Illusionism: Where Do You Stand?

[Reynard]

Gygaxian advice to change rules because players learned them. In some printings of the DMG:

Later advice (ISTR in Dragon) suggests changing rules to thwart those reading the DMG.

Players that use out of character knowledge to one up the GM should be punished by being uninvited. If everyone agrees otherwise, it is fine.

But, personally, as a GM I will absolutely fireproof trolls at players that just happen to attack with their torches...

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I don’t really value absolute/external setting objectivity. I value causal consistency, but even that exists to serve the game.

But the fact that I planned for ogres on the western road, is meaningless if they take the eastern road. If I had signaled that there were ogres, then yeah I’m gonna have something else going on easterly. Probably not just another different fight, but maybe a social challenge involving a troupe of performers whose wagon is stuck and who offer the party to compose a rollicking adventure play in their name if they help, but something isn’t right in the troupe, etc.

Just like if they go fight those ogres 5 levels later, one of them will have also leveled up in that time, and they will have better gear they’ve taken from travelers, and it will be a higher level fight.

 

[GrahamWills]

I thought we might have a gap of three months before the next illusionism == railroading == bad thread. I guess not.

For me, illusionism is bad for a completely different reason. It says that the GM doesn't trust the players and wants to deceive them. It's bad because it breaks trust, not because it railroads.

As an example, suppose I start a session with a combat against a werewolf. I get close to resolution and then cut the scene off with a "24 hours earlier..." interjection. Now there's a number of ways this could go:

1. Players rebel because it takes away their agency and they are being "railroaded" into a scene against their will. This has never happened to me and I can't recall anyone saying it has to them, but despite this being a staple of book, tv series, movies, films, plays etc. it's always brought up as an example of railroading. If that's you, probably best to ignore the rest of this post
2. GM presents a railroad, forcing players to go through set scenes to get to the inevitable end. This might be fun, but I've always preferred games where players get to make choices, so this is not my cup of team
3. GM presents choices, but they are mostly meaningless. This is essentially the same as (2) with the added insult of the GM effectively lying to the players. I'd prefer simple railroading, myself.
4. GM trusts the players to take actions themselves that allow them to get to the endpoint. If the GM thinks a course of action will make that impossible, she says so and everyone collaborates to get to the ending. No illusionism, no railroading -- this is my preferred way of working.

To repeat; Illusionism is bad because it breaks trust. It also has this very old-school vibe of GM-versus-players, and it can only be needed if the players and GM are in a strong non-narrative mode where they only every talk about what is realistic and what the rules say and never about the story.

If you trust your players and talk about the story, you never need Illusionism. You don't offer them a pair of heels and a pair of Birkenstocks and only accept the latter. You DEFINITELY don't offer both and kick them out of the kingdom no matter which they choose. You just trust them to get kicked out of the kingdom via their own choices.

 

[Reynard]

I thought we might have a gap of three months before the next illusionism == railroading == bad thread. I guess not.

You didn't have to click.

To repeat; Illusionism is bad because it breaks trust. It also has this very old-school vibe of GM-versus-players, and it can only be needed if the players and GM are in a strong non-narrative mode where they only every talk about what is realistic and what the rules say and never about the story.

This is interesting. I don't think illusionism is a defining feature of adversarial GMing. The opposite is true, in fact. the old school versus GM put the trap there and it stays there and the GM gets super gleeful when you don't specifically say how you avoid it and therefore hits you with it. The versus GM does not move the trap down whichever hallway you pick, at least not in my experience as a player or as a RBDM.

 

[Aldarc]

If I told you where I stood, it wouldn't be a good illusion, now would it?

 

[Lanefan]

Gygaxian advice to change rules because players learned them. In some printings of the DMG:

Later advice (ISTR in Dragon) suggests changing rules to thwart those reading the DMG.

Ah. I thought you meant punishment for learning player-side rules.

Gygax's advice here I'm fully on board with: a lot of the mechanics, charts, tables, etc. IMO can be quite happily kept DM-side, leaving the players freer to just play their characters. I like this both as a player and a DM, and one of my biggest regrets about ever becoming a DM is that doing so let me see far too much of what's going on "under the hood" thus diminishing my enjoyment as a player.

A simple example of what I mean: in pre-3e D&D combat a player rolled the to-hit die and added the character's bonuses, then the DM consulted the combat matrix vs the target's AC to determine if the swing hit or not. With 3e, this math was moved player-side as BAB, meaning more work and number-crunching for the players; work that IMO is the DM's job.

 

[JAMUMU]

The worst sort of refereeing is when you Illusionism up a Railroad and tie the players to the tracks. They're left just lying there, tied up, terrified they're going to get run over, but the whole railroad and railcar and sleepers and ties thing is just an illusion, they could get up and walk away at any time, but the referee is wearing a railman's hat and has their hands on a big ol' lever so the players think it's definitely a railroad, yessiree, but the referee knows it's an illusion and the ogre appears, all quantum-like, with its spooky action at a distance. And then the cat dies? Or does it?

Turn to Page XX if you look in the box.

Turn to Page XX if you don't look in the box.

 

[soviet]

There is only page XX

 

[soviet]

I'm getting flashbacks to the index in the 5e PHB.

Frustration: See 'Irritation''

 

[Haiku Elvis]

The worst sort of refereeing is when you Illusionism up a Railroad and tie the players to the tracks. They're left just lying there, tied up, terrified they're going to get run over, but the whole railroad and railcar and sleepers and ties thing is just an illusion, they could get up and walk away at any time, but the referee is wearing a railman's hat and has their hands on a big ol' lever so the players think it's definitely a railroad, yessiree, but the referee knows it's an illusion and the ogre appears, all quantum-like, with its spooky action at a distance. And then the cat dies? Or does it?

Turn to Page XX if you look in the box.

Turn to Page XX if you don't look in the box.

You can get away with anything these days if you wear a high-vis jacket and carry a clipboard.