First, I apologize if this is covering old ground; if so, please feel free to direct me to the proper thread.

So, when a GM has a fully prewritten story, with a beginning, middle, and end, with written-in assumptions about what the players will want to do, will the gameplay always tend toward Illusionism or Participationism (if it's functional)? Would play with such a scenario always become disfuntional if the players aren't willing to go along with What's Behind the Curtain?

I look forward to any comments presented, as this relates strongly to problems I am attempting to solve in gaming in my neck of the woods.

DaGreatJL wrote: So, when a GM has a fully prewritten story, with a beginning, middle, and end, with written-in assumptions about what the players will want to do, will the gameplay always tend toward Illusionism or Participationism (if it's functional)? Would play with such a scenario always become disfuntional if the players aren't willing to go along with What's Behind the Curtain?

It is certainly aware that having preprep does not preclude the possiblity of flexibility and response to player desires. But, if a prewritten story exists, and the GM is inflexible in its application, and assuming the play is not dysfunctional, will it move into Illusionism or Participationism? Better yet, if it doesn't, can it be funtional play?

Just within the last month or so we were discussing play styles and brought up modules, prefabricated adventures. I can't point to the threads, but it occurred to me that there is a functional play variant for this that is neither illusionism nor participationism. At the moment the only name given to it is "module play" (which might pull up the thread if searched for as such).

The basic assumption of module play is that the referee has (either from his own creation or from a published product) a fairly tight concept of what the players are "supposed to do"; the players, as part of the social contract that supports play, have committed themselves to identifying what their characters are supposed to do and to do that.

In a sense, it's like the vast majority of CRPGs: the player is looking to unravel the correct sequence of correct choices to reach the end of the story. The story is written; it's his job to recognize the clues sufficiently that he can follow the script.

This is not illusionism or participationism, because the referee is not bending the character actions to fit his story in any way. Rather, it's a distinct functional approach to play based on player commitment to following the as yet unrevealed story.

Make sense?

--M. J. Young

DaGreatJL wrote: It is certainly aware that having preprep does not preclude the possiblity of flexibility and response to player desires. But, if a prewritten story exists, and the GM is inflexible in its application, and assuming the play is not dysfunctional, will it move into Illusionism or Participationism? Better yet, if it doesn't, can it be funtional play?

DaGreatJL wrote: So, when a GM has a fully prewritten story, with a beginning, middle, and end, with written-in assumptions about what the players will want to do, will the gameplay always tend toward Illusionism or Participationism (if it's functional)? Would play with such a scenario always become disfuntional if the players aren't willing to go along with What's Behind the Curtain?

cruciel wrote: MJ threw out a very interesting alternative. I think the module play he speaks of is a blend of rollercoasterism and plotless background-based gaming - force that kicks in once a key background element is encountered

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: Possibly a form of the impossible thing to believe before breakfast while the players think they can do whatever they want while the GM believes he has control over the story.

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: Keeping with the rollercoast analogy, maybe this is "amusment parkism" You can wander around an amusement park, doing whatever relatively freely, but eventually you step onto a ride.

Hello,

M.J., what you describe sounds like straight-head Participation to me. I don't see why or how it's a different category.

DaGreat, based on nearly all the published adventure scenarios that I know of, the overriding approach is Illusionism/Participation, just as you suggest. (I'm excluding plain dungeon-smack map type layouts; I'm talking about post-Champions adventure scenarios, which became more-or-less standard in the late 1980s.)

I strongly suspect this is an artifact of writing-as-a-process and publishing economics rather than an expression of widespread play preferences.

I learned ago, playing Champions, that the "written adventure" (which presupposes specific player priorities, perceptions, and decisions) has to be scrapped if you have players who prefer a degree of authority over their characters' protagonism. In Gamist play, that protagonism usually consists of certain player-rights regarding strategy; in Narrativist play, it usually consists of certain player-rights regarding value judgments.

However, the Participationist/Illusionst way of reading and thinking about scenarios is so ingrained among so many role-players, that I have found many people to insist that player-character actions in mine (e.g. The Sorcerer's Sword, Demon Cops, The Sorcerer's Soul) are "obviously" fixed, when in fact, they are projecting their own habits into the text as what I, the author, "must want them to do."

Best,
Ron

Thanks for the opinions and ideas, everybody. I consider it to be very helpful, as it seems what I believed to be true has been collaborated by y'all.

The reason I asked the above question is that dysfunctional play has been a MAJOR problem in my neck of the woods. Here's how it goes:

There are many gamers in my area who all know each other but do not have a 'gaming group' as such. Rather, they will (somewhat randomly) gather together into a group of between four and six to game. The GM almost invariably has a plot they have already created in their mind, and are not flexible in pursuing other avenues; however, they rarely if ever discuss this with the players before play starts; they do this because . The players almost always make charathat's how it's supposed to be done.

The players each make a character with a complex personality and backstory, who normally has some significant goal that the player wants to pursue; if this goal does not coincide with what the GM or the other players want to do, they tend to be inflexible about going against "what their character would do", because that's how it's supposed to be done.

The local campus-based gaming club has been steadily losing members since before I moved here over three years ago, largely as a result of this problem. There are many who've noticed the problem, but I seem to be the only person who thinks it can be solved.

And so, I'm given to wonder; how do I communicate to people the fact that they're making contradictory assumptions about play?

DaGreatJL wrote: The local campus-based gaming club has been steadily losing members since before I moved here over three years ago, largely as a result of this problem. There are many who've noticed the problem, but I seem to be the only person who thinks it can be solved.

And so, I'm given to wonder; how do I communicate to people the fact that they're making contradictory assumptions about play?

DaGreatJL wrote: ; how do I communicate to people the fact that they're making contradictory assumptions about play?

So, what I suggest is that you get close to a couple, if you can and make your own splitter group and you may be able to introduce these players to the stuff you've learned. Talk with them, but listen to what they say. You won't convert the whole group, but you may convert a couple. That will be enough.

You can't. Let me be more specific. Gamers are nuts. They are also very territorial and get very very defensive about their "prefered style of play." No matter how reasonable you are about it, how eloquently you make your case, or even if you are right and fixing this will improve everyone's enjoyment, they won't budge. I know. I've broached the subject with my group and most were uninterested because they saw nothing wrong. One got all defensive and entrenched because he thought I was attacking his prefered style of play and, therefore, attacking him. No good came of it.

All I can say then is good luck. You have a hard row to hoe ahead of you. I doubt if writing a game that would help illustrate more functional play would help...especially if they don't play it, you see. THe direct approach would bring about confrontation while the indirect approach will be ignored.

My suggestion, since you had said that most of the players have a "My Guy" mentality, is to run something where the GM's role is more supportive than it is in Participationism or Illusionism. They seem to want some control. Give it to them and see how they like it. Use whatever system they currently enjoy, just drift it towards a more Sim/Nar variety. Then afterwards, talk with them about what happened in the game so they understand what was going on and what aspects they enjoyed or not.

Good luck.

Jack, I think he was trying to make a counter-example that nobody would play. Thus they'd say, "hey, that's no fun," and they could go on to discuss why it wasn't fun. Interesting.

You know, oddly, there's a game that's entirely GM forced, functional, and yet can show players a way away from "My Guy" play. Paranioa. In Paranioa, you can't use "my guy" play because the GM is fully authorized to smack players down at every turn. I think it's good for learning that you have to trust the GM, actually. Sure he can be arbitrary, or compete with the players, but when the GM has all the power (which he usually "sorta" does, anyhow), then its dysfunctional to actually compete. Ironically paranoia shows the player that the GM is playing fair, and to trust the GM.

Of course it takes a pretty smart player to get the lesson, and a good GM to ensure it works right. But I can definitely see Paranioa as a teaching tool.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: Jack, I think he was trying to make a counter-example that nobody would play. Thus they'd say, "hey, that's no fun," and they could go on to discuss why it wasn't fun. Interesting.

and you have to love a game where you can lose a character or three on the way to the briefing room to get the instructions to start the adventure!

:)--from my own Gencon experience

DaGreatJL wrote:
The players each make a character with a complex personality and backstory, who normally has some significant goal that the player wants to pursue; if this goal does not coincide with what the GM or the other players want to do, they tend to be inflexible about going against "what their character would do", because that's how it's supposed to be done.

Thank you for all your advice, and I will certainly do my best to use it. However, there is something in particular that would very much assist me: advice on how to reach out to gamers locally, outside of a gaming environment. I mean, getting a game together and education a group of five or so, and releasing them back into the wild to be fruitful will certainly work, but I'm looking for more. I want to reach out to the gaming community as a whole, or at the very least the ones who I can get to pay attention.

And Mr. Spencer, I appreciate the (probably correct) advice you've given me, and respect your opinion, but I cannot in good conscience entertain your opinion. If I believe that, then I have accepted failure, and the idea that the community is going to suck, and that's it. Too many people here (here being my geographic locale, as opposed to The Forge) have accepted this; I refuse, based on stubborness, conceit, and a belief that I deserve better, to accept current conditions.

DaGreatJL,

I like your attitude, personally. Stick to your guns, and push hard. If things are as you say, what have you got to lose?

The first thing, I think, is whether these players realize that their games are not satisfying them. They know this unconsciously, at least, because they're leaving, but do they know it consciously? If not, you need to start some murmuring, perhaps. I'm hoping people are actually crabbing about the games, because then it's much easier for you.

Second, assuming #1, is there an Absolute GM? How do people feel about him, if so? If there is, and they like him, you may be hosed. If not, then you can propose to run a one-shot or something. Set it up with the usual GM as a "day off," and chances are he'll jump at the opportunity. GMing a tough crowd is no picnic.

Now, third, you're running a game. Let everybody know it's going to be a bit experimental, because you're "trying some things," and would welcome their criticisms. This way, you don't seem to be causing trouble, so much as working out some odd personal RPG problems of your own. No threat, no foul.

Now, fourth, and this is the hard bit, ROCK. Consider pre-testing your style and game scenario over on indie-netgaming, or something like that. Practice practice practice. Get so you're so cool and confident that you can make this game go no matter what. Make it great. I'll get back to what game to choose in a second.

Afterwards, all innocent-like, ask how people liked your game. Ask if they'd like you to do that stuff again sometime, but indicate that it's a lot of work and it'll be a little while before you're ready. Tempt them.

With any luck, they'll start jonesing for it, and start importing bits and style from that game into the current one. Regardless, they're going to want to do things you like, because they like your gaming. Over time, you will become more and more the center of a kind of pseudo-fan club, with people asking when you're running next and if they can have a space.

Now keep working at it, keep being good at it, and cross your fingers. What you want is somebody else to think, "Hey, I could do that," and run a game of the sort this gang likes. Once that ball is rolling, you just sit back and enjoy. Word will start around the extended group: there's fun gaming happening, come on back. And so on.

I'm against all this doom and gloom. The equation is simple: put yourself in a position where you are the dope-peddler for good RPG crack, and deliver the product. Pretty soon others will want to compete for business, and you have a whole little revolution happening all by itself.

Now, about what game to run.

If they're very conservative, don't perhaps leap to InSpectres.

Could you do something crunchy, but run it No Myth?

How about Paranoia, but really raving weirdo Paranoia? Here's an idea I'm stealing from John Kim, with apologies: give them a monofilament whip. It's a handle with two buttons, neither labeled. When they push either one, it goes "whirr." When they wave it around, roll on the Random Limb Loss Table. See how often they push the buttons and try to figure out how to get it to work. It's amazing...

I'd push for doing something very close to what they're used to, but do it No Myth, keeping it fast and punchy. Traditionall gamers in a rut probably want lots of action, so give it to them, but tell them not to sweat the details. Show them that they can have a rocking time without all the crunchy bits exactly in place.

Everything is going to depend on you having a great first game. Drink a LOT of coffee, and be VERY inspired.

I'm crossing my fingers, buddy.

DaGreatJL wrote: And Mr. Spencer, I appreciate the (probably correct) advice you've given me, and respect your opinion, but I cannot in good conscience entertain your opinion. If I believe that, then I have accepted failure, and the idea that the community is going to suck, and that's it. Too many people here (here being my geographic locale, as opposed to The Forge) have accepted this; I refuse, based on stubborness, conceit, and a belief that I deserve better, to accept current conditions.

Hey JL,

The thread Social Context may be of interest to you. Check through the Actual Play forum in general as well, looking for thread titles that pertain to starting new games.

Also, everyone, I think the original thread topic is now well and truly behind in the dust. Time to start a new thread, OK?

Best,
Ron

Thanks y'all for the advice; I don't think I'll start another thread, as I think I have some starting material here. I'll talk about what happens as it happens. Thanks again for the help.