I've been thinking a little bit about how these different GM styles being discussed as of late relate to each other...so I drew (err, typed actually) a picture.

[code]
Participationism Plotless Background-based
| |
| |
|GM Story Authorship Spectrum Players|
Overt/Covert |------------------------------------------| Myth of Reality
Force Spectrum | | Predefined/Improvved Environment
| | Spectrum
| |
Illusionism No Myth
[/code]

The two ends of the Story Authorship Spectrum don't really relate to each other. Illusionism doesn't equate to No Myth in any other sense that apples and oranges are both round (but, they are both round). I suppose you could try to make one of those boxes with an X in it like they do for political preferences ("You're on the point of Participationalism and Plotless background-based, you'd most enjoy dungeon crawls with a predefined map...blah blah blah"), but that probably wouldn't be a very good idea.

Any sort of Transition between GMing styles is going to necessitate moving along one of the spectrums, and hence sacrificing one thing to gain another. I'm thinking the easiest Transitions can be made along one of the end point spectrums. Sliding along the Story Authorship Spectrum is certainly possible, but would have the most potential to cause an Impossible Thing-brand (TM) dysfunction if the change in authorship rights isn't communicated (or adjudicated by the system) correctly.

No real question here (other than room for arguement), just a stray thought.

Just thinking about those apples and oranges a little...their roundness has captivated me.

I suppose that Illusionism and No Myth could both be said to be on the same end of an Environmental Flexibility spectrum, with Participationism and Plotless Background-based on the other end.

The more I think about, the more No Myth seems to have similarities to high flexibility Illusionism. If you make pretty much everything upon the fly, but just think of a few spiffy Complications ahead of time, and then wait for a nice looking opportunity to cram them into the game - that'd be Illusionism. Looks like a kinda short distance between them, now that I think about it.

A Public Service Announcement:

If, like me, you are staring at that diagram wondering what "Overt/Covert Myth of Reality Force Spectrum Predefined" means, widen your browser window.

The diagram makes much more sense to me now.

sheepishly,
Rob

First of all, as it has been described, No Myth is only a gamemastering technique; putting it on the "Players' Authorship Spectrum" is highly misleading. Second, the use of the "Force Spectrum" belies one of the central (and so far confusing) principles of No Myth gamemastering. Likewise, one of the hallmarks of Illusionism and Participationism is Flexibility; that's where another huge source of confusion lays.

Let me lay No Myth gamemastering out compared to Illusionism and Participationism. The main reason I have problems comparing these two has to do with one of the assumptions made central to Illusionism. The use of Force. This has been described as "how much influence the GM has...over story-impacting decisions made by the player-characters." Now that's a problem; first because of the vague use of 'story-impacting' and second the implication of what this "influence" is used for.

Last first and simply put, if you're going to influence something (in the conscious way implied), there has to be some kind of reason, purpose, or goal. I mean, if you have no reason to use Force, can you assume it's actually in use? And this gets all the more confusing because of the fact that "story-impacting" takes on a whole new perspective in No Myth gamemastering. You kinda are and then you aren't influencing the "story-impacting decisions made by the player-characters."

How about an example? Say the game is based on H. P. Lovecraft's C'thulhu material and let's also say that it turns out that the bad guys are summoning one of the great elder gods. Is it 'influencing' the "story-impacting decisions made by the player-characters" when the game can go to either 'the portal ceremony is interrupted' or 'the elder god is bound anew?' Either way, nobody shows up on Central Park West and starts destroying the city. Is it 'influencing' if you just as easily let them destroy the Necronomicon as 'trick' the elder god into stepping on a Con Ed station (and it turns out that electricity in that concentration renders elder gods into disorganized ectoplasm)? That's the problem; on one hand you would be using Force if "story-impacting decisions" were that they face some kind of 'ultimate confrontation' with some 'big nasty' (ranging from humans with much followers to supernatural baddies with lotsa zap and just about anything otherwise) and on the other hand you would be using Force if "story-impacting decisions" were that the players have to face off with the summoner (and his hence-beings) at the site of the summoning at the appropriate time and place.

And that's why it comes back to the "reason, purpose, or goal" of using Force. Is it to do something specific (like 'face the summoner') or doing anything (like 'have a big faceoff'). People are going to disagree on this one because of the varying meanings of the use of 'story' in "story-impacting decisions."

Personally, I use No Myth gamemastering as the opposite of Illusionism and Participationism in two important ways. First of all Force isn't used (I believe 'Forcing a game' is over specific details) because whether the players go to one place or another I find a way to run an appropriately tense faceoff with whomever would plausibly be there. (Applying a 'faceoff' might be considered using Force in a generalized sense, but I don't think 'Force' is a meaningful word if it stretches that broadly.)

The Second reason has to do with Flexibility. The idea of being flexible implies that there is something to be 'flexed.' In 'whole hog' No Myth gamemastering, there is nothing, absolutely nothing, to be flexed. This is because either the 'any big fight ending' is totally inflexible or who is involved in that fight is utterly open. (You don't even know those characters exist, potentially, even half way through the game!) Due to the confusion over what is or is not flexibility and what is or is not 'a use of Force' (because of the 'story' in "story-impacting decisions"), I'd have to say that calling it Illusionism or Pariticpationism really undercuts any true understanding of what it does. I'd go so far as to say that I couldn't even put it on the same graph due to certain inherent implications of being on that graph.

All of this also comes right back around to what I commented was a problem with the "Players' Authorship Spectrum." Once again we get back to the confusion over what a "story-impacting decision." Is it a "story-impacting decision" to take offense at a particular non-player character so much so that they wind up the villain in the final confrontation or is it whether to have a final confrontation at all? I'd say that 'choosing your own foes' only by one's actions, is pretty much 'unconscious authorship' at it's finest (and it could also be done consciously too, if you like; it doesn't affect No Myth gamemastering in the least). So in No Myth gamemastering, you see a lot of conscious and unconscious "player authorship" as well as the gamemaster as 'architect' of the highly abstracted story (he's running this 'crisis-climax-resolution-denouement;' and perhaps a little more specific, but certainly not who's whom in the story).

Does that help in understanding the comparisons? (I hope so, 'cuz I'm not feeling all that coherent this morning.)

Fang Langford

'K, I said one of those boxes was a bad idea. So, naturally, I made one anyway.

[code]
High | |
| Background-based | No Myth
| |
Storyline |--------------------|-------------------
Flexibility | |
| Participationism | Illusionism
| |
Low |--------------------|------------------- High
Environmental Flexibility
[/code]

Hmmm...doesn't seem to have broken anything.

Technically, it should probably be a four corner gradient instead of restrictive little boxes...but that seemed a little hard to do on the keyboard.

Cross posted with you Fang.

I'll say that initially I agreed fully with you that No Myth is wholy different from Illusionism/Participationism, hence why I put it on the other side of the story authorship spectrum entirely. I still think of it as the complete opposite of Participationism (if opposites even exist).

Thinking about it a little more from the perspective of how the gming styles may actually play out (in terms of choices made, rather than the thought process the gm used to make those choices), I think it might in fact be a very easy Transition between No Myth and Illusionism - giving them some common ties.

My new little chart left Force out entirely...don't know how I feel about it yet.

I'm gonna digest what you said, and maybe have a more coherent reply after I've slept.

I don't think this works at all. Y'see No Myth gamemastering is highly inflexible about storyline except the details of it. Y'know 'boy-meets-girl, girl-likes-boy, girl-has-problem-boy-must-help-fix, boy-and-girl-misunderstand-how-they-relate, and boy-and-girl-solve-problem-and-relationship' is iron clad, rock solid bedrock for a 'romance novel' No Myth gamemastering; what the 'problem' is or even who the 'boy' is are totally flexible, but not the that there is a problem or how the relationship ends.

Furthermore Illusionism and Participationism must both be in the same box on this grid; the only difference between them is whether the use of Force is Covert or not (and how willing the players are to 'going along with it'); they are both as flexible or inflexible about the environment as desired.

Still, a very informative try. It underscores much of the thinking I have left to do in terms of describing gamemastering and Transition. Thanks for all the work.

Fang Langford

I quite like the grid. Very interesting. It's got me thinking.

-Marco

Even if this works (and I'm not arguing either way), there are other spectra that are going to create more planes in this N-dimensional space. You at least have to consider the Obviousness of the Force being used. That is, No Myth is obvious as everyone participates in it. But the No Myth sort of play could be done surreptitiously leading to end-loaded Illusionism instead (IntCon).

See the threads on Illusionism for all the methods that use Force (ironically).

Mike

I've got a couple minutes of post-work/pre-game time, so I'll be kinda terse, but...

I was thinking (on the second chart) that the storyline flexibility refers to 'how what you've got interacts' and that the evironmental flexiblility refers to 'how much you've got and how rigidly you define where you put it (background/setting/npcs/etc)'.

Le Joueur wrote: I don't think this works at all. Y'see No Myth gamemastering is highly inflexible about storyline except the details of it. Y'know 'boy-meets-girl, girl-likes-boy, girl-has-problem-boy-must-help-fix, boy-and-girl-misunderstand-how-they-relate, and boy-and-girl-solve-problem-and-relationship' is iron clad, rock solid bedrock for a 'romance novel' No Myth gamemastering; what the 'problem' is or even who the 'boy' is are totally flexible, but not the that there is a problem or how the relationship ends.

Le Joueur wrote: Furthermore Illusionism and Participationism must both be in the same box on this grid; the only difference between them is whether the use of Force is Covert or not (and how willing the players are to 'going along with it'); they are both as flexible or inflexible about the environment as desired.

Fang, after re-reading I think the arguement in your first post hinged on linking the Force spectrum to the Myth of Reality spectrum. The first chart was just kind of a thought process map, not something you were actually supposed to be able to plot a point on. (I made a flippant apples/oranges comment, but didn't really explain this adequately). Only look at one end at a time, not both. Also, as far as No Myth not being representable on the GM/Player authorship spectrum I meant the spectrum to be the 'GM authors story' versus 'players control actions of protagonists' spectrum. Something else I did not clearly define.

Thinking about the second chart Fang, you're right it won't work. Because I think my definition of Illusionism was too narrow (end loaded Illusionism)...leading to the disagreement about No Myth and its relationship to Illusionism. Mike pointed this out, but it took me a while to realize.

*****

Well, the little box is still probably a bad idea, but I went ahead and made another attempt.

[code]
High | |
| Pinball | No Myth
| |
Storyline |--------------------|-------------------
Flexibility | |
| Rollercoasterism | IntCon
| |
Low |--------------------|------------------- High
Environmental Flexibility
[/code]
I chose to change plotless background-based to Pinball, because it's the same thing in my mind and it was less to type (I don't think it needs to be Sim).

I'm using Rollercoasterism for Participationism/Illusionism in the sense of everything predefined, where the only difference between styles is the Overt-ness of Force. I've chosen to do this so I don't have to type 'Participationism/Illusionism' more than I have to.

IntCon on the chart could be end-loaded Illusionism or end-loaded Participationism. What I mean is that there are certain plot developments that the GM has preordained will happen, but he's more than willing to move things around (who the scenes happen with, where clues are, what's behind door #3) to insure that the plot unfolds how it was preordained without forcing the players to take particular actions. This is what I originally meant when I said Illusionism. I could still have the wrong terminology for this play style; I can accept that - just let me know.

I may be misunderstanding No Myth still (boy, that would be sad). If so, replace No Myth with Improvisational on the chart and consider No Myth in the box with IntCon or squarely between No Myth and IntCon (whatever is most correct).

Another thing Mike pointed (a lot of punch in that little reply), this newest box only discusses flexibility. Covert/Overt and Consensual/Non-consensual are now completely left out. I'm not conviced Flexibility and Force are opposite terms for the same spectrum, but for the moment I'm going to treat them as such. So, now all we've got on chart three is the application of GM Force split into two entities: 'what happens' and 'what you've got'.

*****

I'm going to throw out some blanket statements based on chart three and see if things hold up.

*****

Traditional modules tend to encourage Rollercoasterism because modules tend to include both environmental and storyline elements. This predefinition leads to an assumption that the correct way to play a module is to include all the elements of a module. Hence flexibility is lowered on both the storyline and environment planes.

Detail heavy setting source books are a sort of module for Pinball play. If you choose to add an inflexible storyline using a setting source book, you'll end up running in a Rollercoaster style.

A Transition from Rollercoaster to Pinball requires abandoning planned scenes. A Transition from Pinball to No Myth requires a willingness to alter unencountered setting elements when player input suggests something better (or more desired). Transitioning from Rollercoasterism to IntCon requires a similar Transition to the Pinball-No Myth Transition: a willingness to alter setting elements, however now the decision to change setting elements is based on preserving the preordained storyline as opposed to feeding off player input. Transitioning from IntCon to No Myth means simply abandoning planned scenes, just like the Rollercoaster-Pinball Transition. That covers lowering Force Transitions. Transitions in the other direction required adding the elements forsaken in the previous statements.

You might increase Force vertically or horizontally when the players have become reactive, and the game is going to slow to a halt unless something happens. You might decrease Force vertically when the Impossible Thing dysfunction creeps up on you. You might decrease Force horizontally when setting dynamism is required to maintain either the GM's storyline, or the setting has become a cage that the players can no longer interact with and expect the story to proceed.

A diagonal leap is asking for dysfunction. Transitioning directly from Pinball to IntCon means taking control of the story while simultaneously removing the point of Pinball play - to interact with the setting. Transitioning from No Myth to Rollercoasterism mid-game seems impossible, you can't all of the sudden have everything preplanned when you had nothing a moment ago. Transitioning directly from IntCon to Pinball again seems impossible, you'd have to conjure the detailed environment out of your butt. Transitioning from Rollercoasterism to No Myth means abandoning everything you'd planned, this seems the most possible, but would most likely lead to the players staring at the GM blankly wondering what to do because he switched from expecting total reactive play to expecting proactive play.

*****

That's all for now...not sure if this hold up, but I guess I'll find out.

I chose to change plotless background-based to Pinball, because it's the same thing in my mind and it was less to type (I don't think it needs to be Sim).

Mike Holmes wrote: A couple of notes. First, come up with a better name for Pinball, please. I've regretted using it since the first time I did. Open Play is what I've used, but that must be too generic as it's not stuck. Maybe you can come up with something better.

Mike Holmes wrote: As to the problems with other axes, yousee it here with the latest model. For example, IMO, the difference between IntCon and No Myth is Obviousness, not storyline flexibility. IntCon in being end-loaded is all about the storyline flexibility. Also, some IntCon is heavy on the environment, FWIW. For that spot (low story flex, high environmental flex), I'd put in a certain type of No Myth play that was heavy into the pre-plotting. Sounds contradictory, but it's not, really. You can pre-plot No Myth a lot by just stating what sort of events will happen. In fact that might even be default.

I think that we're going to have a lot of problems with finding individual styles for some of these because they are rarely played, and the terms that exist cover ranges on multiple spectra. Thus I'd say that there's Inflexible Plot No Myth, and Flexible Plot No Myth.

Mike Holmes wrote: Worse, as one shifts between these, as one will, it becomes hard to say when one stops and the other begins. These terms become mostly useful in speaking about what a game promotes, or how actual play tends to go in at least session sized chunks (like Ron's Instances of Play). We can say that at one moment the GM was being more Flexible, Forceful, Obvious, etc, but does that constitute a style, at that point? Not sure.