Illusionism: Where Do You Stand?

[innerdude]

Like @Umbran above, my position on illusionism is that it's unavoidable. It is, as stated, literally impossible for a GM to place every possible known "thing" in its exact correct "frame of existence" in its exact "timeline of action".

The very second a GM "extrapolates" something from existing notes + player actions + knock on effects of player actions, the GM is basically engaging in "illusionism" --- he or she is creating new in-fiction notes / factors / game states which are unknown to the characters and will remain unknown to the characters unless the characters engage in a very specific set of actions --- actions ultimately defined by the GM --- to uncover the revised game state(s).

And this is where my contention with "living world" proponents raises its head. "Living world" tenets say that this isn't illusionism. The mere act of creating/extrapolating new fiction states / notes doesn't remove "choice" from the players to then "go and explore what's there." You're not "forcing" new content on the players, you're simply "being true to the plausible state of the living world."

My issue with this thought process is that in "traditional" play culture, there's literally no process for deciding if players encounter any given game state / factor that isn't decided by the GM.

The only differentiator, as far as I can tell for something being illusionism vs. not illusionism, is the mind state of the GM as (s)he generates the extrapolated game states. "Well, I'm fully intending for this to adhere to living world principles, so it is not illusionism."

But consider the following very common scenario.

GM makes an extrapolation --- "I've decided, based on my extrapolations, that A, B, C, and D are the available action vectors through which the players can encounter game state factor X."

Okay. But what if as a GM I decide 10 minutes later, "Nope, nevermind, I'm now deciding that the available vectors to encounter game factor X are now D, E, F, and G."

So, how do you describe the process of what just happened?

Has the GM broken faith with the group? Is changing those factors badwrongfun illusionism? Once the GM decides something about the fiction state, it must necessarily remain that way forever until the GM decides that some other extrapolation / fiction frame has altered it?

Is it the GM's job to maintain absolute integrity to the previously devised fictional frame, even knowing that adhering to that decision will lead to hours of meaningless, boring gameplay, when revising the available player action vectors will provide much better overall gameplay, but "break faith" with the necessity of the illusion of a "living world"?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Across the board: don't like it as a player, almost never use it as a DM.

Absolutely agree. Players can't make real choices for their PCs if the world in play bends to accommodate the will of anyone, including the DM.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Random tables are not inherently better than the GM just deciding what the party face. The GM has still decided every single variable on the random table and what the likelihood of it happening is. It’s still illusionism just with a greater range of possibilities.

There is nothing wrong with players being magnets for interesting stuff in the area. The fact that this stuff just happens to find them everywhere they go is absolutely fine.

No campaign world can fill all the gaps, even fully fleshed sandboxes like Slumbering Tsar or Rappan Athuk with hundreds (if not thousands) of prebuilt locations. The DM still has to elaborate and decide when and how stuff happens and what happens in between those bits.

I use curated tables to fill in those gaps when needed.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm interested in whether you think this goal clashes with "be a fan of the PCs" - or if the latter is important at all in your eyes.

Being a fan of the PCs is a lower priority than neutral referee for me.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Is the GM making stuff up on the fly a form of illusionism? Cause making stuff up is vital for GMing.

 

[Reynard]

Is the GM making stuff up on the fly a form of illusionism? Cause making stuff up is vital for GMing.

Is there a functional difference between making stuff up on the fly and making it up 10 minutes, 10 hours, 10 days or even 10 years before?

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Is there a functional difference between making stuff up on the fly and making it up 10 minutes, 10 hours, 10 days or even 10 years before?

I would say no as long as, once the characters have interacted with it, it becomes fixed in the fiction.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Is the GM making stuff up on the fly a form of illusionism? Cause making stuff up is vital for GMing.

This is going to sound kind of odd, but I think it depends on sequence of events.

1. Party is wandering around in the forest. Picks one path in a split up ahead. GM decides its about time for something to happen, drops an encounter they made up right then and there. Not really illusionism (though can make it questionable whether the players' choice at the fork was meaningful).

2. Party is wondering in the forest. Decides the next time the players pick a path, that a particular encounter they've thought of will happen. Players try to listen and maybe scout the paths to avoid hitting any trouble. Encounter happens anyway. Very much illusionism (and probably railroading).

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Doesn't this want to be in the "Unpopular Opinions" thread?

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.

Today, perhaps.

In 1e as written, equal xp were gained for defeating or avoiding* an encounter, meaning the choice on how to approach it was a) completely in the hands of the players/PCs and b) many more options were available as the reward system didn't incent one over another.

Further, if your options come down to fighting an encounter and possibly-maybe-probably dying or sneaking past the encounter and not dying, the wise choice seems pretty clear.

* - if you knew it was there. No xp for avoiding something you never knew about.

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.

Thankfully, RPGs are not TV shows; and thus we don't need them to be all action all the time. We're not trying to attract viewers so as to sell ad space.

 

[Lanefan]

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?

If ruinning a canned module then IMO the DM should stick with the pre-written text. If it's a homebrew there's a bit more wiggle room, but if the magical glaive gets written in and then the glaive-user perma-dies before ever finding it, it's still a magical glaive in that treasure haul.

- 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?

This one's tricky, in that ideally a canned module doesn't rely on such a scene in the first place. If it does, then I'd say it's on the DM to drop a hook or two that draws the party to that specific tavern (could be something as simple as meeting a contact there), and then be ready with a backup adventure if they for whatever reason ignore the hooks and go somewhere else.