The Forge Archives

I was posting this as a reply to Does Module Play Equal Participationism? when I realised it should split off into it's own thread.

Quote#3 (Flexibility)
= how flexible the outcome is permitted to be. The GM in question might be the kind who'll do anything up to actually picking up your dice for you in order for you to talk to "that guy," or he might be the kind who's happy to let the characters miss the clue, either 'porting it to another character or letting its absence go ahead and affect the outcome.

Part of where we seem to differ here is MJ has stated that in Particpationism only allows the players to provide color to the narrative, where as I see it, there is this flexibility axis which can be turned up and down during play. Which means that the GM can allow the players to make decisions for their character involving the plot, and this will effect the outcome of the story, possibly changing the plot the GM had in mind.

Hrms way I see it, we can keep naming the possibly combinations of these particular switches and dials and see play as drifting from one style to another or we can recognize the switches and dial as such and note when a switch is turn on or off or when a dial is adjusted.

It seems to me that the Flexibility dial tends to function in direct relation to the Force dial. If the GM is being flexible, he is not using much Force. If the GM is using force, he is not being very flexible. This may actually be one dial, then. The over/covert element is a switch. I can't see how it would move up and down. Either the players realize the GM has the right to exert Force or they don't.

I will stop here to allow for comments.

I don't have much to say other than I absolutely agree...hence chart number three in this here thread.

This makes sense.  I'm not entirely sure overt/covert is a switch, though.  A GM might openly fudge rolls (36 damage.  You're dead?  I meant 26 damage *wink*) but change the identity of the murderer in response to player theorising.  Overt GM force w/r/t some elements but not others, and possibly in the same scene - e.g. there are three villians, dice rolls are openly fudged and the last villian standing turns out the be the Chief Villain.

There seems to be at least a trinary system: overt, covert and mixed.

Well they are spectra, Ian. Never meant to be binary. When I made the classifications I did say that one can only say that one was tending towards this or that to be accurate.

In general, yes, I think that Jack is right in that we should really refer to the spectra themselves when refering to particcular instances. It only becomes useful to look at the "isms" when looking at what Ron calls an "Instance of Play" that is, somthing more on the order of an entire game or at least a session. Portions of sessions at the smallest.

Thus we'd say that Participationism is a tendency to use Overt, Forceful, etc.

Trailblazing would then be using Overt Force to get to certain points and allow the players to complete the "module" section themselves (no Force).

Etc.

Mike