 10:05pm, damion wrote:
RE: Participationism?
Mike,
How's this:Participationalism is where players have no choices and are aware of this while the game is being played.
Participationalism without player consent is known as railroading, not sure what it is called if they consent. Improv theater maybe.
If you say P* is when the players have no input, to a degree that is true in every game. There are very few actions a player can take w/o GM input in a Sim game. Even in Mike's example, the GM creates the detail, which creates the allowable choices. "We want to go on a ship." "GM, well, your 500 miles inland, it'll take a while to get to one." Player Directorial powers is probably the only solution here.
On 9/6/2002 at 10:18pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Participationism?
Marco wrote: IIRC the Bobby G example was defined by its dysfunction (i.e. if it wasn't dysfunctional it wasn't Bobby G.)Yep. And that's been my point all along. Perhaps its not. Perhaps its a valid form called Participationism.
1. Since the Gnostic game is over and all the cards are on the table, I want to know this: if, say, it was a module describign the situation, listing some potential scenes (some that happened, some that didn't), and the time-lines of the parties involved, where would there need to be any illusionism at all? If so where? Why?The potential scenes are problematic. To get to them one might have to use Illusionism of some sort or Participationism. OTOH, given players making the right decisions, no, it does not require any.
OTOH, the fact that the GM had "five more hours of material prepared" if the players had taken a particular rout, indicates to me that there was more than what you are saying there was. But again, I'm probably misreading. If you mean that the GM estimated that play would have gone on for another five hours or so given what he thought the players might do, or something like that, I'd have been inclined to think it was less pre-scripted.
But, as I've said before, I'm only telling you why I came up with the analysis I did. I trust your on-sight judgement. You were there, you know better. If you say the game wasn't participationist, I am willing to concede that it's not.
2. In the vampire game we have this quote:We'll have to ask Jesse. Again, I could be misreading. But I've never heard Jesse be one to lament freedom of action. OTOH, sure it could have been Pinball Sim. Jesse, being a Narrativist, would then be waiting to find the conflict.
And all there was to the game was us wandering around "in character" marvelling at the GMs presentation of what the future of the World of Darkness will be like after all the major conflicts in all the games are resolved. That's it. No conflicts. No quests. No villains to over come. Just interacting with random NPCs, wandering around and research to figure out how things got this way.
I read this as pure pinball-sim where the players didn't think of anything to do. I wasn't there--but I see no dis-empowering at all. No conflicts? No quests? No villains?
OTOH, he also said, "we were seven vampires of different clans who ended up getting sent to the future". This could be an opening set up. But it sounds like the characters were directed there. In pure Pinball they would just be told, you start at the nightclub, waht do you want to do. The way he described it sounded like they had little actual choice.
Isn't this a bit like Mike's theoritical player saying "I'm lost--give me some queues?"Yes. The Narrativist in the Pinball Sim and the Participationist in the Illusionist game will say the same thing. They are both looking to the GM to provide direction to an extent. A framework for conflict in the case of the Narrativist. Cues to follow in the case of the Participationist.
Isn't sending the characters on a quest setting them up for an A->B->C series of encounters where there's only two basic outcomes (success or failure)?Classic Participationism or Illusionism. The latter if the players think that they chose the quest somehow but did not.
Also: Actor Stance as defined has, I think, nothing do do with "taking queues." I thought it was instead about acting "in character." I think that's a misunderstanding on one of our parts (or maybe a mis-read)Quite right. But then nobody plays soley in actor mode. And when one is in actor mode, all the GM has to do is push the character's buttons. Again, the extent to which this is being done in an open sense makes the tactic Participationist. To the extent that its subtle, it's Illusionism. Note how much safer Participationism is than Illusionism. The Participationist player will step into Actor mode long enough to decide to go with the GM, and then retroactively identify the motivation (if neccessary, probably not, as the GM is tryng to play to the character's motives somehow). The Illusionist player may make the "wrong" decision, requiring more Illusioism to get things back on track.
I identified this mode of play (actually back then I was calling it Audience Stance) long ago as requiring Author mode to be enjoyable. Instead of making decisions based on what the character would do, you must make decisions based on what you think the GM wants your character to do. Again, as in all modes, there will be times when these align and you can't discern the difference.
To that extent, I agree with you that your description of the play as being all "Actor" mode would make it more likely Illusionism. But it has to be one or the other. If you weren't using Author mode to come up with the nifty plot, then possibly the GM was directing things. Or, possible as well, the neat plot all came out at "random", as the result of nothing but Actor stance play and Low actual GM control. Just seems unlikely from the description. But then you were there. In that case it was a case of Pinball Sim.
I think the commonality is this: Mike is seeing immersive play by the players as implying illusionism on the part of the GM... and if it's really immersive then they're really being railroaded (in a non-dysfunctional way so maybe "guided" is a better term) i.e. Participationism.Again, I think nothing like that. In fact I didn't even say that, it was Ralph. You have me confused with somebody else.
In this case, I think that you're seeing immersive play that generates a story-like outcome as implicitly implying a guiding hand. I think that isn't so at all. I can't see why it would need to be true or even a common correlation.
I am the big advovcate around here for exactly play such as Pinball Sim and Illusionism both. I think they do produce excellent "Story-seeming" Sim. As would Participationism. The only queston is one of enjoyment of the play; the result after the fact is mostly irrellevant. Which Sim is fun is a matter of personal opinion.
Mike
On 9/6/2002 at 10:23pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Participationism?
damion wrote: Mike,Too general, but essentially correct.
How's this:Participationalism is where players have no choices and are aware of this while the game is being played.
Participationalism without player consent is known as railroading, not sure what it is called if they consent. Improv theater maybe.If they consent it's called Participationism. Just as players who agree to Narrativist play are Narrativist. Don't need another term.
If you say P* is when the players have no input, to a degree that is true in every game. There are very few actions a player can take w/o GM input in a Sim game. Even in Mike's example, the GM creates the detail, which creates the allowable choices. "We want to go on a ship." "GM, well, your 500 miles inland, it'll take a while to get to one." Player Directorial powers is probably the only solution here.Yep. I keep saying that. It's a mode. People use it all the time, therefore, or it woudn't be a mode. But if I use it 1% of the time and use Illusionism 99% I'll probably call it Illusionist play.
Mike
On 9/6/2002 at 10:29pm, GB Steve wrote:
RE: Participationism?
Mike Holmes wrote: To an extent there is a point where one just has to accept some of what the GM says.
This just made me laugh. Not in a bad way. In a 'Mike really doesn't want anyone telling him what's happening to his character' kind of way.
Do you want a GM in your games? If so what does that GM do?
As a GM, I feel it's my responsibility to provide an illusiory framework (as it - it's not real, it's make-believe, but believable make-believe) in which the players can express themselves through their PCs.
Some of the time this means giving choices to the PCs and hence the players. That's because I'm the World, and the world throws up choices. Heck, it's the choices that make it interesting for me.
What is the alternative?
It seems to me that all roleplaying has some illusionism involved.
On 9/7/2002 at 8:17pm, GB Steve wrote:
RE: Participationism?
With regards to participationism and such I've been thinking about what a player does with a PC. Here are some rambling thoughts.
It strikes me that there are two spheres in which the PC can be played.
There's the external sphere, the one where the PC does things and interacts with other characters (PC or NPC).
There's the internal sphere, the one where the PC asks questions of themselves, where moral dilemmas are answered, where changes to the PCs outlook.
These spheres aren't just where the player can make things happen, they also are where the player can situate themselves vis-a-vis the character
Now I think of it, I think Fang may have said something along these lines somewhere.
Your typical pinball style game tends not to worry about the internal sphere and your typical narrativist game tries to show the effects of one on the other. I'm not sure if you can have a game that is mainly about the internal sphere.
Illusionism is something to do with freedom of action.
You can never have complete freedom of action. There are always bounds, externally imposed by the World and internally imposed by the logic of the character concept.
Illusionism and participationism to me, don't seem to be about the external bounds. These exist in all games. They seem to be more about the internal bounds.
In the Bobby G example, it's not about whether the PCs are being dragged along physically, it's whether going to see Bobby G is a valid choice for that character to make on an internal level, whether the PC can justify it to themself (or the player can justify the PC doing that and still be the PC they want to play).
I can see where you are going with your metrics but there are other situations envisaged that are not really covered. There are cases where players will go along with the GM (participationism) because they know it leads to some kind of situation they feel they might like to explore.
We had such a case in a Delta Green game at Gen Con.
I won't say too much about it in case Balbinus reads this and I don't want to spoil it for him if he plays it at SteveCon.
In short what happened was that the GM set up an interesting situation that we wanted our PCs to be in. We had to find ways to justify this to ourselves so that the scenario worked, we also had to justify it to the external parameters surrounding our PCs (job, family etc). Once in the situation, we were free to explore it as we saw fit. The control of the situation was not fixed and we all participated in creating the game we wanted to play - and a damn fine game it was too.
One place that Participationism can become problematic is where Fortune systems get in the way. In the case of the "Climactic Battle" that Fang mentions, if you want it to come out with a specific outcome, you either must use Drama, or Illusionism, or risk the "unsatisfatory" ending.I'm not sure it's that simple. Fortune can create an 'unsatisfactory' outcome whatever your style of play.
Cheers,
Steve
On 9/8/2002 at 12:17am, Le Joueur wrote:
Yes I Did, Over Here
GB Steve wrote: It strikes me that there are two spheres in which the PC can be played.
There's the external sphere, the one where the PC does things and interacts with other characters (PC or NPC).
There's the internal sphere, the one where the PC asks questions of themselves, where moral dilemmas are answered, where changes to the PCs outlook.
These spheres aren't just where the player can make things happen, they also are where the player can situate themselves vis-a-vis the character
Now I think of it, I think Fang may have said something along these lines somewhere.
This was largely what I was talking about in the Scattershot Gaming Model. You are noting the distinction between what I called the Avatar Approach (the prefered frame of reference is the Internal elements of Character) and everything else (Swashbuckler - External of Character, Joueur - Internal of Game, and Auteur - External of Game). Note the character-centric and game-centric difference between Avatar/Swashbuckler and Joueur/Auteur; this also speaks of how players situate themselves versus the game as well.
Personally, I consider these the defining points of one's Approach to gaming rather than focusing on relationship to author/director interests or 'challenge.' But hey, everyone has their own opinion, right?
Fang Langford
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 1662
On 9/8/2002 at 11:09am, GB Steve wrote:
Re: Yes I Did, Over Here
Le Joueur wrote: This was largely what I was talking about in the Scattershot Gaming Model. You are noting the distinction between what I called the Avatar Approach (the prefered frame of reference is the Internal elements of Character) and everything else (Swashbuckler - External of Character, Joueur - Internal of Game, and Auteur - External of Game). Note the character-centric and game-centric difference between Avatar/Swashbuckler and Joueur/Auteur; this also speaks of how players situate themselves versus the game as well.And also in communications to me. Trouble is, I found it hard to relate to your vocabulary. I'm still not sure what you mean by Internal of Game for example.
Le Joueur wrote: Personally, I consider these the defining points of one's Approach to gaming rather than focusing on relationship to author/director interests or 'challenge.' But hey, everyone has their own opinion, right?I find it hard to relate to a model that stands outside of the the way the players play the game. That's the main problem I have with what Mike says.
Mike seems to be looking at the game going on from outisde of the game whereas I want to look at it from the subjective point of view of the participants. For me, from this point of view, illusionism doesn't really exist. It's an artifact created by a particular point of view. If the players don't know that they are under illusionism, why does it matter?
It's quite possible, and I'd submit usual, for several players to play the same game and have very different experiences of the game. I've seen at least two examples of this at GenConUK.
Cheers,
Steve
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 1662
On 9/8/2002 at 3:13pm, Le Joueur wrote:
A Moment of Explanation
Hey Steve,
Good questions, I hope nobody will mind if I take a moment to explain a few things.
GB Steve wrote:Le Joueur wrote: This was largely what I was talking about in the Scattershot Gaming Model. You are noting the distinction between what I called the Avatar Approach (the preferred frame of reference is the Internal elements of Character) and everything else (Swashbuckler - External of Character, Joueur - Internal of Game, and Auteur - External of Game). Note the character-centric and game-centric difference between Avatar/Swashbuckler and Joueur/Auteur; this also speaks of how players situate themselves versus the game as well.
And also in communications to me. Trouble is, I found it hard to relate to your vocabulary. I'm still not sure what you mean by Internal of Game for example.
This part of the terminology has always been a tough one. What does "Internal" and "Game" mean? (Or "External" or "Character" for that matter?) Well, it comes from a bit of dichotomous comparison. Game is compared to Character; you've got a character, this is your fixed relationship point to the rest of the game (except in games like Universalis). And that's what game means, all the stuff outside of the character. The background, the 'extras,' the narrative, the system, and everything is "Game."
The other dichotomy is "Internal" and "External." Internal, here, means all the stuff on the 'inside.' On the 'inside' of the game is the stuff I just listed (background and et cetera) taken as separate subjects. You 'look' at them individually because you're 'on the inside.' So the opposite is "External;" you 'look' at the listed items 'from the outside.' This forces something of a collective perspective; the "External" frame of reference calls for looking at the game as a unit.
How do these apply to "Character?" Well, the "External" perspective looks at the 'whole character,' what they can do with all of what they have and how they relate to the rest of the game. (Remember how "Internal of the Game" dealt with the parts of the game individually? This is a single 'step down' where you only deal with one part of the game, the character.) This is opposed to "Internal" where you 'look' at 'the stuff' that makes up a character independently.
'Guts of the character matter' is Avatar Approach. 'Parts of the game' is the Swashbuckler Approach. 'What the character can do' is the Joueur Approach. 'What good the whole game is' is the Auteur Approach. Does that make more sense?
GB Steve wrote:Le Joueur wrote: Personally, I consider these the defining points of one's Approach to gaming rather than focusing on relationship to author/director interests or 'challenge.' But hey, everyone has their own opinion, right?
I find it hard to relate to a model that stands outside of the way the players play the game. That's the main problem I have with what Mike says.
Mike seems to be looking at the game going on from outside of the game whereas I want to look at it from the subjective point of view of the participants.
That sounds like you don't get what I'm saying. All of the Scattershot Model Approaches are about nothing but the player's point of view.
Avatar Approach is all about how the player plays their character, about how that play affects the player's preferred frame of reference, their character. If you play to see how your character reacts to what happens in the game, you're playing Avatar Approach.
Swashbuckler Approach isn't "outside of the way the players play," its about taking your character and seeing what's 'in' a game; see this, see that, do this, do that, the character is a window to finding what's in the game.
Joueur Approach focuses on the capabilities of the character. What they can do, what they can get done, what impact they can have; in this Approach you use your character as a tool and place value on it thus.
Finally, and I suppose the closest to "standing outside," is Auteur Approach. This Approach is about the value of 'the game as a whole' to the player. If you 'work hard' to make the game turn out to a 'satisfying conclusion' then your using the Auteur Approach. If your choices lead you to doing things that make the game 'hang together better' rather than any of the other Approaches, you're playing Auteur Approach.
Now the Scattershot Model isn't supposed to be something you think about while you're playing, but after awhile you probably notice a pattern of preference. Maybe not a career preference, but certainly for distinct episodes you'll hang to one. (Or the alternative, you keep switching, an Approach that is neither common nor subject to categorization.) Its main facility is helping everyone 'fit' their play styles together in a deliberate fashion. It also helps differentiate how to run (or which kind of) Scattershot game you play. (For example, if players all play with the Joueur Approach, then a Noir game will be about using character abilities to 'solve the case,' an Auteur Approach would be about the build-up and the climax, the whole story as it hangs together.)
I hope that makes things clearer. If you want to discuss this in further detail, you're more than welcome to come on down to the Scattershot Forum and I'd like a chance to discuss what needs better explanations in the Model. (Sorry if this has hijacked the thread; we now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion.)
Fang Langford
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 1662
On 9/8/2002 at 7:25pm, GB Steve wrote:
RE: Participationism?
My use of internal and external relate to what the player does with the character. It is very phenomenological in this sense. It is about the experience of 'being' (or playing) a character.
Internal is about the character's thought processes. Typically in a 'pinball game' these are of little interest. You don't care what your PC really thinks about what they are doing, you just want to find the dragon and rescue the princess. You might care that you get your correct share of the treasure or you might care about sticking to your alignment. In essence however, you are not really playing in the internal sphere, you are just looking up something on the character sheet and following the rules. There is no dialogue.
In a narrative game a la Forge, you have a moral dilemma that the game is addressing. In this way you need to have quite an active internal side to the way you play the character. There is an internal dialogue within the character that is sustained by the player. You might for example be looking at whether princess rescuing is the right thing to do, given that dragons are pretty thin on the ground these days, and anyway it was she who tried to turf the dragon out of its lair in the first place. This may become apparent in the external sphere or it may not, it really depends on the nature of the game.
Immersive gaming is obviously very heavy on the internal sphere but so might be someone who runs their PC in the third person and treats the internal sphere as just other obstacles to overcome in their quest for the perfect PC (something that occurs in powergaming).
Pendragon is a kind of half-way house as it formalises the internal dialogue but does leave some amount of choice to the player.
The external sphere is the interaction that happens external to the character. This can be between the PC and the make-believe physical world in the shape of actions, or it can be between the PC and other characters in the shape of dialogue.
Players in the same game can sustain different levels of interest in the various spheres.
That said, I still don't understand the Scattershot model. I'll have a look at that forum. I'm finding the vocabulary a problem.
On 9/9/2002 at 2:30am, Le Joueur wrote:
Let's Take It Downstairs
GB Steve wrote: My use of internal and external relate to what the player does with the character. It is very phenomenological in this sense. It is about the experience of 'being' (or playing) a character.
'Being the character,' as in 'thinking like them,' would be Avatar or Swashbuckler Approach; the character is the players 'frame of reference' and everything is considered from that point of view.
GB Steve wrote: Internal is about the character's thought processes. Typically in a 'pinball game' these are of little interest. You don't care what your PC really thinks about what they are doing, you just want to find the dragon and rescue the princess. You might care that you get your correct share of the treasure or you might care about sticking to your alignment. In essence however, you are not really playing in the internal sphere, you are just looking up something on the character sheet and following the rules. There is no dialogue.
And that pretty much describes a major portion of Joueur Approach. Often token play characterizes Joueur Approach; the character isn't the player's 'frame of reference,' the game is, and what the character can do to it.
GB Steve wrote: In a narrative game a la Forge, you have a moral dilemma that the game is addressing. In this way you need to have quite an active internal side to the way you play the character. There is an internal dialogue within the character that is sustained by the player. You might for example be looking at whether princess rescuing is the right thing to do, given that dragons are pretty thin on the ground these days, and anyway it was she who tried to turf the dragon out of its lair in the first place. This may become apparent in the external sphere or it may not, it really depends on the nature of the game.
I think you're overly-limiting Narrativist play to Actor Stance, in Director Stance your character's internal dialogue is only of interest if it colors on the manner the moral dilemma is addressed. If the internal dialogue has no bearing, it can be ignored; it's funny how often people forget you can use token-play in Narrativism.
If the character is thinking about the 'rightness' of princess-rescue and the player doesn't care how it 'situates' within the game as a whole, it'd be Avatar; if the player addresses the moral 'rightness' outside of the character's thoughts, especially in how it addresses a overall moral dilemma posed by the 'larger game,' then it is clearly an thematically-ambitious Auteur Approach.
GB Steve wrote: Immersive gaming is obviously very heavy on the internal sphere but so might be someone who runs their PC in the third person and treats the internal sphere as just other obstacles to overcome in their quest for the perfect PC (something that occurs in powergaming).
Again, immersive play with accent on 'character mindset' is Avatar Approach. If it goes more in third person, with the personality of the character 'as just another obstacle,' then it is Joueur Approach. (Overcoming obstacles is looking at the character in terms of 'activating it' in the game sense.)
GB Steve wrote: The external sphere is the interaction that happens external to the character. This can be between the PC and the make-believe physical world in the shape of actions, or it can be between the PC and other characters in the shape of dialogue.
That happens for all characters regardless of Approach or GNS mode, is differentiating it of any practical use? It doesn't seem to be in any way related to all of the 'character orientation' material you've given up to this point.
If you just want to find the dragon and rescue the princess, they are your external sphere. In the 'moral dilemma' game, you still have the princess and dragon, but now your internal sphere dictates a different interaction. The 'third person with obstacles' player still has the very same external influences but now they're similar obstacles. I really don't see how the 'external sphere' as you put it has any bearing to how you look at things. The relationship to the 'external sphere' seems nothing more than an extension of the orientation of the 'internal' one and redundant.
GB Steve wrote: Players in the same game can sustain different levels of interest in the various spheres.
In the linked article, I point out that nobody, but nobody, stays in one Approach. Stealing stuff from other Approaches is half the fun. The only point in making them explicit is to help negotiate a more formal social contract in terms of what people can expect from each other and to help illuminate Transition.
GB Steve wrote: That said, I still don't understand the Scattershot model. I'll have a look at that forum. I'm finding the vocabulary a problem.
Feel free to point out the terminology problems you have when you're down there. I am still willing and able to make changes. I want them to be as clear on the 'first read' as possible. Thank you for your interest. I hope we can continue this dialogue in that location; I'm not sure how much this has to do with Participationism (I know the Scattershot Gaming Model does not break play down into such fine detail).
Fang Langford
On 9/9/2002 at 3:21pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Participationism?
Very well stated points, Steve. I can see where there is some confusion. In answering your questions I am refining my statements to a much better level of functionality. Thanks.
Illusionism is not a mode of play employed by the players, and neither is "Pinball". First I'll point out that the definition of Illusionism is problematic as people have attached all sorts of meanings to the term since it was coined by Paul Elliot a while back. But since then I and others have worked on hammering it out into a useful term. Though we do not all agree on it, here is my definition:
Illusionism - play by the GM employing certain techniques to create a feeling in the players that their control of their character's actions is at least in part, creating new events in the world, while, in fact, the GM ratains most if not all of that control.
A classic example of Illusionism is the Force technique. As an example of that technique, the GM has the players come to a fork in the road. They can choose to go North or South (or go off the road, or anything else). But no matter which rout they go, the GM has them encounter the dragon (for whatever reason the GM has).
The usual use of Illusionism is to cause a plot to come into existence, though there is no reason why this has to be so. A GM could use Illusionism to hose the characters for some reason of balance, for instance. That further goal isn't important. It's just that the GM wants something to happen, and he want's the players to think that they caused it to happen. more or less.
Contrast the example to Pinball for a moment. In that case, the GM consults a map, or random monster charts, and finds that the player's choice of routs leads to a goblin rather than a dragon. In any case, the player's decisions actually are creating the course of events in this case.
Contrast to Participationism by the GM where the GM will have the characters just run into the Dragon, not haing the fork come up prior to arriving at it. In fact, the GM may have put the characters on the road in the first place. The players then are quite aware that they are being led to the dragon, and that their choices (perhaps what dialog occured on the road), have nothing to do with the course of events that are occurring.
So, from the player POV, these are all Simulationist tactics, and ones that are shifted between frequently. Assuming that the player is responding with Sim play of some sort, the player is deciding to have his character do what he does because it makes sense in the context of the situation that the character is in. But further down we can divide this up even more. In some Sim play, lets call it Character Sim (this is a terrible term in this case, as it probably does not capture even half of the possible other means of decision making; but it will suffice for this example), the player considers only his own interperetation of what the character would do in the situation as presented (probably sticking to Actor Mode, mostly). In Participationist play, he considers what the situation is, and what he thinks that the GM thinks is the most likely thing for the characters to do (IOW, that which continues the plot), and has the character do that (necessarily employing a bit of Author Mode play, likely).
So, from the player POV, this is the split (Participationism vs Non-Participationism for the moment). Note however that this has no coodination with what the GM is doing, necessarily. In the case of Character Sim, the GM could be doing Illusionism, or Pinball, and they might get along famously. But if the GM is doing Participatioism, and the player is doing Character Sim, then we're going to have trouble (this is where I get all bent out of shape at such play). The CharSim player is trying to make decisions, but the GM is constantly taking them away. Leading to the feeling by the CharSim player that he is being railroaded, or that his character is being played for him.
Again, for the zillionth time I am not advocating any style of play. I can tell you that I prefer to have some Pinball and/or Illusionist play from the GM so that I have the feeling of control that I desire. But I can't say that other players don't like "Participationist" GMs. They might.
Anyhow, what I am trying to do is to model both player and GM behavior separately. This has been discussed before (Contracycle, maybe?), and the choices and techniques that the GM uses to effect a mode of play may have more or less correllation to the player decisions that are made. But they are not the same. Thus, there is no Illusionist mode of play for players or Pinball mode of play.
As such, I should diffentiate between player Participationism and what it is that the GM is doing in play. Perhaps I could term it something like "Storyteller" style play. That would be loaded, but, indeed, it relates what many people here see as a problem in the whole presentation of the role of the ST in WoD products. And if you remove the negative bias (but still have it indicate open strong control of events) it suddenly fits the mode. Still, we'll lose that bias, and the "story" indication as well; indeed such a GM may not be trying to lay oput a plot at all, necessarily. That's just the stereotypical reason. What to call it, then? I'd call it Narrativism (as in the GM reserves the right to the Narrative power), but, while accurate, that would be confusing. How about just High Control GM play for the moment?
Then, Participationist players enjoy play as presented by more High Control GM play. While Non-Participationists will probably desire more Illusionist or Pinball play from their GMs.
To recap:
Some GM styles of Sim play --
Illusionism
Pinball
High Control
Some player styles of Sim play --
Participatioinism
"Characterism"
"Situationalism"
whatever it is that the player is making their decisions based on. The point of all this has been to point out not a dichotomy between Player types of play (hence the reason that I put the others in quotes; they are purely to point out that there are other styles that the one discussed), but to postulate that Participationism exists such that we can then consider whether or not High Control GM play is appropriate. Applying the simple rule of compatibility we can just come to the standard determination about any mode of play. That being, if you truely have Participationist players, then certainly High Control is a viable form of GMing.
Is this helping to elucidate my points, or am I just further muddying the water?
Mike
On 9/9/2002 at 3:37pm, Valamir wrote:
RE: Participationism?
Mike Holmes wrote: Contrast to Participationism by the GM where the GM will have the characters just run into the Dragon, not haing the fork come up prior to arriving at it. In fact, the GM may have put the characters on the road in the first place. The players then are quite aware that they are being led to the dragon, and that their choices (perhaps what dialog occured on the road), have nothing to do with the course of events that are occurring.
In the midst of preparing for my Pendragon campaign, it occured to me how much like the above description Pendragon can be.
Adherance to the source material particularly requires a big chunk of play to be "Participatory" for this is how the adventures in Malory take place.
When a dog runs into Arthur's court during Pentacost Feast being chased by a lady, and the lady being chased by a knight, knights in Malory have really only two choices. They can continue to eat, or they can jump up and pusue the adventure that has just presented itself.
Games of Pendragon designed to mirror the type of events one would see in Malory, similiarly take a frequent approach. Arthurian knights spend most of their time on adventures not of their own making but they've wandered into and wish to see where it takes them and what adventures there are along the way.
There are countless times where a knight simply finds himself (in the midst of his journey) at a castle with some ill-tradition that must be stopped or some wrong that must be set right is.
Thus, in running a Pendragon campaign is it emminently suitable to begin an adventure... "you are on the road to Lincoln, ahead of you are three large knights, one in black, one in red, and one in green. They stand ready to issue challenge to all who come this way".
The players had no choice to be on that road, no chance to notice the knights before they neared them...and being knights seeking adventure no real choice but to accept the challenge (because that's what round table knights do).
Anyway, the point being that such Participatory play, as Mike is calling it, is not only completely valid (as he has said), but in some circumstances, the "best" way to organize a campaign. Especially on interested primarily in Exploration of Color.
On 9/9/2002 at 5:37pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Participationism?
Your point about Pendragon is exactly the point that Ron has made about Cthulhu as well. The call comes into the investigators, and the player has to figure out why his character is taking the GM's lead. To do otherwise is to say that there will be no game tonight. As such, I think there is certainly a Participationist responsibility that is implied, though not often communicated. So, before you play such games, it might behove the players to talk about it such that the dsocial contract includes such good Participationist play where neccessary.
But Pendragon goes one further. It requires the players to "participate" in character decisions through the system. That is, when a player's Bravery trait goes off, they are forced to portray the character as Brave, retroactively assigning the reason why (often already provided). As opposed to deciding to be Brave, or cowardly, as the player thinks the character would act. As such, play of Pendragon requires committed Participationism. A player expecting to get his way, or fighting the system, will not have a good time.
InSpectres makes this all plain, and the responsibility of the players. As such, you get Narrativism from it, as it's the players who are driving things, and the system requires the players to address the channeled format of the game. Again we can see the relationship between Participationism, and Narrativism. In both there is a player commitment to something outside the player's interperetation of the events. In Participationism, it's an external factor leading the players (GM usually, or system in the case of Pendragon), wheras in Narrativism, its the needs of the story.
Only when the GM is using Illusionism or playing "open-ended" can the player likely have fun with nothing but Actor Stance.
Mike
On 9/9/2002 at 5:58pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Participationism?
Hi Mike,
I was doin' fine with your post until one phrase, which with your permission I'll amend to:
... whereas in Narrativism, it's the emerging story as the participants see fit.
"Needs of the story" has a pre-planned plot connotation in most gaming conversations - I wanted to keep that particular misperception from happening.
Best,
Ron
On 9/9/2002 at 6:04pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Participationism?
Ron Edwards wrote: ... whereas in Narrativism, it's the emerging story as the participants see fit.I fully agree. In case anyone was unaware, in InSpectres the GM does little if any plotting, meaning that the players will have to determine, what the "Needs of the story" are.
Mike