innerdude
Legend
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"?
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"?