RPGs are ... Role Playing Games

[Raven Crowking]

I give up.

That is too bad....I think that there are quite a few posters who have been capable of following your reasoning. And who have appreciated it.


RC

 

[Celebrim]

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

I don't get the credit. I'm just trying to explain what 'Illusionism' is. I didn't invent the concept.

The only area I've departed from the normal definition (at least, as I understand the normal definition from my reading) is in the area of what I mean by 'Soft Illusionism', and I haven't really got deep into that area because without full agreement and understanding over '[Hard] Illusionism', getting into what I mean by the soft stuff would derail the discussion.

But yes, dropping a particular treasure that you know one of your players covet because he covets it is a form of illusionism. This is in fact one of the sorts of illusionism that is widely practiced and widely overlooked by the players. Everyone knows it goes on, but we all look the other way when it happens and no one screams 'Railroad!'. (Well, probably someone somewhere does.) You could probably lampshade it by writing into the setting an explanation for why it happens (in the same way the fact that the ToH is filled with fair-minded traps gets lampshaded in RttToH), but that's a different discussion.

I'm in no way passing judgment on how you play the game. I'm not Ron Edwards. I don't think that each game only has one right way to play it, or that you can't mix game types. I'm not going to accuse people of being incoherent and frustrated (or worse), or claiming that old designers didn't know anything because they didn't design games to fit neatly into the big model. Illusionism in my opinion is just there and its a valid tool use properly and like most anything can be really overused. I can tell you how I would play my game and why and I firmly believe my advice gives good results, but ultimately its up to the individual GM to decide how to play his game and whether I'm just full of crap.

 

[Fifth Element]

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.

Perhaps you can explain it to me then, Hussar, since Celeberim has apparently given up. Perhaps it's a result of us talking past one another, I'm not sure.

In the example I had given, I prepared an adventure ahead of time. In my mind, of course, I am preparing it specifically for the players involved, since that's what I do as DM. I gathered from Celebrim's responses that so long as I don't change this adventure after it's been prepared, there is no illusionism.

This is similar to your example above, except of course that the adventure was designed for the players. And that may be where my confusion lies, in that Celebrim and I have different assumptions about what I'm suggesting.

If your summary of his definition is correct, then his definition is rather different from the definition that The Shaman linked to that started this whole thing off, here. That definition involves creating the illusion of choice, wherein regardless of what the players choose, they end up in the same place. Perhaps that's why I'm confused, because I keep trying to link his definition back to this one.

 

[billd91]

Perhaps you can explain it to me then, Hussar, since Celeberim has apparently given up. Perhaps it's a result of us talking past one another, I'm not sure.

In the example I had given, I prepared an adventure ahead of time. In my mind, of course, I am preparing it specifically for the players involved, since that's what I do as DM. I gathered from Celebrim's responses that so long as I don't change this adventure after it's been prepared, there is no illusionism.

This is similar to your example above, except of course that the adventure was designed for the players. And that may be where my confusion lies, in that Celebrim and I have different assumptions about what I'm suggesting.

If your summary of his definition is correct, then his definition is rather different from the definition that The Shaman linked to that started this whole thing off, here. That definition involves creating the illusion of choice, wherein regardless of what the players choose, they end up in the same place. Perhaps that's why I'm confused, because I keep trying to link his definition back to this one.

If I'm reading Celebrim correctly, the illusionism in designing things specifically for the PCs is it validates their choices. It protects them from their choices of character classes, feats, weapons of preference, or even timing of entering the encounter area at a level much lower than the challenge being particularly poor or something the DM doesn't want the consequences to be. While they may choose to be a ragtag group of second-stringers, by building for the party, you've made the choices to be hard-luck charcters illusory by choosing for them to be able to handle the challenges with some expectation of competence.

It feels like a bit of a stretch when you compare it with the more clear smoke and mirrors of putting the DM's choice of encounters before the PCs no matter where they go. But I think that's what he's getting at.

 

[Fifth Element]

If I'm reading Celebrim correctly, the illusionism in designing things specifically for the PCs is it validates their choices. It protects them from their choices of character classes, feats, weapons of preference, or even timing of entering the encounter area at a level much lower than the challenge being particularly poor or something the DM doesn't want the consequences to be. While they may choose to be a ragtag group of second-stringers, by building for the party, you've made the choices to be hard-luck charcters illusory by choosing for them to be able to handle the challenges with some expectation of competence.

Okay, if that's what he means, then I understand that. I think that has little relevance to my comment that started this discussion off, though.

It feels like a bit of a stretch when you compare it with the more clear smoke and mirrors of putting the DM's choice of encounters before the PCs no matter where they go. But I think that's what he's getting at.

Indeed, it is quite a stretch. It would also explain why he perceives that some people get upset when their methods are referred to as illusionism, since they may be using the strict definition presented in the blog, where you take choice away from the players.

Catering to your player's preferences is quite different from removing their ability to make meaningful choices in-game.

 

[Celebrim]

It feels like a bit of a stretch when you compare it with the more clear smoke and mirrors of putting the DM's choice of encounters before the PCs no matter where they go.

No, it's the exact same trick.

Imagine you have two stage magicians, and they are putting on their usual act to impress people. Each is competing with the other one.

The first magician says, "I can read the future. Pick a card, don't show it to me, put it into this envelope. And I'll tell you what it is." So the guy does so and the magicians says, "It's the Queen of Hearts", and sure enough they open the envelope and its the Queen of Hearts.

The second magician says, "That's nothing. I can teach you to read the future. Pick a card, don't look at it, put it into this envelope." So the guy does so, and the magician says, "Now stretch out with your feelings. Let go of your conscious self and act on instinct. Now, what is the card." The guy says, "It's the Seven of Clubs.", and the magician opens the envelope and sure enough its the Seven of Clubs, and the guy says, "That's amazing!"

When the guy leaves the first magician says to the other one, "Stop stealing my tricks." And the second magician says, "It's not the same trick." And the first magician replies, "It is the same trick. I saw you do it." Then the second magician says, "Ahh.. but he doesn't know that."

 

[Fifth Element]

No, it's the exact same trick.

How so?

Moreover, how does the change to mind flayers from trolls create or increase illusionism? That was the thrust of The Shaman's comment in the first place. If it was me as DM that put the trolls there in the first place, then I see no difference in then changing them to something else.

How is that the exact same trick as having only one possible result, regardless of player choice and character actions, which was the thrust of the blog post?

Now, if your argument is that my placing the trolls in the first place is illusionism, that's fine, but there would presumably be no greater illusionism in my later changing them to something else.

 

[The Shaman]

A key point at which prepared material becomes a plot is once you, the GM, imagine it interacting with the PCs in some way.

Agreed.

I've read posts in this thread and elsewhere suggesting that anything that's happening in the setting is a "plot" or a "story," but this is a semantics exercise which, in my opinion, obscures the point that these exist independently of the players and their characters, and they remain so unless or until the adventurers encounter them while playing the game. These are not "stories" or "plots" the adventurers are expected to follow, and they are not prepared with the adventurers' interaction or particiption assumed or prescribed.

If the adventurers become involved with an npc, or encounter some other event due to proximity or the like, in the course of their travels, then the events associated with the npc or the background of the setting change as a result of the adventurers' involvement, so whatever "plot" or "story" that may be said to exist in my notes effectively ceases to exist as such.

In Le Ballet . . ., there are numerous rivalries and schemes among the npcs in the setting, many of them historical in fact. None of these are written for the adventurers specifically, in large part because I have no idea who the adventurers will be or what they will pursue. Maybe they will become involved in one of them, but I have no specific expectations of that: I'm not casting about plot hooks to snare them into the Chalais conspiracy or Montmorency's rebellion.

As I noted upthread, my goal is for the adventurers to create their own "plots," in pursuit of their own goals, rather than searching for "plot hooks" to snag. Let them develop allies and rivals through their actions and choices, not by my contrivance.

And whatever 'story' can be said to exist is created on their side the screen, not mine.

 

[The Shaman]

I think that has little relevance to my comment that started this discussion off, though.

For reference, here is 5E's comment I referred to in my post upthread:

I don't think you can be a very effective DM if you can't improvise. The key to me is always listening to what the players are saying, even if it's just to each other when they assume you're not listening. They'll usually give you clues as to what they expect, and then you can decide if that's what they'll get, or if you think the complete opposite might be better you go for that. Or if you have a flash of brilliance you can subvert what they expect and make it all the more awesome.

Players are great sources of ideas, even when they don't realize they're giving you ideas.

Edit: This applies for planned encounters or events as well. If the players come up with something spontaneously which sounds better than what you had planned, you should consider improvising to change what you had planned to something closer to their idea.

 

[Mallus]

But yes, dropping a particular treasure that you know one of your players covet because he covets it is a form of illusionism.

This seems to move the definition of illusionism beyond "DM actions which invalidate or remove meaningful player choice" and closer to "anything that fulfills a player's desires". Lucking into the vorpal sword Tom always wanted doesn't appear, to me, at least, to deny Tom a meaningful choice, ergo, I wouldn't call it illusionism.

I think this is where discussions of illusionism frequently break down; over the failure to acknowledge not all choices are equally important. Most of us can agree that rendering individual player choices irrelevant is a bad thing... but not every choice is meaningful, or even rightly considered a choice at all.

Let's say I'm DM'ing and I invent a location, a tavern full of charming grifters called the Inn of the Prancing Phony. It's a place of plot hooks, role-playing opportunities, and cheap, imaginary beer. What it is not is a trap to be avoided or a treasure to be sought, so there's no element of strategy involved. I can't definitively place it in the setting because I'm running a campaign where the player's direct where the plot goes (since they are the plot). So the tavern will be wherever they go.

From my perspective, I'm not forcing anything on the players, I'm just making smart use of my creative output. I thought up this cool place for them to visit so I'll plunk it down in their path. Once there, the players are free to bite on the plots hooks or ignore them. Neither am I denying them a meaningful choice, since they don't know the tavern exists, there's literally no choice involved. Now once they start interacting with the NPC's in the Phony, then meaningful choices emerge. Do they bite on the plot hooks? Do they decide to do some proactive, and probably larcenous, themselves?

Since I'm apparently in wall-of-text mode (I blame it on exposure to Celebrim's posts), here's another example. I've decided to introduce Patron X into my campaign. He's out to recruit the PC's and is secretly in the employ of a foreign power. Naturally, he's going to be directly in the PC's path, wherever they go.

I mean, where else should he be? He's a fictional character, after all, in a fictional world. He should be where I need him. Which is in front of the PC's, offering them a choice, a deal that sounds too good to be true. Because that's where the interesting and meaningful choice lies. It would certainly be bad form if, after introducing him, I conspired to force the players to work for Patron X. Luckily, I wouldn't do that.