Judgement calls vs "railroading"

[Lanefan]

Means always matter. Always.

My high school math teachers kept telling me this as well; and I never bought it then either.

Whatever problem they'd set or question they'd put on a test, I could often find a way in my brain to somehow work it out and come up with the correct answer (the end), which I'd dutifully write down.

Then I'd lose marks for not showing my work (the means).

Most of the time I couldn't "show my work" if I tried; I'd no idea what steps I'd gone through in my head to get the answer, I only knew I had it and that it was correct. And that's the only thing that matters as far as I'm concerned; that the end answer is right regardless how it was arrived at, assuming good faith (i.e. no cheating). Better that than line after line of shown work to arrive at a wrong answer.

Lan-"while producing these, my friend - the means justify the end"-efan

 

[Ovinomancer]

Weren't you the one that didn't like Fisking?

Although I'm also not just being clever (OK, mostly), because isn't Fisking a means to an end? In which case it always matters. That doesn't mean it always has to be consistent, though. I opted not to Fisk in my either of my responses to you since you indicated you object to its use.

And no, I was asking if the means matter. Because my point is, in those situations the means only matter if somebody objects to them. Otherwise which ever means you use is irrelevant, or in other words, doesn't matter. In which case they don't always matter. Such as Fisking.

I'm glad you've learned a new term, but if you go back, you'll see that fisking is the line by line dissection of a post. Putting in breaks at the concrete thoughts/questions isn't fisking. And you asked some very discrete, if related, questions there. As you have here. Clearly, if you go back through the thread, I haven't complained about breaks between points, nor have I been shy about using that technique myself. It's when it goes to the line by line breaking up of a post into pieces smaller than an coherent argument that I begin to have issues.

And I was making the point that if you've looked to the means, and don't have a problem with them, then you've vetted and approved those means. Having multiple means that you approve of doesn't mean they don't matter, especially since you not caring doesn't mean the next person doesn't care.

The result of this is that the ends do not justify the means. Means matter.

Regardless, I think that's an excellent foundation for your moral outlook and don't mean any disrespect. I just think that in a game, the means matter differently depending on the rules. For example, lying or deception is something that I think the majority of us would agree is not a good means to an end (although we might debate white lies, and certain situations), but few if any would say that bluffing in poker, or deception in other games that rely on it as wrong.

I'm also a bit confused between this comment: "I don't hold that Illusionism is, in and of itself, something to be avoided."

And your statement in post #1555: "All forms of Illusionism are not playing with integrity, no matter what system you play." They seem contradictory to me, although it might just be me. My assumption, of course, is that it's always desirable to play with integrity.

"The means matter" does not mean that you cannot ever consider the ends and do a cost/benefit analysis. If you have to kill yourself to prep to avoid Illusionism, that's not a better outcome for the game -- there may rapidly be no game. "The means matter" means that how you do it still matters, even if you make that choice. If you choose Illusionism, you own that choice; it will reflect in the integrity of the game and may anger your players if they discover it. "A better game" is not a reason to do anything to achieve it. Heck, you could say that your game would be better with more minis, but you can't afford them, so you rob a liquor store to buy some more minis. If means don't matter, this is okay. Since that's clearly counter-factual, what we're actually discussing here is personal evaluations of the cost/benefit equations for gaming. And, as such, I do not hold that Illusionism (which is not playing with integrity) is always an evil. And, yes, that also would mean that not playing with integrity isn't always an evil. If playing with integrity ends up being something that you do not enjoy or actively causes you mental or emotional anguish, I'm fine with you not. This is something we do for fun, not a morality exercise.

Also, regarding point #4.
So if I build a city, and provide two roads, one to the west and one to the east, and place the city on whichever road the players take - is it not Illusionism if the players desired intent is not subverted? If they have no idea what might lie either way, and don't have any particular goal in mind when taking the road they select, is it still Illusionism? Assuming, of course, that the mechanics of the game allow the DM to place the city where he sees fit. In other words, D&D doesn't restrict the DM's ability to place things to during the session only.

I guess part of what I'm getting at is whether the context determines whether it is actually illusionism or not, or does it just determine whether a player might object to the illusionism or not?

Yes, it is, because you've offered a meaningless choice. The players make a choice (East or West) and believe it to be meaningful. It is not -- the same destination is at the end of both choices. You've subverted the player's intent to make a meaningful choice. That the destination they find is one they wanted to find is outside the bounds of the East/West choice mattering.

Now, if you gave them a choice of East or West, but they knew that both curve to the North to the City, but one path is through the Very Dangerous (We Mean It!) Swamps of Very Danger and the other is through the Darkgrim Forest of Grim Darkness, and the dangers of the journey vary based on path, then it's not Illusionism. This is because the choice offered to the players of which road to take has a meaningful outcome, even if the final destination is the same.

 

[Ovinomancer]

My high school math teachers kept telling me this as well; and I never bought it then either.

Whatever problem they'd set or question they'd put on a test, I could often find a way in my brain to somehow work it out and come up with the correct answer (the end), which I'd dutifully write down.

Then I'd lose marks for not showing my work (the means).

Most of the time I couldn't "show my work" if I tried; I'd no idea what steps I'd gone through in my head to get the answer, I only knew I had it and that it was correct. And that's the only thing that matters as far as I'm concerned; that the end answer is right regardless how it was arrived at, assuming good faith (i.e. no cheating). Better that than line after line of shown work to arrive at a wrong answer.

Lan-"while producing these, my friend - the means justify the end"-efan

You didn't use the correct means, and lost points. How is this showing that means don't matter, again? I feel like I missed something.

And recall, you're talking to an engineer. Lives depend on the math work I do.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

You didn't use the correct means, and lost points. How is this showing that means don't matter, again? I feel like I missed something.

And recall, you're talking to an engineer. Lives depend on the math work I do.

So that would mean that the results matter. If you got to the result by addition instead of multiplication, why would it matter? Unless we have a different definition of "matters."

 

[Ovinomancer]

So that would mean that the results matter. If you got to the result by addition instead of multiplication, why would it matter? Unless we have a different definition of "matters."

The right result by accident is still an accident.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I'm glad you've learned a new term, but if you go back, you'll see that fisking is the line by line dissection of a post. Putting in breaks at the concrete thoughts/questions isn't fisking. And you asked some very discrete, if related, questions there. As you have here. Clearly, if you go back through the thread, I haven't complained about breaks between points, nor have I been shy about using that technique myself. It's when it goes to the line by line breaking up of a post into pieces smaller than an coherent argument that I begin to have issues.

Ok. The definitions I see are "point-by-point" not "line-by-line." But it's not really worth debating that here anyway. My fault.

And I was making the point that if you've looked to the means, and don't have a problem with them, then you've vetted and approved those means. Having multiple means that you approve of doesn't mean they don't matter, especially since you not caring doesn't mean the next person doesn't care.

Sure it does. If your group has determined that 10 different means are acceptable. Then which one of those 10 you use doesn't matter.

The result of this is that the ends do not justify the means. Means matter.

"The means matter" does not mean that you cannot ever consider the ends and do a cost/benefit analysis. If you have to kill yourself to prep to avoid Illusionism, that's not a better outcome for the game -- there may rapidly be no game. "The means matter" means that how you do it still matters, even if you make that choice. If you choose Illusionism, you own that choice; it will reflect in the integrity of the game and may anger your players if they discover it. "A better game" is not a reason to do anything to achieve it. Heck, you could say that your game would be better with more minis, but you can't afford them, so you rob a liquor store to buy some more minis. If means don't matter, this is okay. Since that's clearly counter-factual, what we're actually discussing here is personal evaluations of the cost/benefit equations for gaming. And, as such, I do not hold that Illusionism (which is not playing with integrity) is always an evil. And, yes, that also would mean that not playing with integrity isn't always an evil. If playing with integrity ends up being something that you do not enjoy or actively causes you mental or emotional anguish, I'm fine with you not. This is something we do for fun, not a morality exercise.

Actually, one of the reasons I love D&D is that it can provide a safe place to explore complex psychological and morality questions with a group of friends. Nor did I say you could "do anything" do achieve it.

Yes, it is, because you've offered a meaningless choice. The players make a choice (East or West) and believe it to be meaningful. It is not -- the same destination is at the end of both choices. You've subverted the player's intent to make a meaningful choice. That the destination they find is one they wanted to find is outside the bounds of the East/West choice mattering.

Now, if you gave them a choice of East or West, but they knew that both curve to the North to the City, but one path is through the Very Dangerous (We Mean It!) Swamps of Very Danger and the other is through the Darkgrim Forest of Grim Darkness, and the dangers of the journey vary based on path, then it's not Illusionism. This is because the choice offered to the players of which road to take has a meaningful outcome, even if the final destination is the same.

So, considering this and other answers, I think I've come to a potential definition of Illusionism.

Illusionism is the illusion of a choice.

The classic example is along these lines: The DM has prepared an encounter. We'll say it's an ogre.
The characters have a choice - could be a fork in the road, but we'll say the forest or the swamp.
Regardless of the choice made, the players encounter the ogre.

Scenario #1
1) The players are given a choice.
2) The results aren't fixed until the choice is made. The DM doesn't place the prepared encounter until after the choice is made.

What about a random result? It's the same fundamental thing:
Scenario #2
1) The players are given a choice.
2) The results aren't fixed until the choice is made. The DM determines the results randomly after the choice is made.

What about when the result isn't prepared ahead of time?
Scenario #3
1) The players are given a choice.
2) The results aren't fixed until the choice is made. The DM determines the results on the fly after the choice is made.

So what's different about them?
Well, in scenario #1 there is no choice. There's only one result.

In scenario #2 there also is no choice. There are multiple possible encounters, but still only one actual result (roll on the random table).

In scenario #3 there is also no choice. The result can be be authored to relate to the choice. But there is still no choice.

It's really just the method of producing the result that differs. Otherwise they are identical, at the point of making the choice, there is no choice.

Now a term that has come up a number of times is "meaningful choice." For the choice to be meaningful, they need to have information ahead of time, and the information has to relate to the results. That is, it helps them make a choice.

In scenario #1, the DM could provide clues as to what lies ahead, and they could be different for the forest and swamp, and yet still relate to the prepared encounter. In addition, the characters could later go down the other path, and the DM could provide a solution then that still relates to the information given. In which case there are now two meaningful choices.

In scenario #2, there could be two tables of random results, and the information provided could differentiate between the two. So a meaningful choice could be made - table #1 or table #2. But this is no longer scenario #2, because now there is actually a choice (table #1 or table #2)

In scenario #3, the DM can base the results off of the information provided to the players. Then when the choice is made, the result authored will be meaningful. But it's still the same state of scenario #1 - there is no other result until the DM authors one.

Other than scenario #2, there is still no meaningful choice. The results may be meaningful, but that's different than a meaningful choice.

It seems to me that the idea of Illusionism lacking a meaningful choice is a bit of a red herring. It sounds like it should matter in the definition of Illusionism, but it doesn't actually change the underlying mechanism. Either there is a choice or there isn't. And Illusionism being the illusion that there is a choice.

For example, you have two actual choices. Down road #1 is an ogre, and down road #2 is a dragon. Whether you have any information to help you make that decision, or the information you have is false because somebody is trying to get you killed and wants you to meet the dragon, it's not Illusionism. Because you have an actual choice.

Note that there are situations where there is no viable choice. But that's not illusionism. You captured by a tribe of orcs, and you have the choice of being sacrificed to their volcano god (thrown in the volcano) or dragon god (being fed to a dragon). There isn't a good choice, but it's not Illusionism. There is a choice, and it's clear that there is a choice. You just don't like either of the results.

Scenario #3 makes it easy to make it seem like the choice was meaningful. In fact, the GM is usually instructed, or even bound by rules, to ensure that the result directly relates to the information available and the choice that was made. But it's essentially a more sophisticated application of Illusionism. The illusion being that there is actually a choice. Because the DM could provide a result that doesn't relate to the information or the choice. The DM is in full control of the result because the result hasn't been fixed before the choice has been made. The rules may instruct the DM to provide a solution that relates to the information and/or the choice. But that's different than an actual choice. It's really just instructing the DM to ensure that the result makes it appear that they made a meaningful choice.

The only way to avoid Illusionism is to ensure that any choices provided have at least two actual results. Which means the results need to be pre-determined, even if it's only moments before the choice during the course of play that the DM comes up with the potential results.

To go back to the original post, what about railroading? Is Illusionism railroading?

Well, in all three cases the DM is still in control of where the action goes. That is, they have control of the story when providing the results. With both scenario #1 and #2, the DM can prepare results that are acceptable to them and the adventure at hand. Thus they can be used to keep the adventure "on track." But they can do the same thing in scenario #3, in that the only results they provide on the fly also keep the adventure on track.

The advantage of Illusionism, when used with skill, is that it's more subtle, potentially undetectable, compared to a more overt approach, such as, "no, you can't go there." A "you can't go there" approach can be dungeon walls, a cave-in, an enemy force too great to defeat, or any number of other options that place a boundary on where the adventure can go.

On the other hand, it's easy to avoid, there just needs to be an actual choice - at least two different results - before the choice is made.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

The right result by accident is still an accident.

And? I'm not sure I'm following what you're trying to say here.

If you get the correct results, how you get there doesn't matter. In your example regarding robbing a liquor store, the means still don't inherently matter. They only matter because we've decided that certain means (robbing a liquor store) are unacceptable.

The means only matter because we've decided they matter. On the other hand, if we decide the means don't matter, then the means don't matter. There are certain means that we, as a society, have decided matter.

Regardless, I think we can agree that we're going to disagree here, and should probably leave it at that.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

My high school math teachers kept telling me this as well; and I never bought it then either.

Whatever problem they'd set or question they'd put on a test, I could often find a way in my brain to somehow work it out and come up with the correct answer (the end), which I'd dutifully write down.

Then I'd lose marks for not showing my work (the means).

Most of the time I couldn't "show my work" if I tried; I'd no idea what steps I'd gone through in my head to get the answer, I only knew I had it and that it was correct. And that's the only thing that matters as far as I'm concerned; that the end answer is right regardless how it was arrived at, assuming good faith (i.e. no cheating). Better that than line after line of shown work to arrive at a wrong answer.

Lan-"while producing these, my friend - the means justify the end"-efan

Because you didn't follow the directions.

The test wasn't to determine if you could get the right answer. The test was to see if you learned the means. Getting the correct result with the means is just confirmation that you learned the means.

If you showed your work line by line but arrived at the wrong answer, then you obviously didn't learn the means.

If you didn't show the means, they can't confirm that you learned it.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I dunno. Where is this classic case coming from? I don't think it's what The Forge had foremost in mind when coining the term.

Sometimes "choices" and narration are just colour. It's clear that nothing turns on them.

Well, that's the only way I've seen the term Illusionism defined on various blogs and forums.

Now that I go look at the Forge definition:

"Illusionism
A family of Techniques in which a GM, usually in the interests of story creation, story creation, exerts Force over player-character decisions, in which he or she has authority over resolution-outcomes, and in which the players do not necessarily recognize these features. See Illusionism: a new look and a new approach and Illusionism and GNS. Term coined by Paul Elliott."

Here's a definition that was posted in a different forum thread on the Forge:
"Quote from: wfreitag

I offer the following definition:Illusionism: Any practice used by a gamemaster during play, without the consent of the players, that constrains the players' ability to control the player-characters' major decisions."

That's a pretty broad definition.

Of course, in the thread this is then torn apart, and the final post ends with:

"One key point: no matter what, the term from now on must go back to Paul Elliot's original description - retroactive story-fitting, by the GM, based on non-story-creating actions by the players.

That puts us in a Terminology discussion. Either Paul Elliot's description is the only meaning of Illusionism, and I must rename the front-loaded-story method; or the term Illusionism may apply to either of the two methods, and they become sub-sets. I have plenty to say about this, but I also think the authority regarding this issue is Paul Elliott."

Huh? Retroactive story-fitting, by the GM, based on non-story-creating actions by the players? How does that relate to the term "Illusionism?" It doesn't seem to relate to the Forge Glossary definition at all.

It certainly doesn't relate to any other blog post or forum thread I've seen.

So my other post on Illusionism doesn't directly apply, perhaps. Do I create a new term? This is one of the inherent problems I see occur repeatedly on forums and such - there are trendy terms that are created and debated, but then they are spread across the internet and used in wildly different ways. Or in this case, the example becomes the definition to somebody, since it is repeated in multiple places, and folks like me take those forum posts, etc. at face value.

Of course, now I've also perpetuated the problem. Although I don't recall the other references I've seen mention The Forge as the original source, so even if I stumbled across it, I wouldn't know that's the original source.

Plus, when I look at the Forge Glossary (quoted above) I ask, "what techniques?" If it's a family of techniques, what are they? Pointing to forum threads where the participants don't agree (and send the discussion into multiple separate threads) doesn't define it.

Another inherent problem is that just because somebody initially defined it, doesn't mean it was a definition that withstood critical deconstruction. Clearly they didn't have a universal agreement at the Forge on the definition, although I don't know their process from forum debate to final definition.

Of course, as we know, the initial intent is often irrelevant in the face of the use of others. Regardless of what the intended definition was, it can be irrelevant if the common usage is different.

So what are we talking about when we're discussing Illusionism? What do you mean specifically? Even if you point me to the Forge definition, which one?

The bigger question is do the rest of the people in the thread agree that's what we're talking about?

My definition is one that focuses is choice. There is an illusion that there is a choice, when there isn't. The Forge definition seems to be a bit broader, but related. That there is an illusion that their actions and choices matter, but they don't. It's not necessarily related to an individual choice, but the session, adventure, or campaign as a whole.

So my definition may be one of the techniques, but not the whole. What are other techniques that apply?

 

[Tony Vargas]

You seem to be running together the system described for BW with a system in which the resolution mechanic itself is the players' performance.

I've 0 familiarity with BW, so was off on a pet peeve player-as-resolution-system tangent.

The only requirement is that the player speak (the argument, the prayer, the bon mot, the bit of folklore). The resolution itself is by way of "say 'yes' or roll the dice".

So as a player I either meet the threshold for action declaration or not. If I do, then the dice determine whether or not my declared task realises my declared intent.

Fair enough, it sounds like any other 'encourage RP' mechanic, but still sounds like it could limit concept choices...