D&D General A defense of illusionism

[Snarf Zagyg]

A short while ago, I was in another thread when I made a brief aside about illusionism. Now, at the time, I made an analogy to magicians, and magic tricks, and how, generally, magic tricks (again, before you feel it necessary to point it out, other than Penn & Teller) are almost never explained by the magician.

At the time, I thought it would make a great seed for a general essay on the topic of illusionism. Of course, before I start any of my ... um ... brief writings on any topic, I like to do a little bit of research. And when doing this research, I found that someone else had already written a lengthy essay, largely covering the topics I wanted to cover, and even using the same analogy (and, alas, even discussing the incomparable Ricky Jay, my favorite magician).

So instead of largely restating what someone else has written, I will instead post a link to an essay that makes the points I wanted to make.

https://medium.com/gameplaywright-presents/the-illusionists-lament-dramaturgy-and-illusion-for-the-best-in-rpg-play-97d348bcb16

I recommend reading it before commenting. But the general gist of the essay is that illusionism isn't just a dirty word and an insinuation to be used in absolutist debates; instead, it's a technique that we all use, GMs and players alike, in all games (yes, even those games with shared authority over the narrative) and that instead of continuing to argue over the definition and to demonize the technique, it would be better to understand what is, and isn't, a proper deployment of these types of techniques in order to create a better and more meaningful experience for everyone at the table.

So, after reading the essay, feel free to use the comments to explain just how ... right ... the essay is in the comments. Because this is the internet, and I am sure this will happen!

 

[Oligopsony]

You had another thread on jargon, and this is an essay where I think that an embrace of jargon could be useful, because it’s often unclear where you’re referring to the general English meaning of a term and where you’re referring to the particular meanings these have taken on in TTRPG discourse. (The usual suspects apply: illusionism, narrative, immersion.)

I will say that I think my phenomenology of play and audienceship differs from how you describe them (as I read it?), and that I’m probably more sensitive than the average person in my antiplotstructure taste receptors, as it were. I really appreciate say Richard Linklater for how much he creates the illusion of authenticity specifically by avoiding certain cliched techniques in his medium, and I read the TTRPG critique of rpg!illusionism largely in that light.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

You had another thread on jargon, and this is an essay where I think that an embrace of jargon could be useful, because it’s often unclear where you’re referring to the general English meaning of a term and where you’re referring to the particular meanings these have taken on in TTRPG discourse. (The usual suspects apply: illusionism, narrative, immersion.)

Well, to be fair, this isn't my essay. This is a link to an essay by Will Hindmarch. I think that he does a good job of grappling (at length) with the idea that "illusionism" as jargon is counterproductive, while "illusionism" as technique is more productive.

I will say that I think my phenomenology of play and audienceship differs from how you describe them (as I read it?), and that I’m probably more sensitive than the average person in my antiplotstructure taste receptors, as it were. I really appreciate say Richard Linklater for how much he creates the illusion of authenticity specifically by avoiding certain cliched techniques in his medium, and I read the TTRPG critique of rpg!illusionism largely in that light.

Again, I would say that the essay grapples with these concepts as well. That said, not everyone will have the same preferences - either holitically, or at any given moment in time. There are times that I want to play a classic dungeon/hex crawl, times that I want to play an FKR one-shot, and times that I want to play 13th Fleet. It's all good.

Instead, this is more about provoking more thought about why illusionism (from both GMs and players) can be a valid technique, as opposed to a verboten term, in TTRPGs.

 

[Aldarc]

Illusionism can be good.

 

[overgeeked]

Where I was for years: illusionism is always bad. Full stop.

Where I am now: illusionism, when used to make the game play smoother and help support the players’ choices can be good. Illusionism used to negate player choice and preserve the referee’s prep or push the story they want to tell is always bad.

The referee wants the PCs to fight this ogre, so by the gods whatever choice the players make there’s an ogre standing ready to fight…that’s bad. Always was, always will be.

The referee moving a clue to help the stalled party get on with the adventure…that can be good.

 

[Alzrius]

I dunno, I think that in general the idea of playing an illusionist is a good one, but the practical implementation is where the rubber tends to hit the road. The very nature of illusion magic is that the target can't tell what's real and what's not (in some particular area of perception), but the fact that D&D (and other games that are, shall we say, not-rules-light) goes out of its way to codify how magic operates is usually to the detriment of that. Just look at what happens when someone's detect magic spell identifies an effect of the illusion school of magic-

Oh, wait, that's not what we're talking about. Nevermind!

 

[FrogReaver]

illusionism as a technique can be used for good or bad.

I’ve not thought illusionism was bad of itself for a long time now. In the stereotypical playstyle, illusionism can add new and interesting elements in game intervals where the players want just that but the unfolding of the game has made it that no such elements could occur absent the illusionism by being based on what is currently in the GMs notes and has previously occurred in play.

of course it can also be bad for many of the traditional arguments against it.

 

[MGibster]

::Realizes the discussion isn't about Gnome Thief-Illusionists and becomes disallusioned::

 

[kenada]

I read the article. I’m not a fan of it for a few reasons. I don’t like the “tell me a story” style of argument. I find it obfuscatory and tedious at times. That’s a me problem though. Regarding the article itself, it falls into the trap of advancing a particular view of RPGs (that they’re about telling stories) to bolster its argument for having illusionism as a tool in your toolbox. That stuck out to me in a few places:

• Early in the article, it makes a comparison to poor plays in games. It suggests that using a broken combo is problematic, but that’s not necessarily the case. It’s situational. If you’re playing a casual game with players of mixed skill levels, it’s probably not going to be fun for everyone to do that. In a competitive environment? Yeah, you probably should not only be using that combo but also be prepared to counter it (since there are rarely true “I win” buttons).
• The discussion of immersion seemed problematic. I think those who value immersion, especially deep in-character immersion, would take issue with the distinction made that immersion is something the audience experiences and that play involves a spectrum of between audience and authorship. In that orientation, play is about being your character and experiencing the world as your character. The idea of authorship is anathema to that approach.
• The final section acknowledges other ways of play, but it implies they may result in poor experiences (and suggests they may even drive people away from RPGs when they experience them). That seems rather uncharitable. It does acknowledge that are styles of play incompatible with illusionism (such as those involving totally transparent collaboration) but it follows that with an implication that such styles are less inclusive of different players.

I don’t think this is a conscious or intentional attempt to disparage other styles of play, but I wish it hadn’t done that.

Setting all that aside, it makes sense to have illusionism as a tool in your toolbox when it’s appropriate for the game you’re playing. The extension of the definition provided at the start of the article to all players (not just the GM) is also an interesting idea. I think it’s unfortunate that it’s so difficult to discuss different ways of RPGing because certain ideas and approaches are internalized as The Way It’s Done™ rather than being a way of playing a particular game (or family of games).

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I dunno, I think that in general the idea of playing an illusionist is a good one, but the practical implementation is where the rubber tends to hit the road. The very nature of illusion magic is that the target can't tell what's real and what's not (in some particular area of perception), but the fact that D&D (and other games that are, shall we say, not-rules-light) goes out of its way to codify how magic operates is usually to the detriment of that. Just look at what happens when someone's detect magic spell identifies an effect of the illusion school of magic-

Oh, wait, that's not what we're talking about. Nevermind!

Hey now! The 1e illusionist was the bestest class ever, and we have never recovered from its loss!

And if you disagree, take it up with this guy before your ego writes check that your so-called "detect magic" can't cash.