RPGs are ... Role Playing Games

[Raven Crowking]

Own the words. Make them yours.

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

 

[Fifth Element]

Doesn't matter. If you make the game harder in order to make it more exciting, that's illusionism too. Even if you don't make the game harder or easier, if you are deciding what is more awesome and secretly changing the unpainted part of your world in response to something out of game, that's still illusionism.

The problem I have with this definition is this. Say I have an adventure designed, and on the drive over to the game session, I see a billboard that makes me think of ogres for whatever reason, and decide that I should change the trolls I had originally planned on using into ogres, because I think it will work better.

This seems to fit your definition of illusionism. But to me that's just part of adventure design. I may change things around several times in an adventure before running it, and some changes are based on external sources of inspiration. When is the adventure set, such that any future change may be called illusionism?

I'm not entirely sure why they'd do that though, because every RPG is nothing more than a conceit among the players. Everything on some level is illusion. The game space is not real.

Indeed, and I certainly engage in (what I would call) illusionism at times in my games. It's just part of the DM's toolbox as far as I'm concerned. But if everything is illusionism on some level, doesn't that make it a meaningless distinction?

Did you tell the players that you only put mind flayers in the dungeon because one of them suggested it? If you didn't, then that's the heart and soul of illusionism.

Why would the source of inspiration matter? If I get an idea from a TV show or a book, what's the difference?

Perhaps there's still some confusion as to what I mean. If I change something to mind flayers, it's not like I describe the scene with trolls, and then one player says "You know what would be cool? Mind flayers!" and I say "Yeah, you're right! Let's make it mind flayers instead!" I'm talking about player comments (typically to other players) during the game that I use in the adventure design (not necessarily right away, it could be sessions later for adventures I hadn't designed yet at the time) because it sounds like a good idea.

I see illusionism as something like a magician's force - the illusion of choice. That's not what I was talking about.

 

[Celebrim]

No. No. Not at all. When players make meaningful choices, there is no illusionism. A game that does not rob players of those choices does not have illusionism.

I prefer a slightly broader definition of illusionism.

If you read the essay The Shaman linked to, you'll find my examples were a bit more broad than his. He attempted to limit illusionism solely to my example #1. That's fine, and if you want to stick to it, I'm not going to quibble over terminology - I'll invent the broader term. Rather than arguing over the use of terms, I'd just like to point out how the four examples I gave all do seem to have a common thread. I would argue that they all meet the classic definition of illusionism because they all in some way take away player choice. Some are just more subtle than others.

And on an even more basic level, simply because the game world is not real and the GM the authority in arbitrating what is in play, IMO it all hangs together on a certain amount of illusionism. Some forms of illusionism are quite subtle and there effect on player choice is equally subtle and difficult to define, but its always there in some form (IMO).

So, for the purposes of this discussion let's call things like the four examples I gave 'Hard Illusionism'. There exists I think 'Soft Illusionism' that is more or less inherent in the structure of a RPG and relates to two basic facts. First, that the DM's version of the imagined space is inherently more limited than a real space is. And secondly, that the game is intended to be fun. These constraints mean that the game is always employing various conciets in order to make it seem to the player that they have greater agency than they actually do and that the outcomes that the players are recieving are natural. Go any which way you want in GNS, and you find that at some level the style of gaming depends on an illusion. In gamism for example, IMO it depends on the illusion of fair competition.

Illusionsim is when players think they are making choices but in reality the outcome of those choices have been pre-determined by another player. (Currency does not play into this.)

Contrast this with participationism, where players realize that the choices they make don't matter, but they are willing to go along for the ride.

I agree with all of that. I'm not sure why you think it is corrective.

 

[Scribble]

edit: Illusionsim is when players think they are making choices but in reality the outcome of those choices have been pre-determined by another player. (Currency does not play into this.)

Contrast this with participationism, where players realize that the choices they make don't matter, but they are willing to go along for the ride.

I coin a new term!

Illusartinipatisim- A mixture of both!

 

[billd91]

Doesn't matter. If you make the game harder in order to make it more exciting, that's illusionism too. Even if you don't make the game harder or easier, if you are deciding what is more awesome and secretly changing the unpainted part of your world in response to something out of game, that's still illusionism.

The problem alot of people have is that they find a term like 'Illusionism' demeaning, so they immediately shy away from it and get all defensive - "I don't engage in illusionism. Not my game!" I'm not entirely sure why they'd do that though, because every RPG is nothing more than a conceit among the players. Everything on some level is illusion. The game space is not real.

<snip>

Did you tell the players that you only put mind flayers in the dungeon because one of them suggested it? If you didn't, then that's the heart and soul of illusionism.

I dunno. Over the course of even this brief discussion plus the link out to the other game blog, the use of illusionism seems to be drifting into broad territory. From the blog, it looks like illusionism is characterized by what my friends usually call quantum adventure design. It's the act of observing the encounter/location by the PCs that places it, usually because the DM wants to make sure something is found/encountered. Once placed, it stays put, but until actually observed it exists in some undefined state.
The illusion, in this case, is that the player choice of direction for exploration made the difference between finding the encounter/location when it was really the DM's choice.

But I'm not really seeing how adjusting some of the details of the encounter or location is illusionism just because it doesn't match intentions set down at a particular time. If I change a detail 2 days before the PCs encounter it, is it no longer illusionism? How about 5 seconds? How about between the time the encounter/situation starts and it is finally resolved?

If we get to the point where I'm changing things simply because the players want it to be so, validating their choices, then I think I can see that we're creating the illusion that their choices could be bad ones or lead to failure. But killing off the BBEG based on a player's good choice that simply doesn't do quite enough damage on the die roll? I'm not sure I really follow that as illusionism. I also wouldn't see any illusionism in changing a detail because, thanks to player input, the DM realizes his original plans were deficient or could be made better in general without removing any chance for the PCs to succeed or fail based on player choices.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I coin a new term!

Illusartinipatisim- A mixture of both!

No way am I going to attempt to say that!

 

[Celebrim]

The problem I have with this definition is this. Say I have an adventure designed, and on the drive over to the game session, I see a billboard that makes me think of ogres for whatever reason, and decide that I should change the trolls I had originally planned on using into ogres, because I think it will work better.

This seems to fit your definition of illusionism.

In my opinion it doesn't, and if it does, I'll need to refine my definition a little. There is something different going on here than in any of my four examples, and different from what I've been talking about.

When is the adventure set, such that any future change may be called illusionism?

To answer that question, let me dig into what I think the problem with illusionism is. The problem with illusionism is that its always a form of deception. It doesn't work in the intended way if the players see through the deception. If the DM reveals how the trick works, it not only loses its magic but in some cases reveals that the DM has broken an implicit social contract. The gamist at the table is playing to win. If its revealed that the DM gave him the win (or made the win harder than it should have been), that's a violation of social contract. The same is true of the problem solving player when you validate his first thoughts on the answer to the puzzle presented, regardless if that was the 'real' solution to the puzzle. Another player at the table may believe that he has real player agency. Finding out that it didn't matter whether he went left or right, can make that player grumpy to say the least.

But even if you have players who are willing to be decieved and accept that, it still loses its magic when you reveal the trick.

So, let's take the two examples.

1) You are playing the game when a player says, "I bet its mind flayers." You inwardly think, "Yeah, mind flayers would be really cool." and change the trolls to mind flayers. This is illusionism.
2) You prepared two weeks of material. In between sessions, you see a billboard and you think, "Mind flayers would be cooler than trolls. I should do mind flayers instead. This is not illusionism.

The differences are subtle, but they all come down to at some level deception. In the first case, you are secretly changing in the middle of a game in response to a player comment. In the second case, you are secretly changing in responce to your own second thoughts and not in response to anything happening in a session. In the first case, your impartiality is clearly in question. Moreover, you are much less likely to be willing to reveal to the player after the session that you only put the mind flayers in at the last moment, than you are in the second case. In the second case, the player would probably shrug because no implied social contract has been violated. You were just 'doing your job'. But players are much more likely to feel that they have been violated if they find that you are using there own ideas 'against them'. That's why you have alot of tables out there were players willl scold other players for 'giving the DM ideas'.

I think this is harder to define in a Socratic fashion that it is to just define by some sort of empherical test. If you would have no problem revealing to the player the trick and the player would not be disappointed to learn the trick, then its probably not illusionism. This test has the difficulty that it seems to make the definition of illusionism relative to the group, but practically I think that what is really going on is that the level of illusionism that players feel is acceptable varies from group to group. And, since I don't think illusionism is necessarily bad, I think groups should play with the level of illusionism that they are comfortable with. Some groups embrace the illusion if it achieves the result they want. Others want to do away with any trace of 'hard illusionism'.

While we are here:

3) A player mentions mind flayers. You think to yourself, "After we finish the trolls, I should have an adventure with mind flayers"

Is in my opinion in a very gray area. It's alot less problimatic than #1 above, which is in my opinion clearly hard illusionism. Exactly how much illusionism is going on in #3 is a matter that can be debated, but I think that at the very least its a good example of the 'soft illusionism' I'm talking about - the DM's imagination is limited, so things exist in the world only if the DM is prompted to think about them.

But if everything is illusionism on some level, doesn't that make it a meaningless distinction?

Humans have a tendency to want to think entirely in qualitative differences. When you start dealing with quantitative differences between things, human language is ill-equipped to deal with it. However, I think we can agree that quantitative differences between things do exist and are meaningful.

 

[Scribble]

1) You are playing the game when a player says, "I bet its mind flayers." You inwardly think, "Yeah, mind flayers would be really cool." and change the trolls to mind flayers. This is illusionism.
2) You prepared two weeks of material. In between sessions, you see a billboard and you think, "Mind flayers would be cooler than trolls. I should do mind flayers instead. This is not illusionism.

What happens if in between sessions the player remarks that he likes Mind Flayers, and you change it to Mind Flayers?

Or what if in the game you look out the window and see the billboard?

But then what if it's a billboard the player built the night before saying "I Like Mind Flayers?"

 

[Raven Crowking]

Great post there, Celebrim. Must spread XP around before giving it again, etc., etc.....

 

[Raven Crowking]

Or what if in the game you look out the window and see the billboard?

You are secretly Keyser Soze?