Illusionism: Where Do You Stand?

[pemerton]

play agenda and table style (social contract ) matters.

It depends on what is being played. The nature and style of the campaign matter.

These points seem extremely uncontroversial!

Once they are noted, we can drill down further into the details, like:

*Whose job is it to instigate the action - the players or the GM (eg as per @MGibster's example of the merchant with the broken wagon)?

*What constrains the narration of consequences - things the players have chosen to put at stake, or things that the GM's unrevealed notes and decisions put at stake (eg as per @MGibster's example of the pyrrhic victory)?

*What is the significance, in play, of the players choosing to walk down path A or path B (is it supposed to be meaningful, or mere colour)?

Etc.

 

[pemerton]

Like @Umbran above, my position on illusionism is that it's unavoidable.

Well, I tend to think of "illusionism" within the context that it was introduced. From here, we first get a definition of "Force" which is then used to explain "Illusionism":

Force: the final authority that any person who is not playing a particular player-character has over decisions and actions made by that player-character. This is distinct from information that the GM imparts or chooses not to impart to play . .

Force techniques include [action declaration] manipulation, fudged/ignored rolls, perception management, clue moving, scene framing as a form of reducing options, directions as to character's actions using voiced and unvoiced signals, modifying features of various NPCs during play, and authority over using textual rules. . . .

Force Techniques often include permitting pseudo-decisions . . . Also, Force Techniques do vary in how flexible a scene's outcome is permitted to be. Some GMs (to use the classic single-GM context) might do anything up to actually picking up your dice for you in order for you to talk to "that guy," or he might let the characters miss the clue, either 'porting it to another character or letting its absence go ahead and affect the outcome. . . .

Illusionism is a widespread technique of play and arguably, textually, the most supported approach to the hobby, as testified most recently by the publication Secrets of Game-mastering (2002, Atlas Games). It relies on Force . . . . GMing with lots of covert Force is called Illusionism. I call that the Black Curtain; if the Curtain is drawn, then the players aren't immediately clued in about the presence and extent of the Force itself.

Force (Illusionist or not) isn't necessarily dyfunctional: it works well when the GM's main role is to make sure that the transcript ends up being a story, with little pressure or expectation for the players to do so beyond accepting the GM's Techniques. I think that a shared "agreement to be deceived" is typically involved, i.e., the players agree not to look behind the Black Curtain. I suggest that people who like Illusionist play are very good at establishing and abiding by their tolerable degree of Force, and Secrets of Gamemastering seems to bear that out as the perceived main issue of satisfactory role-playing per se.[/indent]

The very second a GM "extrapolates" something from existing notes + player actions + knock on effects of player actions, the GM is basically engaging in "illusionism" --- he or she is creating new in-fiction notes / factors / game states which are unknown to the characters and will remain unknown to the characters unless the characters engage in a very specific set of actions --- actions ultimately defined by the GM --- to uncover the revised game state(s).

If the extrapolation occurs via the narration of consequences, or the framing of a new scene, then the new "game state" is not unknown, and does not require a specific set of actions to uncover.

This is how some RPGs make Force, and hence Illusionism, impossible.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

These points seem extremely uncontroversial!

And yet people often controvert them. They lay down absolutes and say this must never be done.

Once they are noted, we can drill down further into the details, like:

*Whose job is it to instigate the action - the players or the GM (eg as per @MGibster's example of the merchant with the broken wagon)?

*What constrains the narration of consequences - things the players have chosen to put at stake, or things that the GM's unrevealed notes and decisions put at stake (eg as per @MGibster's example of the pyrrhic victory)?

*What is the significance, in play, of the players choosing to walk down path A or path B (is it supposed to be meaningful, or mere colour)?

Etc.

No argument from me on most it this.

 

[pemerton]

Is there a functional difference between making stuff up on the fly and making it up 10 minutes, 10 hours, 10 days or even 10 years before?

Yes. The integrity of classic dungeon exploration, as explained by Gygax in his PHB, depends on the difference.

For completely different reasons, Vincent Baker's game Apocalypse World also depends on the difference.

In Gygax, it's about separating the moment of authorship of the challenges from the moment of adjudication of action resolution. This is connected to fairness and neutrality.

In Baker's case, it's about separating the moment of decision about what is happening in this (imaginary) world from what happens to this protagonist here and now. Baker had written on his blog, prior to publishing AW, about the significance, to play experience, of separating these moments in time.

 

[pemerton]

In 1e as written, equal xp were gained for defeating or avoiding* an encounter

Can you cite the text?

Here's what I find:

PHB (p 106):
[T]the Dungeon Master will aword experience points to the character for treasure gained and opponents captured or slain and for solving or overcoming problems through professional means. . . .

Gaining experience points through the acquisition of gold pieces and by slaying monsters might be questioned by some individuals . . .

Monsters captured or slain always bring a full experience point award. Captured monsters ransomed or sold bring a gold piece: experience point ratio award. Monsters slain gain a set point award.

DMG (p 84):
The judgment factor is inescapable with respect to weighting experience for the points gained from slaying monsters and/or gaining treasure. . . .

Tricking or outwitting monsters or overcoming tricks and/or traps placed to guard treasure must be determined subjectively, with level of experience balanced against the degree of difficulty you assign to the gaining of the treasure.​

Tricking monsters out of their treasure seems to me to earn treasure XP, not killing XP.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I would agree with this.

I have issues with this. I would agree that, if the DM drops an encounter on the party irrespective of the parties efforts to avoid one then the DM is negating the parties choices. Unless the party clearly fails in the scouting/evading efforts.
I maintain: that there is no functional difference between content generated by an algorithm (i.e., random tables) and content on a stack.
By the stack, if the DM has a list of prepared encounters (similar to what one would get from a table) and just picks the next one on the stack when it is appropriate in the fiction to present an encounter.

Well see, in the second case the issue was "encounter was going to happen no matter what". It doesn't much matter what the encounter was so much as one was unavoidable (though I slightly disagree with you if the "stack" is visible to them; I think that provides too much temptation to schedule the specific encounter at a particular time).

 

[Thomas Shey]

Unless the DM is deliberately negating the efforts the PCs are actually taking to mitigate the danger of an encounter (scouting, etc) in order to plop them right into a planned combat - which would make it a railroad - how are the two points actually different? These steps are true for both situations:
1) Party picks a path at the fork
2) DM decides it's time for something to happen
3) encounter ensues

Primarily that the GM is not making an active effort to ignore the player's attempt to avoid it. And the temporal order matters there, in particular because he's already been told they're trying to avoid it, whereas in the first one the path is not chosen in any fiction-relevant way; they might as well have flipped a coin.

 

[pemerton]

2. Party is wondering in the forest. Decides the next time the players pick a path, that a particular encounter they've thought of will happen. Players try to listen and maybe scout the paths to avoid hitting any trouble. Encounter happens anyway. Very much illusionism (and probably railroading).

Well see, in the second case the issue was "encounter was going to happen no matter what". It doesn't much matter what the encounter was so much as one was unavoidable

I think this particular example highlights a problem that can easily occur in RPGing that - like a lot of D&D play - adopts a relatively unstructured approach to pacing, free roleplay etc.

The problem is this: the players are playing their PCs as trying to avoid trouble (scouting, listening etc) but there are no real stakes associated with this. And so, if they do avoid trouble, what is going to happen? Not much - which makes for a boring evening's play! Hence the temptation to use Force to place the encounter regardless of the declared actions - and the temptation to use Illusionism to conceal the Force (eg pretending to roll Perception checks for the encountered monsters).

The problem won't arise in (say) Apocalypse World or Burning Wheel, or in a 4e skill challenge, and probably not in Champions either. Because the PCs will be going from A to B through the woods for a reason, and so the stakes of their attempts to avoid trouble are do they get to B ready to achieve their reason, or rather does the encounter in the forest force some compromise or undermining of their reason when they get to B?

Either way, the play isn't boring, but the success or failure of the avoidance efforts actually matters, and in ways that are not hidden from the players. (So no Force and no Illusionism.)

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Well see, in the second case the issue was "encounter was going to happen no matter what". It doesn't much matter what the encounter was so much as one was unavoidable (though I slightly disagree with you if the "stack" is visible to them; I think that provides too much temptation to schedule the specific encounter at a particular time).

I would not make the stack visible but I play on a VTT, so I need a map and tokens to run an encounter, hence my use of a stack.
Now, are you saying that in the second case (the players choose a path in the forest) was a railroad? And that it was a railroad because the DM dropped an encounter and forced its resolution in spite of the players efforts to avoid that encounter. If so, I would agree with you.

However, if an encounter was indicated (because the DM runs a wilderness encounter on a 1 on a d10 per day of travel and the party failed to notice the signs, noticed but failed to evade the encounter happens. Then I would not regard this as illusionism even if the encounter came from a stack of prepared encounters as distinct from a map location key or a random table.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think this particular example highlights a problem that can easily occur in RPGing that - like a lot of D&D play - adopts a relatively unstructured approach to pacing, free roleplay etc.

The problem is this: the players are playing their PCs as trying to avoid trouble (scouting, listening etc) but there are no real stakes associated with this. And so, if they do avoid trouble, what is going to happen? Not much - which makes for a boring evening's play! Hence the temptation to use Force to place the encounter regardless of the declared actions - and the temptation to use Illusionism to conceal the Force (eg pretending to roll Perception checks for the encountered monsters).

If it was just limited to making something happen I'd be more sympathetic; but not only D&D but most trad games have some degree of resource limitation built in, so it can easily be "We don't want to use potions/mana/ammunition before we get to the encounter we're planning on, so we'd like to avoid one right now" where said GM may be either consciously or unconsciously trying to erode that.

The problem won't arise in (say) Apocalypse World or Burning Wheel, or in a 4e skill challenge, and probably not in Champions either. Because the PCs will be going from A to B through the woods for a reason, and so the stakes of their attempts to avoid trouble are do they get to B ready to achieve their reason, or rather does the encounter in the forest force some compromise or undermining of their reason when they get to B?

This is why I should read whole posts before responding.

Either way, the play isn't boring, but the success or failure of the avoidance efforts actually matters, and in ways that are not hidden from the players. (So no Force and no Illusionism.)

Well, it can be subtle (would the encounter actually had a significant negative impact on the targeted event?) but generally, yup.