On "Illusionism" (+)

[Pedantic]

I think there is also an element of wanting the PCs to succeed and press on with the campaign story no matter what. So, it becomes, "oh YES YOU DID!" Maybe this is lack of system knowledge and/or GMing experience, but some folks just wont except a failure state and/or TPK campaign end.

How does timing enter into the question? Does it matter at all?

Generally speaking, I'm very concerned with player agency and wouldn't appreciate either of the scenarios I'm about to introduce, but I do think one shows more disregard for player decision making than the other.

The thing you're discussing above, is that the GM has conceived of a story, and could give you a list of events that will occur. "The PCs defeat the orc captain, journey to the warcamp detailed on the map he was carrying where they are captured and must break out," for example, is a set of events the GM can absolutely force into occurring, by moving the warcamp to wherever the PCs go if they ignore the map, by ensuring they cannot defeat the necessary rolls when captured, etc. etc. That level of obvious railroad feels like very basic and bad GMing for sure, but it does give the players some ability to wiggle around the story. They can't adjust the timeline of events that the GM has decided will occur, but they can mess with the connective tissue, heading straight for the warcamp, sidelining to a different location, fighting when they get captured, surrendering immediately, etc.

The other option that I find even more distasteful, is the GM deciding the next event that occurs without a script. In that case, the GM is spooling out a plot purely in reaction to events as they play out. That has all the problems as above, but creates an even less consistent/interactive world, because there's no real relationship between the choices the players make and the resulting situation at all. I suppose it's the same principle as above, but with the illusion in "illusionism" stripped away to leave actual nothing but someone telling a story about a character you nominally control.

 

[amethal]

How does timing enter into the question? Does it matter at all?

Generally speaking, I'm very concerned with player agency and wouldn't appreciate either of the scenarios I'm about to introduce, but I do think one shows more disregard for player decision making than the other.

The thing you're discussing above, is that the GM has conceived of a story, and could give you a list of events that will occur. "The PCs defeat the orc captain, journey to the warcamp detailed on the map he was carrying where they are captured and must break out," for example, is a set of events the GM can absolutely force into occurring, by moving the warcamp to wherever the PCs go if they ignore the map, by ensuring they cannot defeat the necessary rolls when captured, etc. etc. That level of obvious railroad feels like very basic and bad GMing for sure, but it does give the players some ability to wiggle around the story. They can't adjust the timeline of events that the GM has decided will occur, but they can mess with the connective tissue, heading straight for the warcamp, sidelining to a different location, fighting when they get captured, surrendering immediately, etc.

The other option that I find even more distasteful, is the GM deciding the next event that occurs without a script. In that case, the GM is spooling out a plot purely in reaction to events as they play out. That has all the problems as above, but creates an even less consistent/interactive world, because there's no real relationship between the choices the players make and the resulting situation at all. I suppose it's the same principle as above, but with the illusion in "illusionism" stripped away to leave actual nothing but someone telling a story about a character you nominally control.

I would never run an adventure where the PCs will get captured whatever they do. (I have run a campaign which started with all the PCs in prison, but this was explained in advance and all the players agreed to it.) If I was a player in such a game, I would probably quit.

I'm not sure I understand your second option. Lots of things happen in the world which have nothing to do with the PCs' actions, and GMs often have to improvise.

Are you saying that the PCs are wandering through the jungle when the GM suddenly decides it will be fun if they get captured by orcs, so makes sure it happens? It's the "captured by orcs, whatever you do" that annoys me, regardless of whether it was planned in advance.

 

[ilgatto]

Well, I've never heard of the term "illusionism" but I do like to offer players a game choice that appears to matter but which does not in fact matter as to whatever goal they think they need to achieve.
However, I do not do this to railroad the party or otherwise take away their agency. Rather, I use all manner of agents and ways to present them with information that is either true in and of itself but not necessarily essential for their goal, or believed to be true by the one who delivers the information. Thus, the players remain free to decide on their course of action, based on the information they have, even though only some of that information may actually be "true".
Now, the trick to using this tactic without the party getting angry if and when they find out that they've "been had" is to use what I suppose you call "layered illusionism" - i.e., that the discovery that they've been had actually leads to a piece of important (and true) information relevant to achieving their goal they didn't have earlier.
While this may sound complicated, I usually find it not to be that hard, especially since players tend to be quite at good at making themselves believe things when they are discussing events and ideas. A nod here, a look there, a raised eyebrow will often serve quite nicely. No agency taken.

 

[Pedantic]

Well, I've never heard of the term "illusionism" but I do like to offer players a game choice that appears to matter but which does not in fact matter as to whatever goal they think they need to achieve.
However, I do not do this to railroad the party or otherwise take away their agency. Rather, I use all manner of agents and ways to present them with information that is either true in and of itself but not necessarily essential for their goal, or believed to be true by the one who delivers the information. Thus, the players remain free to decide on their course of action, based on the information they have, even though only some of that information may actually be "true".
Now, the trick to using this tactic without the party getting angry if and when they find out that they've "been had" is to use what I suppose you call "layered illusionism" - i.e., that the discovery that they've been had actually leads to a piece of important (and true) information relevant to achieving their goal they didn't have earlier.
While this may sound complicated, I usually find it not to be that hard, especially since players tend to be quite at good at making themselves believe things when they are discussing events and ideas. A nod here, a look there, a raised eyebrow will often serve quite nicely. No agency taken.

I don't think that's illusionism at all, as we're discussing it here, that's just...world color? Not everything happening in the setting can be immediately relevant to what the players are doing, and it absolutely makes NPCs more compelling if they aren't completely informed and/or have motivations/interests outside of whatever the PCs are doing.

If anything, it's kind of the exact opposite. It would be illusionism to ensure that literally everyone the party speaks to has some bearing on whatever hook they're chasing. There's a definitely a risk there though, something I see a lot in new players, where they don't differentiate from the GM providing information about the world, and the GM acting as an NPC.

I have found it useful to occasionally just specify exactly what I'm doing, clarifying when I'm providing information based on the character's senses and accumulated knowledge, and when I'm a person, sometimes by specifically adopting the 2nd or 3rd person for the former and 1st person for the latter. Eventually most players key in to the difference.

 

[Celebrim]

Well, I've never heard of the term "illusionism" but I do like to offer players a game choice that appears to matter but which does not in fact matter as to whatever goal they think they need to achieve.

I wasn't able to gather from your post enough about your process of play to evaluate what you are doing.

Illusionism is an out game of technique occurring largely at the meta level. Some game rules explicitly endorse it, but it's still out of game because it's based not on the considerations of the fiction ("What is mostly likely to happen here?") but on considerations of the game ("What does the story/game need to have happen?").

Illusionism is not an in game technique. For example, if you have in the fiction a con artist that wants to manipulate the player characters and that con artist gives the characters false information about the setting that the players act on, that is not illusionism. Likewise, if a player makes a "Spout Lore" type roll about the history of the world, and you tell that player the most commonly accepted account of historical events knowing that the account everyone believes is actually false - for example, it may be a campaign level secret that the King was usurped by his twin brother and the guy on the throne is actually Philip while the true king has been turned into a toad - that's not illusionism. It's perfectly fine to lie to the player character in that case because everyone in the kingdom think Louis is in the throne and the player would have no way of knowing otherwise. That's also not illusionism.

It's not illusionism therefore to force the players to act on partial and possibly incorrect information. Real life works the same way.

It would be illusionism however to decide what is true in the fiction only after the players have made their choice in order to achieve some effect. And, this I think obviously takes away player agency.

In other words, it's alright for your game to have secrets and mysteries, but it's not alright to use the players lack of information to control them as a GM. If an NPC can control them fine, but the PC's will have resources available to deal with that. Players however simply can't compete with the resources available to the GM, and if you as a GM don't limit your own resources then the players have no agency.

 

[Committed Hero]

First copper piece: Could the PCs have affected the 10 round + 3 round timeline? Depending on their knowledge and capabilities, it's certainly possible. If not, it's appropriate to adjust their arrival to what you thought dramatically interesting.

Which brings me to my second copper piece: you thought that timeline would be optimal, and it turned out to be the case. I think a GM should earn the benefit of the doubt if they run a good game.

 

[ilgatto]

I wasn't able to gather from your post enough about your process of play to evaluate what you are doing.

Illusionism is an out game of technique occurring largely at the meta level. Some game rules explicitly endorse it, but it's still out of game because it's based not on the considerations of the fiction ("What is mostly likely to happen here?") but on considerations of the game ("What does the story/game need to have happen?").

Illusionism is not an in game technique. For example, if you have in the fiction a con artist that wants to manipulate the player characters and that con artist gives the characters false information about the setting that the players act on, that is not illusionism. Likewise, if a player makes a "Spout Lore" type roll about the history of the world, and you tell that player the most commonly accepted account of historical events knowing that the account everyone believes is actually false - for example, it may be a campaign level secret that the King was usurped by his twin brother and the guy on the throne is actually Philip while the true king has been turned into a toad - that's not illusionism. It's perfectly fine to lie to the player character in that case because everyone in the kingdom think Louis is in the throne and the player would have no way of knowing otherwise. That's also not illusionism.

It's not illusionism therefore to force the players to act on partial and possibly incorrect information. Real life works the same way.

It would be illusionism however to decide what is true in the fiction only after the players have made their choice in order to achieve some effect. And, this I think obviously takes away player agency.

In other words, it's alright for your game to have secrets and mysteries, but it's not alright to use the players lack of information to control them as a GM. If an NPC can control them fine, but the PC's will have resources available to deal with that. Players however simply can't compete with the resources available to the GM, and if you as a GM don't limit your own resources then the players have no agency.

I don't think that's illusionism at all, as we're discussing it here, that's just...world color? Not everything happening in the setting can be immediately relevant to what the players are doing, and it absolutely makes NPCs more compelling if they aren't completely informed and/or have motivations/interests outside of whatever the PCs are doing.

If anything, it's kind of the exact opposite. It would be illusionism to ensure that literally everyone the party speaks to has some bearing on whatever hook they're chasing. There's a definitely a risk there though, something I see a lot in new players, where they don't differentiate from the GM providing information about the world, and the GM acting as an NPC.

I have found it useful to occasionally just specify exactly what I'm doing, clarifying when I'm providing information based on the character's senses and accumulated knowledge, and when I'm a person, sometimes by specifically adopting the 2nd or 3rd person for the former and 1st person for the latter. Eventually most players key in to the difference.

Ah. I see. I seem to have misunderstood. My apologies.

 

[Celebrim]

First copper piece: Could the PCs have affected the 10 round + 3 round timeline? Depending on their knowledge and capabilities, it's certainly possible. If not, it's appropriate to adjust their arrival to what you thought dramatically interesting.

So to give some details, the encounter took place in a sprawling megacity. The city is like in my head roughly the size of the California coast, as if a single city as densely populated at New York or Milan extended along a stretch of several hundred miles. It was never my intention to try to map out a city of such size. I had in my notes that the BBEG had at his beck and call an armed space freighter that was loitering somewhere nearby. Likewise, the PC's also had their own armed space freighter loitering somewhere nearby. The city has a massive amount of traffic and complicated traffic rules governing how all the aero-space traffic above the city is supposed to move. These rules and the complex grid of aerial traffic lanes were also something I was unwilling to try to map out the specifics of.

All I really had to go on was both groups would be trying to hang around nearby without being so near as to be noticeable. Given the speed at which ships can move (potentially in kilometers per second) that didn't have to be very close at all. So in my head these ships are hanging out unobtrusively in some sort of 'freeway' in the sky waiting for a call, but with me not being able to know with any certainty how far away they were or how long it would take them to respond to an SOS.

What I did know is that the NPC made the decision to SOS 3 rounds before the party did. I settled on 10 rounds as reasonable, and the 10+3 came from the fact that the PC's radio'd for help 3 rounds after the NPC's did. I did think that this was a more interesting choice than other numbers and I wasn't being completely unbiased, but I don't think that when you are improvising you can be completely unbiased.

Could the PC's have altered the timeline? Well, maybe. What I would have ruled is that the PC's could have gunned the engine and gone much faster, but that this would have been like doing 150 mph on the Los Angeles freeway. There would have been skill checks involved and the likely consequences of failure would have been collisions with civilian vehicles and the PC's getting sued for more money than they have, which would have made their Guild really unhappy with them and probably resulted in the PC's indentured servitude. As it happens, the PC's didn't really probe me for alternatives to get there faster. I don't know if this is because they didn't think they could alter the timeline, or because earlier they had attempted a high speed chase of the BBEG through the skyline and had nearly smashed into some families and commuters in small air cars and one of their stray blaster shots blew up the outer wall of apartment on a skyscraper and scared the crap out of the inhabitants - which they ended up having to pay for. So they may have just figured that they weren't under enough time pressure the be worth pressing through traffic as they had previously learned a (comparatively) gigantic spaceship isn't the best thing to use in a high-speed chase through a city.

 

[Emberashh]

My philosophy tends to be more towards sandboxy simulation. The gameworld has its own agency only slightly less equal to that of the players, in that it will bend a bit to follow the whims of the players, but it otherwise ticks on as if they don't exist so long as the players actions don't disrupt it.

Sure the party can decide to BAMF off the continent to be pirates, but eventually the dragons will come and lay waste regardless, and meanwhile the rival pirate who the party decided to focus on instead becomes an incredible BBEG.

Choices ultimately should have consequences if you want those choices to matter.

 

[Celebrim]

Ah. I see. I seem to have misunderstood. My apologies.

No need to apologize. I'm trying to explain a somewhat subtle concept and this was your first time exposed to it.