Judgement calls vs "railroading"

[Lanefan]

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

Because the point of the exercise is the end, not the means.

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

As lives depend on the work you do, isn't that a very strong motivation to just get it right no matter what it takes to do so? Here in particular it would seem the ends being correct are paramount and the choice of means to get them there is almost irrelevant.

(side note: can't 'recall' something I didn't know in the first place - cool! )

In a much less serious vein, the same applies to how we run our games. The end result is what matters, not the means by which it is achieved; and if to get the desired end result (an enjoyable game people will want to play again next week) means I have to sometimes dive into my well-stocked bag of DM tricks and pull out a rabbit or two then I'm going to reach in and start grabbing ears.

I'm not perfect. I don't always reach for the bag at the right time, or pull out the right rabbit when I do. Sometimes the rabbit even bites me, in that my meddling only makes things worse. But, hey...them's the breaks - and maybe I'll know better next time.

Lan-"sir, there's a vorpal bunny in your top hat"-efan

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.



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.



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.



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.

This was largely the point I was trying to get at re: Illusionism in story now games. The rejoinder was 'but it obvious and not hidden, so it's not Illusionism."

 

[Lanefan]

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.

To see if I learned their particular version of the means, you mean.

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.

I'm not there to learn the means, even if that's what they're trying to teach me; I'm there to learn how to figure out the right answer because I realize that in the end that's what the goal is: the right answer. If their means work for me, then great. If I can do it in my head, however, why waste time and brain space learning a bunch of needless intervening steps?

Lan-"and don't read into this that I'm some sort of mathematical savant, as I'm most certainly not"-efan

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

Yes. The ends justify the means will never be something I agree to.

Above, you said that if the group has okayed ten different methods to having a good game, then it doesn't matter which is picked. This is creating a subset of all means and then limiting choice. Yes, these specific ten methods are okay with the group, but what about and eleventh? Is it okay if, as a DM, I use the eleventh unknownest to the players with the knowledge that they'd object if they knew so long as the end result is the same?

Also, let's say two of the methods accepted are 1) the DM does a tremendous amount of work and pre-prepares everything; and 2) the DM prepares a few things he thinks will be fun and uses Illusionism to guide the players to those things. The end result of both is a fun game for the players. Are you, as a DM, going to say that it doesn't matter which of the two methods you use? Because, I can tell you, it certainly matters to me. Which gets back to why I don't always think Illusionism is a bad thing while; sometimes the alternative isn't feasible or preferable.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Because the point of the exercise is the end, not the means.

I think you might have misidentified the exercise's goals. It wasn't to see if you learned the answers, but to see if you learned how to find the answers. If you can't show the how, you haven't learned it.

As lives depend on the work you do, isn't that a very strong motivation to just get it right no matter what it takes to do so? Here in particular it would seem the ends being correct are paramount and the choice of means to get them there is almost irrelevant.

(side note: can't 'recall' something I didn't know in the first place - cool! )

In a much less serious vein, the same applies to how we run our games. The end result is what matters, not the means by which it is achieved; and if to get the desired end result (an enjoyable game people will want to play again next week) means I have to sometimes dive into my well-stocked bag of DM tricks and pull out a rabbit or two then I'm going to reach in and start grabbing ears.

I'm not perfect. I don't always reach for the bag at the right time, or pull out the right rabbit when I do. Sometimes the rabbit even bites me, in that my meddling only makes things worse. But, hey...them's the breaks - and maybe I'll know better next time.

Lan-"sir, there's a vorpal bunny in your top hat"-efan

Good grief, no, no, and again, no. You do not want someone designing your house, road, bridge, game consol, tv, electric grid with a process of 'just get it right.' Gah, that's terrifying.

And, as for the games, you've been arguing in a thread for weeks about the means to achieve a game end, and you now say it doesn't matter? If the goal of a session is the save the Prince from the Dragon, are you going to get the same fun from flipping over a card and if it's a heart, you succeed, otherwise you keep flipping until you get a heart as you would from a session of D&D with a stocked dungeon as you would from a Story Now game like Burning Wheel where the DM makes it up on the fly? Come on, man, you can't have argued for pages and pages and then claim it doesn't all matter.

 

[Lanefan]

Yes. The ends justify the means will never be something I agree to.

Fair enough...but what about the means justifying the end?

If for example a DM does all the right things, ticks all the boxes, transparency all over the place, goes to the action, etc. etc. and still manages to come up with a garbage game that doesn't last three sessions, what's the point?

Above, you said that if the group has okayed ten different methods to having a good game, then it doesn't matter which is picked. This is creating a subset of all means and then limiting choice. Yes, these specific ten methods are okay with the group, but what about and eleventh? Is it okay if, as a DM, I use the eleventh unknownest to the players with the knowledge that they'd object if they knew so long as the end result is the same?

Depends how good you are at hiding what you're doing, I suppose.

Also, let's say two of the methods accepted are 1) the DM does a tremendous amount of work and pre-prepares everything; and 2) the DM prepares a few things he thinks will be fun and uses Illusionism to guide the players to those things. The end result of both is a fun game for the players. Are you, as a DM, going to say that it doesn't matter which of the two methods you use? Because, I can tell you, it certainly matters to me. Which gets back to why I don't always think Illusionism is a bad thing while; sometimes the alternative isn't feasible or preferable.

Agreed, in that the DM has choice over what means are used and is most likely going to use those which give the best result in the most efficient manner. But that's down to the DM, and I'm looking at it from the player side. The players don't care - they've got a fun game to play in no matter what goes on behind the screen - and why should they? This has kind of been my point all along: if the players have a fun game to play in, it doesn't - or shouldn't - matter to them how it came to be so.

Lan-"the old line about the placid-looking duck on the lake who is in fact paddling like hell beneath the surface comes to mind"-efan

 

[Aenghus]

I think different players and play groups care about different sorts of player agency and prioritise different things. A conventional dungeon crawling game might prioritise fair challenge and exploration of highly detailed dungeons. PC survival is a very relevant concern and a constant challenge in the face of the deadly dangers of the dungeon. I find games like this either discourage excessive risk taking, or have high PC casualty rates, or involve DM fudging to moderate casualty rates despite apparent high risk moves.

A player driven dramatic game might prioritise the players being about to make meaningful personal decisions relevant to their dramatic goals. This might entail some degree of script immunity, so players can feel able to make appropriate decisions for their PCs without having to worry about undramatic wounding or death. So long as scenes allow players to feel they are addressing their dramatic goals meaningfully, they mightn't care as much about strong scene framing that would be objectionable in some other styles of play. However, even temporary obstacles to pursuing personal goals might be objectionable in this style, when there might be no guarantee of any addressing of personal goals in another style.

For me, I try to evaluate play styles with respect to their particular goals of play, not by goals they aren't designed to value or achieve.

Appropriate challenge levels also depend on the tastes of the participants, some games prefer high challenge, others prefer low challenge. Some involve high PC physical risk, others have some level of script immunity. Some have some level of dictated personality change, others assign the player total control of the PCs personality.

In most academic subjects, explaining the means by which results are arrived at is important for marking schemes, evidence of learning the curriculum, and as evidence against cheating. Some players care deeply about the means by which decisions are made in their game, others don't.

 

[Lanefan]

And, as for the games, you've been arguing in a thread for weeks about the means to achieve a game end, and you now say it doesn't matter?

I've been saying that for some time, too; mostly in response to pemerton in question of his rationale for disliking certain types of DMing styles. I think I've even been somewhat consistent, though obviously I've a rather biased viewpoint on that.

If the goal of a session is the save the Prince from the Dragon, are you going to get the same fun from flipping over a card and if it's a heart, you succeed, otherwise you keep flipping until you get a heart as you would from a session of D&D with a stocked dungeon as you would from a Story Now game like Burning Wheel where the DM makes it up on the fly? Come on, man, you can't have argued for pages and pages and then claim it doesn't all matter.

Actually, I can; and - if I can explain it - here's how:

First, I'll ignore your flipping-a-card example as - let's face it - being a little over the top on the hyperbole meter.

As for the other two, they're almost different discussions.

I've been arguing against the BW model all the way along for a couple of reasons: first, that there's a severe risk of inconsistency arising within the fiction; second, that I'm not sold on any game that makes the PCs bigger than the game world (the no-special-snowflakes argument); and third, being probably easiest to describe as the "Schroedinger's Secret Door" philosophical issue where something can appear just because it's looked for (kind of like a dream sequence, or what happened to Alice down the rabbit hole) and my dislike thereof. That's one discussion. System matters.

The other things I've been arguing about come mostly from within the "D&D with a stocked dungeon" model and the greater game around it, to do with the means of presenting said game and-or dungeon to the players. Here I've also been consistent (I think!) in saying that the ends trump the means - if the game is fun and the players want to come back, who (from the player side) cares whether it took some illusionism or DM finagling or rabbits out of hats to get it there? The DM does what the DM does, and has choice of various means and may not even always use the same ones - that's all up to her and irrelevant to the players. Put another way and going back to the math-test analogy, if the players get the "right answer" the DM doesn't (and shouldn't) have to show her work!

Some other posters have sort of combined these two discussions into a discussion about the means of presenting a BW-style game; here I simply maintain my position that within the system the means of presentation don't matter very much to the players while at the same time opposing elements of the system itself, as noted just above.

I hope this makes sense.

Lan-"at what point does a thread become a rope, and then a hawser, and then an anchor chain..."-efan

 

[Ovinomancer]

I've been saying that for some time, too; mostly in response to pemerton in question of his rationale for disliking certain types of DMing styles. I think I've even been somewhat consistent, though obviously I've a rather biased viewpoint on that.

Actually, I can; and - if I can explain it - here's how:

First, I'll ignore your flipping-a-card example as - let's face it - being a little over the top on the hyperbole meter.

As for the other two, they're almost different discussions.

I've been arguing against the BW model all the way along for a couple of reasons: first, that there's a severe risk of inconsistency arising within the fiction; second, that I'm not sold on any game that makes the PCs bigger than the game world (the no-special-snowflakes argument); and third, being probably easiest to describe as the "Schroedinger's Secret Door" philosophical issue where something can appear just because it's looked for (kind of like a dream sequence, or what happened to Alice down the rabbit hole) and my dislike thereof. That's one discussion. System matters.

The other things I've been arguing about come mostly from within the "D&D with a stocked dungeon" model and the greater game around it, to do with the means of presenting said game and-or dungeon to the players. Here I've also been consistent (I think!) in saying that the ends trump the means - if the game is fun and the players want to come back, who (from the player side) cares whether it took some illusionism or DM finagling or rabbits out of hats to get it there? The DM does what the DM does, and has choice of various means and may not even always use the same ones - that's all up to her and irrelevant to the players. Put another way and going back to the math-test analogy, if the players get the "right answer" the DM doesn't (and shouldn't) have to show her work!

Some other posters have sort of combined these two discussions into a discussion about the means of presenting a BW-style game; here I simply maintain my position that within the system the means of presentation don't matter very much to the players while at the same time opposing elements of the system itself, as noted just above.

I hope this makes sense.

Lan-"at what point does a thread become a rope, and then a hawser, and then an anchor chain..."-efan

Wait, let me understand. System matters, but means don't. I'm at a complete loss, now.

 

[pemerton]

he also specifically advocates for secret backstory/setting, even if he's not calling it that.

He says that the GM is in charge of framing scenes and managing backstory.

He doesn't say anything about secret backstory. And for good reason. In the traditional fashion in which secret backstory is used, it is inimical to the "standard narrativistic model" that Eero Tuovinen is describing.;

Here is the quote once again:

"The fun in these games from the player’s viewpoint comes from the fact that he can create an amazing story with nothing but choices made in playing his character; this is the holy grail of rpg design."

There is nothing whatsoever that says the players must establish the dramatic needs.

Yes there is: these games. Which he has outined as including the players creating PCs who have dramatic needs, which then provide the hooks for GM framing of scenes.