Illusionism: Where Do You Stand?

[payn]

You can get away with anything these days if you wear a high-vis jacket and carry a clipboard.

 

[bloodtide]

I'm big in favor of Illusioniusm and Railroading. It is simple enough: the game Story Plot is ARTIFICIAL. It's not real. It can not exist with out the guiding hand of the DM. It's a huge part of the DMs job.

Some people will say a great game is where everyone sits around and does nothing...and sure that's fine for some. Most people do what events to happen in game play.

And this is the Quantum Ogre part. It simply makes no sense that players in a game would avoid an encounter. Having encounters is a huge part of a typical RPG.

Now...yes....if you get into DEEP IMMERSION DEEP STORYTELLING it can make some story sense for some characters to avoid some encounters SOMETIMES. But this in no way is a common thing. And at least HALF of the time when characters "try" to avoid an encounter....it still happens.

You can look to any fiction...like movies or TV shows. You might notice that the characters ALWAYS have "an encounter". Whatever the characters do....bam..encounter. Even for a "slow episode" where like a character goes to the DMV....amazingly beyond belief...some guy with a beef vs the DMV and a bomb will "just show up". Of course, everything is written this way.

Encounters are made to happen.

 

[pointofyou]

I'm big in favor of Illusioniusm and Railroading. It is simple enough: the game Story Plot is ARTIFICIAL. It's not real. It can not exist with out the guiding hand of the DM. It's a huge part of the DMs job.

Some people will say a great game is where everyone sits around and does nothing...and sure that's fine for some. Most people do what events to happen in game play.

And this is the Quantum Ogre part. It simply makes no sense that players in a game would avoid an encounter. Having encounters is a huge part of a typical RPG.

Now...yes....if you get into DEEP IMMERSION DEEP STORYTELLING it can make some story sense for some characters to avoid some encounters SOMETIMES. But this in no way is a common thing. And at least HALF of the time when characters "try" to avoid an encounter....it still happens.

You can look to any fiction...like movies or TV shows. You might notice that the characters ALWAYS have "an encounter". Whatever the characters do....bam..encounter. Even for a "slow episode" where like a character goes to the DMV....amazingly beyond belief...some guy with a beef vs the DMV and a bomb will "just show up". Of course, everything is written this way.

Encounters are made to happen.

No one who has read any other post of yours about GMing would be at all surprised by anything you say in this one.

 

[MichaelSomething]

No one who has read any other post of yours about GMing would be at all surprised by anything you say in this one.

Better the devil you know then the devil you don't?

 

[pemerton]

A lot of illusionism - or advocacy for illusionism - seems to rest on a premise that all the "engine" for play has to come from the GM.

That can be the case, but it doesn't have to be the case.

 

[DammitVictor]

As a matter of fact, I do see it as very similar to fudging the dice: it's a very simple and convenient tool for keeping the game going in the direction you want it to go, until your players notice it. And another way it's a lot like fudging the dice is, once your players have caught you doing it, there's nothing you can do to rebuild their trust that their decisions matter in the game. All of the tension, dramatic and otherwise, is sucked out of it, and probably your next game, too.

All of your authority as an umpire derives from the players' belief that the decisions they make, in and out of character, are what matters most. All of it. Anything that undermines that belief undermines your authority to run the game and your capacity to give your players the kind of experience you're putting your thumb on the scale to deliver.

 

[TheSword]

All of your authority as an umpire derives from the players' belief that the decisions they make, in and out of character, are what matters most. All of it. Anything that undermines that belief undermines your authority to run the game and your capacity to give your players the kind of experience you're putting your thumb on the scale to deliver.

The DMs authority derives from the players willingness to sit at the table and participate.

In my experience players are never bothered by illusionism with things that they benefit from.

- Example 1: The player decides to use a glaive as a weapon - an unusual weapon in that campaign world. The DM changes the way he has written an encounter to have an enemy use a magical glaive that the PC takes instead of the long sword he originally intended. Later on in the campaign the DM changes a mace in the dragons treasure into a more powerful glaive. Or is the DM required to stick to a distribution of
weapons that make sense/randomise the results/stick to the pre-written text?

- Example 2: The DM has a pre published module they intend to run. That module will include various encounters but it starts with a tavern brawl. This encounter doesn’t need to be keyed to any particular tavern but without it the PCs won’t be part of that module. The DM has that brawl take place in whichever next tavern the PCs visit. Should the GM skip this section because the party don’t elect to stop at a specific tavern?

 

[Committed Hero]

For me, illusionism is bad for a completely different reason. It says that the GM doesn't trust the players and wants to deceive them. It's bad because it breaks trust, not because it railroads.
....
If you trust your players and talk about the story, you never need Illusionism. You don't offer them a pair of heels and a pair of Birkenstocks and only accept the latter. You DEFINITELY don't offer both and kick them out of the kingdom no matter which they choose. You just trust them to get kicked out of the kingdom via their own choices.

How does this apply to the ogre, especially if the players don't know one is lurking up ahead?

 

[MGibster]

I'm big in favor of Illusioniusm and Railroading. It is simple enough: the game Story Plot is ARTIFICIAL. It's not real. It can not exist with out the guiding hand of the DM. It's a huge part of the DMs job.

This is where I am. I don't believe I railroad players, rather I set up the situation, I know exactly what's going to happen if the player's don't interfere, and I leave them free to decide how best to handle things. Like I said earlier in the thread, it's only railroading if you don't allow players to make meaningful choices. If I want to introduce an adventure hook, it's necessary for me to contrive a situation where it's introduced. Instead of ogres, maybe it's a merchant with a broken wagon. It doesn't matter which direction the PCs go in, they're going to encounter this merchant, but it's up to them what they do at this point.

And this is the Quantum Ogre part. It simply makes no sense that players in a game would avoid an encounter. Having encounters is a huge part of a typical RPG.

You would think so, but I've had occasion to see my players avoid encounters and plot hooks during campaigns and even strangers at one-shots at my local gaming store. In my Hell on Earth Campaign, the PCs were out on a mission when they discovered evidence that their city's two main enemies, mutants and cyborgs, were working together. They had a brief discussion amongst themselves, and one of them turned to me and said, "This isn't what we're here for, we continue on our way." I accepted their decision of course, but I'm a consequences GM, and their lack of action meant their city didn't have adequate warning that their enemies had formed an alliance and in combination with their other decisions the campaign ended with a pyrrhic victory. They exiled the big bad evil spirits from Earth but their city was utterly destroyed in the process.

 

[Reynard]

This is where I am. I don't believe I railroad players, rather I set up the situation, I know exactly what's going to happen if the player's don't interfere, and I leave them free to decide how best to handle things. Like I said earlier in the thread, it's only railroading if you don't allow players to make meaningful choices. If I want to introduce an adventure hook, it's necessary for me to contrive a situation where it's introduced. Instead of ogres, maybe it's a merchant with a broken wagon. It doesn't matter which direction the PCs go in, they're going to encounter this merchant, but it's up to them what they do at this point.


You would think so, but I've had occasion to see my players avoid encounters and plot hooks during campaigns and even strangers at one-shots at my local gaming store. In my Hell on Earth Campaign, the PCs were out on a mission when they discovered evidence that their city's two main enemies, mutants and cyborgs, were working together. They had a brief discussion amongst themselves, and one of them turned to me and said, "This isn't what we're here for, we continue on our way." I accepted their decision of course, but I'm a consequences GM, and their lack of action meant their city didn't have adequate warning that their enemies had formed an alliance and in combination with their other decisions the campaign ended with a pyrrhic victory. They exiled the big bad evil spirits from Earth but their city was utterly destroyed in the process.

I don't see how this is illusionism.