D&D General A defense of illusionism

[pemerton]

IMO. In some sense how story now/narrative games tend to handle consequences for player actions is exactly how illusionism is used in more sim style games. The difference seems to be more around whether and when that technique is expected. Whether it’s driven by the dice or by the DM.

I don't really know what you mean.

Here's an example of a "story now"-ish technique, from my Torchbearer actual play:

Golin used his 2nd level Outcast ability to haggle for free. The test failed, but the Failed Haggling Events roll didn't hurt him. He also bought some candles and food, but had some trouble with other purchases. He failed an attempt to buy rope, and I introduced a twist - a constable of the Tower, who wanted to learn more about Golin's involvement in an explosion at the hedge wizard's establishment, and its subsequent burning down. Golin decided to turn the gathered crowd against the constable and in his favour - opposed Oratory tests! Fea-bella helped with her Manipulator ("He's an innocent Dwarf, just trying to buy some rope!" called a heckler from the crowd), and Golin succeeded. So the constable backed off, but not without giving a look to the rope vendor that made it clear no rope was to be vended (ie the failed Resources test was to stand).

Golin then decided to buy a small shovel (pack 1 compared to the standard pack 2) - I asked whether he wanted wooden (Ob 1) or metal (Ob 2) and his player replied "Wooden, of course!" - it can also be used as fuel if necessary. But the three dice (Resources back up to 2 by this stage, plus +1D from a stimulated economy) yielded not a single success, and who should Golin see coming towards him once again but the constable! I told him to note down his new enemy, and that the town phase was now done. Both players succeeded on their Lifestyle checks, and so returned Fresh to Megloss's house to begin the adventure proper.

It's clear to everyone at the table, at each point of play, how events are being introduced and resolved:

*Golin's player declares the attempt to purchase rope;

*The Resources test is rolled and failed;

*The rules give me, as GM, two options: introduce a twist for the failed test, or allow the test to nevertheless succeed but to impose a condition - I chose to introduce a twist, namely, the constable, and in doing that I weave in past events (namely, the burning down of the Hedge Witch's establishment by the Cinder Imp whom the PCs drove off from Megloss's house) - "living, breathing world!";

*The player responds to the twist, by turning the crowd against the constable - successful Oratory - and thus no further consequence is suffered, but the failed Resources test still stands (as per the rules - in Burning Wheel this is called "Let it Ride" but in Torchbearer it's called "Fun Once");

*The player tries their next purchase, the wooden shovel, and this fails too;

*I therefore introduce another twist, namely, the constable coming back in higher dudgeon - in other words, stepping up the fallout from the earlier test - and give that the mechanical meaning of bringing the town phase to an end.​

There was no unilateral GM decision-making about whether or not rope, or a shovel, could be purchased, nor about whether or not the PC would get in trouble for his role in the burning down of the Hedge Witch's establishment, nor about whether or not the crowd would take the PC's or the constable's side, nor about whether or not the PC would make an enemy of the constable.

In illusionist play, the GM would make a unilateral decision about each of these things, on some basis that is not evident to the players; and would impose that decision without calling for rolls from the player, or regardless of what the player rolls. It's a completely different process of play.

 

[pointofyou]

In illusionist play, the GM would make a unilateral decision about each of these things, on some basis that is not evident to the players; and would impose that decision without calling for rolls from the player, or regardless of what the player rolls. It's a completely different process of play.

Seems to me as though there's a difference in the types of play you're describing in this paragraph. I'd think that "because the rules say a thing has a set price it is therefore available almost anywhere" isn't "on some basis that isn't evident to the players." I'd think that a deciding on some basis hidden to to the players and not calling for a roll is different from calling for a roll and ignoring it. The first seems like referring to the rules. The second seems like referring to the GM's notes. The third seems like illusionism to me.

 

[pemerton]

Seems to me as though there's a difference in the types of play you're describing in this paragraph. I'd think that "because the rules say a thing has a set price it is therefore available almost anywhere" isn't "on some basis that isn't evident to the players." I'd think that a deciding on some basis hidden to to the players and not calling for a roll is different from calling for a roll and ignoring it. The first seems like referring to the rules. The second seems like referring to the GM's notes. The third seems like illusionism to me.

Sorry, I've not quite followed.

I described an episode of play which had, as its fictional content:

*A PC tries to buy something;
*PC isn't able to, as the local constable suspects the PC is connected to a house/shop fire - and while the constable doesn't actually try and interrogate or apprehend the PC, the constable does succeed in having the local vendor not trade with them;
*A PC then tries to buy something else, and again the constable turns up, at which point the PC has to skedaddle.​

I also described how this unfolded mechanically in my game, and suggested how - in illusionist play - the same fictional content might unfold. By definition, in illusionist play the basis of the GM decision-making would not be evident to the players, the GM would decide unilaterally, and the GM may or may not call for rolls but would not treat them as binding on the resolution of the situation.

I'm not sure how things having a set price and hence being available almost anywhere fits in. If that's the approach being taken to acquiring ropes and shovels, then there's not going to be any fiction of the sort I described.

I also don't see the difference between referring to notes and illusionism without more information. For instance, if the GM's notes say "Whatever the PCs do, the constable will come after them" then that is a recipe for illusionist play (eg CoC adventures, and post mid-80s D&D adventure, have a lot of this sort of thing in them).

 

[pointofyou]

Sorry, I've not quite followed.

I described an episode of play which had, as its fictional content:

*A PC tries to buy something;​

*PC isn't able to, as the local constable suspects the PC is connected to a house/shop fire - and while the constable doesn't actually try and interrogate or apprehend the PC, the constable does succeed in having the local vendor not trade with them;​

*A PC then tries to buy something else, and again the constable turns up, at which point the PC has to skedaddle.​

I also described how this unfolded mechanically in my game, and suggested how - in illusionist play - the same fictional content might unfold. By definition, in illusionist play the basis of the GM decision-making would not be evident to the players, the GM would decide unilaterally, and the GM may or may not call for rolls but would not treat them as binding on the resolution of the situation.

I'm not sure how things having a set price and hence being available almost anywhere fits in. If that's the approach being taken to acquiring ropes and shovels, then there's not going to be any fiction of the sort I described.

I also don't see the difference between referring to notes and illusionism without more information. For instance, if the GM's notes say "Whatever the PCs do, the constable will come after them" then that is a recipe for illusionist play (eg CoC adventures, and post mid-80s D&D adventure, have a lot of this sort of thing in them).

I was referring strictly to acquiring basic items like ropes and shovels. Referring to the rules for a price isn't illusionist play. Referring to the GM's notes to see if they're available plausibly likewise isn't though that will depend on the extent of the notes. Flat deciding the matter either way might well be though I'd be inclined to think it might depend on how the GM approaches and handles it.

 

[pemerton]

I was referring strictly to acquiring basic items like ropes and shovels. Referring to the rules for a price isn't illusionist play.

OK? I don't think I said anything to the contrary.