The Forge Archives

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.

Quote from: DaGreatJLSo, 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?  

Well, there are those who claim that a prepared plotline isn't particularly inflexible.  Notably, Theatrix is very insistant that a prepared plot actually serves as a skeleton for flexible play.  Preparing a plot doesn't mean that play needs to always conform to that plot -- it just means that you have it on hand for reference.  From their point of view, the important point is that you know what your story is about.  i.e. Rather than just being a fixed series of encounters, it needs to have story logic behind it.  What is the twist which defines the midpoint? What is the conflict that needs to be resolved? etc.  

So you prepare a plot, but you accept that player action may change the plot.  The idea is that having your original story idea as a model helps you come up with new-but-related story ideas if PC action changes things -- at least better than having no preparation at all.  

I'm not entirely convinced, but certainly it is at least true that having a prepared plot doesn't totally negate flexibility.  I've twice run the AD&D Ravenloft modules with fairly flexible results, for example.

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

Quote from: DaGreatJLIt 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?

Functional Illusionism and Participationism play are just two ends of one spectrum of play styles that me and Fang been colloquially referring to as rollercoasterism.  The GM uses force (either covert or overt) to guide the story, and the use of force is consensual/consensual-ness unknown.  The game does run on rails, but isn't technically railroaded because everybody agrees that's how the game is supposed to be played (railroaded play is non-consensual use of force; force that violates the social contract).

By my definition, because you're using force to control the plot you must be rollercoaster-ing it, which means you must be playing Illusionism, Participationism, or many of the grey areas that exist along the cover/overt force spectrum.  So, my short answers are:  Yes it'll move that way; yes it could be functional if it doesn't, but you wouldn't be playing that way anymore.

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.

Quote from: DaGreatJLSo, 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?

My answers to your questions are, in order "It sounds like it" and "I imagine so."

If the GM has a fully pre-written story, as you say, then you're dealing with the GM as chief storyteller here. If the players decide to not go along with what the GM has prepared and the GM is unable or unwilling to be flexible about it, then you've got a recipe for disfunction. 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.

Quote from: crucielMJ 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

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.

Quote from: Jack Spencer JrPossibly 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.

I definately think you're right.  The rollercoaster is over on the gm side of the gm authors story/players author story spectrum.

Quote from: Jack Spencer JrKeeping 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.

Heh, sounds better than bound-and-gagged-and-left-in-the-teacups-ism.

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?

Quote from: DaGreatJLThe 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?

If you're the guy who thinks he can solve it, then you're going to have to GM the envelope-pushing.  Assuming that...

1. Try a game that doesn't permit this sort of expectation, by its very nature, e.g. InSpectres, and drive toward Narrativism through No Myth sorts of devices.

2. For a radical alternative, try a REALLY hard-wired module from AD&D2 or something like, set it up pure Gamist, but keep the module at a distance from yourself.  So the object is now mutual: the goal is to break the module, with you sticking to the letter of the law.  That is, if they find a way to break it, and there isn't a clear indication of what you as GM are supposed to do about it, you give them a pat on the back and a treat, and then propose that as players not characters everybody shift back a few steps, delete the door that led to the breakage, and move on from there.

I could think of other ways, I suppose, but here's what I think needs to happen.

First, they've got to stop thinking of the scenario as equivalent to the GM.

Second, they've got to think outside their characters, and allow that to matter.

Once they see that this allows all kinds of fun, you can throw them into your favorite Sorcerer or whatever thing and see what happens.

I don't actually know if version 2 would work, but it sure as hell sounds like fun to me, in a weird sort of way.  Am I just a nut?  (I mean, I'm a nut, but am I just a nut?)

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

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.

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.

QuoteSo, 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.

In this case, no, it won't.

The fanatic worship of The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast not only limits funtional play in an area with LOTS and LOTS of gamers (this is an economically depressed area, with many businesses going under; the gaming shop is one of the few that's in the black), but it is killing the local campus gaming club, which in the past has brought together gamers numbering in the hundreds. I don't want to lose that.

QuoteYou 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.

You assume the direct approach is the only way. One idea I've had was to try and write a game that was explictly Participationist. The game is poorly written, mostly because I never intended it to be played, but rather to convey a point. (It's on the 24 hour game newsgroup). By showing people the game, I hope to get them to ask me "why?"; in the process of discussion, this hypothetical person would perceive the illusionist/participationist assumptions in the way they perceive the GM's role, which would bring them a step closer to realizing the ITBB is impossible. I'm looking for other ways to help lead people to these realizations.[/url]

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

Quote from: Mike HolmesJack, 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.

Ah, I see. Interesting. But unlikely to cause much of a stir. Good luck, I say again. What bothers me is the idea of trying to save the world, or just the local gaming club and the local gaming business in this case. I have my doubt on being to reach everybody. My experience has shown gamers to be reactionary when it comes to new ideas or suggestions for play. What he has already described leads me to the conclusion that the bulk of the gaming club's membership is like this. He may find a few people willing to explore and build a group out of them, and it will go from there. It won't be happening over night in either case.