D&D General A defense of illusionism

[Shiroiken]

Illusionism is ruined once you know how the trick is done. I've played in a game where I saw the man behind the curtain, and it was never enjoyable again. Those who feel this is a worthwhile tool should be wary, for it is a double edged sword.

 

[Pedantic]

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).

Drifting the topic slightly, but this general tone has started to bother me more and more. It isn't an intrinsic feature of games and design as a whole that some combination of mechanics inevitably creeps in that exceeds the tolerances the game was built for. That's just not something that has to happen. And conversely, a lot of the things that get put together as "broken combos" seem to be pretty clearly just "reading the mechanics and using them" by the standards of most other kinds of tabletop games. We're not into speedrunning exploits here, we're into basic deck construction or 3rd playthrough of a eurogame territory.

• 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.

"Authorship" is a loaded term in TTRPG discussion. There's a general gameplay sense in which authorship is inevitable and reasonable. Consider a board game example again: Dominion can't play itself. It proscribes what you can do, when play will start and when play will end, but the inputting of actions to create and resolve a board state and the making of decisions could reasonably be termed "authorship" and is essential for the game to happen.

The problem is that "authorship" implies the authoring of a story specifically, and that is a whole other debate. I can envision a model of immersion that's comfortable with authorship, in the sense of specifically applying the agency of the character being portrayed. Taking that view, I find a little more charity for the essay's points around this.

• 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).

I found the writing a little protracted and flowery, personally, felt like a lot of restatement. Generally, it seemed to be pushing a broadening of a definition of illusionism away from the strictest sense of negating player input while appearing not to do so, to more general GM techniques for driving toward a desired conclusion, hitting specific story beats, reusing prep and so on. In that sense, I think the essay should mostly be taken as a counterpoint to that definition of illusion I provided swinging the other way, and broadening to absorb more and more "reasonable" GM techniques into the reviled state.

 

[Nikosandros]

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

I actually absolutely adore illusionists in AD&D. Also, they have one of the coolest write-up of a spell.

During the casting, the illusionist must call out to the subject or subjects, informing one or all that their final fate, indeed their doom, now is upon them.

Pure Gygaxian poetry, right there...

 

[MichaelSomething]

You want less illusionism in your games? Take your DM out to improv classes!

 

[pemerton]

Asking whether illusionism is good or bad in RPGing in general seems silly. Some people enjoy it. Some don't.

Though it's probably true that some published RPG rules sets can't work without the GM making a lot of decisions to bridge from imaginary event to imaginary event (as @FrogReaver suggests upthread) and in that case if the GM is not being overt about that decision-making - which might seem a bit crass! - then illusionism may be inevitable.

 

[kenada]

Drifting the topic slightly, but this general tone has started to bother me more and more. It isn't an intrinsic feature of games and design as a whole that some combination of mechanics inevitably creeps in that exceeds the tolerances the game was built for. That's just not something that has to happen. And conversely, a lot of the things that get put together as "broken combos" seem to be pretty clearly just "reading the mechanics and using them" by the standards of most other kinds of tabletop games. We're not into speedrunning exploits here, we're into basic deck construction or 3rd playthrough of a eurogame territory.

The article was discussing it in the context of “sportsmanship”, calling such plays “unsporting”. I was reacting to that because the idea of “proper” play is used to delegitimize playing RPGs as games.

"Authorship" is a loaded term in TTRPG discussion. There's a general gameplay sense in which authorship is inevitable and reasonable. Consider a board game example again: Dominion can't play itself. It proscribes what you can do, when play will start and when play will end, but the inputting of actions to create and resolve a board state and the making of decisions could reasonably be termed "authorship" and is essential for the game to happen.

I’m trying to use “authorship” the way the article is using it. Substitute my own definition or arguing against the one used in the article is just going to make discussing the ideas in it more difficult.

The problem is that "authorship" implies the authoring of a story specifically, and that is a whole other debate. I can envision a model of immersion that's comfortable with authorship, in the sense of specifically applying the agency of the character being portrayed. Taking that view, I find a little more charity for the essay's points around this.

The framework put forth by the Hindmarch definitionally has immersion happening when you are in the audience, so it can’t happen as part of authorship (because you know the secret to the trick, essentially). Based on what I have seen immersive-oriented players say about their play, I think they would agree with that.

It’s usually very important that they are interacting with the game only as their characters, which includes thinking like their characters. What Hindmarch proposes, especially the idea of players also engaging in illusionism, would be a violation of their play priorities. They specifically do not want to be making decisions based not only on what makes for good gameplay but also are not interested in doing so for what makes a good story.

So where’s the problem? It’s the implication that they are just audience members in the game the GM is authoring.

I found the writing a little protracted and flowery, personally, felt like a lot of restatement. Generally, it seemed to be pushing a broadening of a definition of illusionism away from the strictest sense of negating player input while appearing not to do so, to more general GM techniques for driving toward a desired conclusion, hitting specific story beats, reusing prep and so on. In that sense, I think the essay should mostly be taken as a counterpoint to that definition of illusion I provided swinging the other way, and broadening to absorb more and more "reasonable" GM techniques into the reviled state.

It seems more practical than that. The article isn’t discussing some new definitions to use. It’s suggesting illusion as a useful technique for all players (not just the GM). It’s obviously limited to certain kinds of games, and the author concedes that towards the end, but it’s useful for the type the Hindmarch prefers and thinks make for exciting RPGing.

 

[pemerton]

The article isn’t discussing some new definitions to use. It’s suggesting illusion as a useful technique for all players (not just the GM). It’s obviously limited to certain kinds of games, and the author concedes that towards the end, but it’s useful for the type the Hindmarch prefers and thinks make for exciting RPGing.

I think a great challenge for RPG design and play, historically, has been to have exciting RPGing without need illusionism to achieve it.

That technical problem has now been solved, though, and the solutions widely disseminated. That's not a reason to avoid illusionism if one is into it. But for me is a reason to be wary of claims that "everyone uses illusionism" or similar sorts of things.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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.

Pretty much where I've been for the last 34 years. Welcome to the neighbourhood!

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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

I honestly think D&D would be better if Illusionist and a couple of other "wizard types" were different classes to the dumb nerd who just "knows all the spells" or so he informs us, smirkingly, from behind a dogeared copy of Atlas Shrugged.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think a great challenge for RPG design and play, historically, has been to have exciting RPGing without need illusionism to achieve it.

That technical problem has now been solved, though, and the solutions widely disseminated. That's not a reason to avoid illusionism if one is into it. But for me is a reason to be wary of claims that "everyone uses illusionism" or similar sorts of things.

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.