RPGs are ... Role Playing Games

[Fifth Element]

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.

I don't see this as a meaningful distinction. If as DM I am in charge of deciding what monsters are there, I don't see a meaningful distinction between deciding it last week and deciding it just now.

If I make a last-second change to mind flayers based on my own whims, not on something a player has said, is that illusionism?

You've said that the source of the inspiration to change doesn't matter. So is it entirely the timing?

 

[Doug McCrae]

This test has the difficulty that it seems to make the definition of illusionism relative to the group

The term railroading is relative in the same way. It's only railroading if the players are unhappy with their freedom being restricted. Though I admit railroading sometimes has a wholly non-pejorative sense too.

The concepts of railroading and illusionism are similar in that they are to do with removing the players' ability to make meaningful choices.

Roleplaying is so subjective, what different groups find acceptable so varying, that we encounter this problem of relativism all the time.

 

[Scribble]

You are secretly Keyser Soze?

Heh... I just feel that sometimes people get sucked into wanting to get way too "precise" when trying to define things that aren't really that precise.

 

[Imaginary Number]

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.

Wouldn't these players have the same objection to almost any sort of DM improvisation, though? Let's assume that I have a room in the dungeon that I know will contain something when the players get there, but I don't decide what that something is until the moment the players arrive. The gamist player could be bothered by this because I hadn't set "win" conditions prior to the encounter; the problem solver could be bothered because I hadn't figured out what the problem actually was until the players found it; the "real agency" player could be bothered because I hadn't completely defined the scope of choices available to the player before the point of choosing arrived. These players aren't objecting to illusionism/deception because I haven't changed anything from X to Y, either in response to my own idea or anyone else's. They're objecting to the lack of objectively verifiable advance detail work that the DM is putting into adventure design.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Heh... I just feel that sometimes people get sucked into wanting to get way too "precise" when trying to define things that aren't really that precise.

I agree that this is sometimes the case.

Expecting that the use of language will ever arrive at perfect clarity is, IMHO, setting yourself up for a fall. Expecting that one can clarify ideas to some degree to others who are open to that clarification, OTOH, is a pretty normal expectation.

IMHO, anyway. YMMV.


RC

 

[Scribble]

I agree that this is sometimes the case.

Expecting that the use of language will ever arrive at perfect clarity is, IMHO, setting yourself up for a fall. Expecting that one can clarify ideas to some degree to others who are open to that clarification, OTOH, is a pretty normal expectation.

IMHO, anyway. YMMV.


RC

I don't disagree.... but again feel that sometimes while doing so we have a tendency to try to take it too far, and be too precise, when it really shouldn't be.

This is what I feel causes more disagreements then really clarifies anything (I think because the ideas are too subjective.)

But, this is just MY opinion.

 

[Celebrim]

I don't see this as a meaningful distinction.

Of course you don't.

If as DM I am in charge of deciding what monsters are there, I don't see a meaningful distinction between deciding it last week and deciding it just now.

You keep focusing on time. I don't recall making time a big issue in my distinctions.

If I make a last-second change to mind flayers based on my own whims, not on something a player has said, is that illusionism?

No, depending on what your 'whims' are and that they are actually whimsical, that's probably just improvisation. As an aside, I only have big problems as a player with illusionism when its improvised. Planned illusionism in small quantities doesn't bother me, provided there is still some allowance for players to make a meaningful choice. Both as a DM and a player, I believe in narrow-broad-narrow structures. Hooks and climaxes don't bother me, as long as you can make meaningful choices in between and to a lesser extent, determine which hook you'll take.

However, as a player I detest improvised illusionism (and as a DM, I sometimes do it anyway, mostly to stop TPKs/deaths when I think I've been unfair to the player). Lately though, I'm learning to build illusionism into the scenario design, which interestingly lets me work out the math ahead of time and IMO be fairer to the player than either a strict simulation or improvisation would be.

You've said that the source of the inspiration to change doesn't matter. So is it entirely the timing?

No, I said it was entirely in the deception. Illusionism is a trick. If you set down with your players and say, "Hmmm... mind flayers would be cool. Why don't we agree to have mind flayers as the villain.", that isn't illusionism. If you say to your players, "Hmmm.. a critical hit. I think I made this fight too hard, so let's have that hit take down the villain.", that isn't illusionism. If you say to your players, "Well, I never had decided on who the murderer was, but the Grand Visor sounds like a good choice, so let's go with that.", that isn't illusionism either. Some games pull the curtain away like that deliberately and even mechanically. But if you pull those sort of tricks and don't inform the players, then that is illusionism.

It's up to you as a DM to decide whether you can live with that.

 

[Fifth Element]

No, I said it was entirely in the deception. Illusionism is a trick. If you set down with your players and say, "Hmmm... mind flayers would be cool. Why don't we agree to have mind flayers as the villain.", that isn't illusionism. If you say to your players, "Hmmm.. a critical hit. I think I made this fight too hard, so let's have that hit take down the villain.", that isn't illusionism. If you say to your players, "Well, I never had decided on who the murderer was, but the Grand Visor sounds like a good choice, so let's go with that.", that isn't illusionism either. Some games pull the curtain away like that deliberately and even mechanically. But if you pull those sort of tricks and don't inform the players, then that is illusionism.

I still don't think I follow. If, as DM, I don't consult with my players as to who the villain is going to be, that would be illusionism? If so, that's very soft illusionism. So soft that it really doesn't fit the word.

Are you saying that anything you don't explicitly discuss with the players results in illusionism?

 

[Hussar]

In a mind blowing turn of events, I keep finding myself nodding in agreement with everything Celebrim says. It's a weird day. Can't posrep again though. Sigh.

If I'm understanding things correctly, there's a spectrum of illusionism. At one end, you create a scenario (or whatever) completely independently from the players and make absolutely no adjustments, either before or during play, to accomodate that scenario to the players. If you were to pick up a module, run it verbatim without any regard for the characters the players have created, this would be an example of zero illusionism.

However, once you start changing elements based upon the characters and the players, the level of illusionism increases. If you have a player that uses Bohemian Ear Spoons and you drop a magical Bohemian Ear Spoon into your adventure specifically for him to find, this would be a very low level of illusionism - you've introduced elements to reward the players, not because it makes any sort of sense in the game.

Beyond that, we get into what Celebrim terms Hard Illusionism, where at the very far extreme, the DM is constantly adjusting each and every element to suit a particular asthetic and goal.

The way he's built this definition, it's pretty neutral either way. If the players like what's going on, it's not a bad thing. If the players object, then the level is too high and the DM probably needs to ratchet it down a bit.

Celebrim, this is a very robust definition you've built here.

 

[Celebrim]

I still don't think I follow. If, as DM, I don't consult with my players as to who the villain is going to be, that would be illusionism?

I give up.