A Question Of Agency?

[Crimson Longinus]

You've fixated on the example and have missed that the example isn't the case, it's the example of a case. The case is that the players are offered a choice, but the outcome is predetermined -- the choice doesn't matter. This is Force. If you hide this from the players such that the choice appears meaningful -- perhaps by spinning the yarn that the other fork didn't occur so only this line matters, despite the fact that it's really the choice that didn't matter -- then you're into Illusionism as a subset of Force. I'm not really sure why you're putting all of this effort into a throwaway example to illuminate the case of Illusionism, but I don't think that your argument -- that since the other fork (or forks) didn't happen there's no there there -- is particularly worthwhile.

What I don't find worthwhile is agonising over things that only exist in the GMs head. The players will always experience only one set of events, hypothetical ifs and buts don't matter.

 

[macd21]

What I don't find worthwhile is agonising over things that only exist in the GMs head. The players will always experience only one set of events, hypothetical ifs and buts don't matter.

It’s not agonising over things that only exist in the GMs head, it’s ‘agonising’ over whether or not players have agency, which is different. The reason it is a worthwhile discussion is because agency is often (though not always) a factor on how much players enjoy a game. If players feel they lack agency, they’ll probably grow frustrated with the game. Illusionism is a method of hiding their lack of agency from players.

 

[Ovinomancer]

And if it was just left at that it would be a pretty terrible use of illusionism, and I'd have to question why the GM included the rumour table in the first place if they didn't intend to do anything with the rumours.

But let's suppose I want to do this exact thing for some reason. Maybe I intended to prep for both orcs and spiders, but my pet iguana ate the MM pages containing the rules fore spiders so now I have only the orc encounter prepped. Or perhaps I'm just a nefarious power-mad illusionist. Anyway, as the characters arrive to the Gnarly Forest they come upon several slain spiders, and if they investigate they manage to find some arrows of orcish manufacture. But there are no orcs in the Gnarly Forest, and the closest orc settlement in the Grim Chasm is a significant distance away! What are the orcs doing here? This is not just some random orc raiding party, the spiders have nothing of value. Has someone send the orcs here and to what end? So now instead of just one random encounter with orcs on the orc territory, the encounter will now be tied to an emerging sublot. The actions of PCs did affect things, just not in the way they may have anticipated.

Interesting, but not sure I can agree that a brief gloss of fiction actually represents honoring the players' choice. Especially when it seems the result is pretty much the same thing, now pretending a mystery. This feels like another layer of Illusionism rather than a step out of it.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Interesting, but not sure I can agree that a brief gloss of fiction actually represents honoring the players' choice. Especially when it seems the result is pretty much the same thing, now pretending a mystery. This feels like another layer of Illusionism rather than a step out of it.

Yes, it absolutely is. So what?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It’s not agonising over things that only exist in the GMs head, it’s ‘agonising’ over whether or not players have agency, which is different. The reason it is a worthwhile discussion is because agency is often (though not always) a factor on how much players enjoy a game. If players feel they lack agency, they’ll probably grow frustrated with the game. Illusionism is a method of hiding their lack of agency from players.

Yes. Thus what matters whether the players feel whether they have agency. This has more to do with presentation than the actual decision making process the GM uses.

 

[Ovinomancer]

What I don't find worthwhile is agonising over things that only exist in the GMs head. The players will always experience only one set of events, hypothetical ifs and buts don't matter.

You've missed my point -- who chose the things the players experience? This argument is substituting that only one story is experienced (ad arguendo) for saying choices and who makes them are irrelevant. They aren't -- the story experienced revolves on the axis if who chooses what.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yes, it absolutely is. So what?

My bad, I thought you were providing an argument for hiw a GM might engage in the thread's favorite Illusionism example in a way that wasn't Illusionism. If you're intent was just to provide sn example where the GM is nudged into tge Illusionism, I guess that works.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

You've missed my point -- who chose the things the players experience?

Why does it matter?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Nice in theory.

In practice, if I took down notes in enough detail to be worth it I'd spend 2/3 of the session writing...which would mean 2/3 of the session would be wasted time for the players as I'm really no good at either talking or listening while I'm writing.

Okay, this is saying that memorilaizing 2/3rds of a improv session is equivalent to prep + some lesser amount note taking, and that this is the minimum amount of work needed to avoid errors in presenting existing fiction. I'd say this is unplayable if even close to true. After a bare handful of sessions, the depth of notes, either from prep or play, is massive and either requires a constant major effort to collate and review or will itself lead to errors in presentation.

Given as I don't currently have issues of lots of errors creeping into my games with the light notes I take during play (introduced NPCs, actions taken, etc) I can say your fear is overblown. It has happened, sure, but at the same frequency and kevel of impact from when I had heavy prep.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Why does it matter?

Not sure what "it" is here. My first guess is that your saying that there's no difference between a choice the players make and a choice the GM makes for the players. If so, then I think we're way too far apart here to discuss -- your position is anathema to my concept of games in general, much less RPG theory. I hope this is not the case.