A Question Of Agency?

[Crimson Longinus]

Let's examine illusionism. I offer you the appearance of a choice, but, no matter what you pick, my preplanned encounter occurs. A specific example would be the I have an encounter with orcs planned, but ask the party how they plan to traverse the Dark Wood. The party can choose to move quickly, hoping to avoid encounters, but get orcs. Or then can choose to sneak through, but they get orcs. Or they may decide something else, and still get orcs. From the player perspective, the choice they made appears to have weight, but something bad happens. They cannot tell that their choice is meaningless. According to your argument, here, they have as much agency as a party who's choice do affect what they encounter -- if they sneak, then maybe no orcs, for instance. I disagree this is the case.

To further this, the players involved could find out that the GM forced the encounter, about as easily as a person might find out a lie. In this case, the situation is exactly the same as a lie discovered. I also disagree that lies are objectively discoverable as a trait. Some are, some aren't.

That was a rather awkward use of illusionism and thus a poor example, but ultimately it doesn't matter how the engine runs behind the curtains. In an style which relies heavily on improvisation the difference between illusionsim and making up naughty word on the spot is murky and not worth agonising over. If the players feel that they're making meaningful choices then that's good enough.

 

[MGibster]

According to your argument, here, they have as much agency as a party who's choice do affect what they encounter -- if they sneak, then maybe no orcs, for instance. I disagree this is the case.

But my argument has nothing to do with how much agency anyone actually has. I can't measure agency. If the players are happy with the amount of agency they have then they have enough agency.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I don’t know if “ignorance is bliss” is all that strong a stance to take.

I’m also not sure how we can measure happiness if measuring agency is beyond us.

A player may be happy with the game they’re in. Could they be less happy if something were to change? Seems likely. Couldn’t they also be more happy if something were to change? Seems equally likely.

 

[Ovinomancer]

That was a rather awkward use of illusionism and thus a poor example, but ultimately it doesn't matter how the engine runs behind the curtains. In an style which relies heavily on improvisation the difference between illusionsim and making up naughty word on the spot is murky and not worth agonising over. If the players feel that they're making meaningful choices then that's good enough.

I think there is a difference, and it's intent. Illusionism is an a deliberate act to conceal the removal of agency. That's not necessarily bad -- I do not think the removal or limitation of agency is inherently bad in games -- in fact, most games require strong limitations on agency to function. D&D, played in the traditional way where the GM preps ahead of time and owns the setting the players explore, quite often encourages techniques like Illusionism so that the work done by the GM is not overwhelming. There are reasonable applications of Illusionism in D&D, although I personally avoid them. Regardless, Illusionism is always a deliberate act.

'Making things up,' on the other hand, may be a deliberate choice to remove agency, but it's very, very hard to conceal. If you're making things up so that you're maintaining a hard level of control over the fiction such that you're engaged in a railroad, or a playground version of nuh-uh, then, yes, this is both an abusive and deliberate act to remove agency, but it's also not concealed. However, you can 'make things up' using a strong set of principles and constraints and not do either of these things. You can 'make things up' in a way that doesn't remove any agency and instead promotes it (just like you can run traditional D&D in ways that promote agency, this isn't a competition). Illusionism can never do this -- it's a deliberate removal of agency.

So, yeah, I don't think the difference is either murky or not worth discussing. There's a clear line in how the technique function, regardless of whether or not you're invoking degenerate and bad faith play for either. If you stick to good faith play, there's still a difference, and, yes, I think Illusionism can be used in good faith -- it's a tool to reduce GM prep. I think overuse moves to bad faith, regardless of motivation in any specific instance -- it's a tool that creates railroads and hides the tracks if overused. Occasional use, especially as a buffer to use when you need bridge content because the party has either thrown you a loop or you didn't have enough direction to prep the next leg is, to me, just fine. I don't need to tell players that this encounter chain was going to happen no matter what because I need more time to prep where they just decided to go. In that case, orcs in the Dark Wood are what you get.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I think there is a difference, and it's intent. Illusionism is an a deliberate act to conceal the removal of agency. That's not necessarily bad -- I do not think the removal or limitation of agency is inherently bad in games -- in fact, most games require strong limitations on agency to function. D&D, played in the traditional way where the GM preps ahead of time and owns the setting the players explore, quite often encourages techniques like Illusionism so that the work done by the GM is not overwhelming. There are reasonable applications of Illusionism in D&D, although I personally avoid them. Regardless, Illusionism is always a deliberate act.

'Making things up,' on the other hand, may be a deliberate choice to remove agency, but it's very, very hard to conceal. If you're making things up so that you're maintaining a hard level of control over the fiction such that you're engaged in a railroad, or a playground version of nuh-uh, then, yes, this is both an abusive and deliberate act to remove agency, but it's also not concealed. However, you can 'make things up' using a strong set of principles and constraints and not do either of these things. You can 'make things up' in a way that doesn't remove any agency and instead promotes it (just like you can run traditional D&D in ways that promote agency, this isn't a competition). Illusionism can never do this -- it's a deliberate removal of agency.

So, yeah, I don't think the difference is either murky or not worth discussing. There's a clear line in how the technique function, regardless of whether or not you're invoking degenerate and bad faith play for either. If you stick to good faith play, there's still a difference, and, yes, I think Illusionism can be used in good faith -- it's a tool to reduce GM prep. I think overuse moves to bad faith, regardless of motivation in any specific instance -- it's a tool that creates railroads and hides the tracks if overused. Occasional use, especially as a buffer to use when you need bridge content because the party has either thrown you a loop or you didn't have enough direction to prep the next leg is, to me, just fine. I don't need to tell players that this encounter chain was going to happen no matter what because I need more time to prep where they just decided to go. In that case, orcs in the Dark Wood are what you get.

I'm not really following you. Every GM uses some combination of preplanning, improvisation and probably some incidental illusionism too. And distinctions between these are not clear cut. You may have preplanned some aspects and not others, or 'preplanning' might be just some vague notion that only solidifies via improvisation. What was the actual agency of the players if during the game they decide to go into the dark forest and this prompts the GM to remember a cool location from a movie they saw last week so they decide to place something like that there? And why does it even matter?

 

[Ovinomancer]

But my argument has nothing to do with how much agency anyone actually has. I can't measure agency. If the players are happy with the amount of agency they have then they have enough agency.

Did you not just measure agency by the yardstick of player happiness? And, as @hawkeyefan so simply put, can we measure player happiness?

Further, this is situational -- players may be happy with their agency in one specific event and unhappy in the next, even though we cannot differentiate a difference in agency. This usually happens when agency is evaluates in conjunction with outcomes -- lacking agency but receiving a positive outcome or a fun experience will result in a player being happy, not necessarily with the agency but with the outcome. On the other hand, a similar amount of agency where the outcome is poor may have the player notice the lack of agency and be dissatisfied with both outcome and lack of agency. There's not a general statement that can say that happiness means agency is sufficient because you're not measuring satisfaction with agency, but satisfaction with outcomes.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm not really following you. Every GM uses some combination of preplanning, improvisation and probably some incidental illusionism too. And distinctions between these are not clear cut. You may have preplanned some aspects and not others, or 'preplanning' might be just some vague notion that only solidifies via improvisation. What was the actual agency of the players if during the game they decide to go into the dark forest and this prompts the GM to remember a cool location from a movie they saw last week so they decide to place something like that there? And why does it even matter?

I'm not sure you're using the same definition for Illusionism that I'm familiar with if you don't follow my above. Illusionism is, quite simply, offering the illusion that a choice is meaningful when, regardless of the choice made, the same outcome occurs. This cannot be the same as making things up in response to player input, because the player input is the prompt to make the thing up. Illusionism requires that the GM offering the choice with the outcome already decided.

As for your question about making up something based on a cool scene if the players decide to go into the Dark Forest, this is pretty different. The choice here is that the players decided to go into the Dark Forest, at which point the GM remembers the cool scene and frames it for the players to engage. The choice had meaning -- they chose the Dark Forest, the GM frames a scene that reflects that choice. If the players had chosen a different option, like instead going into the Fell Chasm, then the GM would not have framed that scene -- the choice mattered. With Illusionism, the GM would have recalled the scene prior to play, and then framed that scene whether or not the players chose to go into the Dark Forest or the Fell Chasm -- the choice doesn't matter, you get the same outcome.

In other words, Illusionism is about appearing to offer a choice when none actually exists.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I'm not sure you're using the same definition for Illusionism that I'm familiar with if you don't follow my above. Illusionism is, quite simply, offering the illusion that a choice is meaningful when, regardless of the choice made, the same outcome occurs. This cannot be the same as making things up in response to player input, because the player input is the prompt to make the thing up. Illusionism requires that the GM offering the choice with the outcome already decided.

As for your question about making up something based on a cool scene if the players decide to go into the Dark Forest, this is pretty different. The choice here is that the players decided to go into the Dark Forest, at which point the GM remembers the cool scene and frames it for the players to engage. The choice had meaning -- they chose the Dark Forest, the GM frames a scene that reflects that choice. If the players had chosen a different option, like instead going into the Fell Chasm, then the GM would not have framed that scene -- the choice mattered. With Illusionism, the GM would have recalled the scene prior to play, and then framed that scene whether or not the players chose to go into the Dark Forest or the Fell Chasm -- the choice doesn't matter, you get the same outcome.

In other words, Illusionism is about appearing to offer a choice when none actually exists.

Except in practice it is not so clear cut. It might be more like "oh something like this would be cool, I try to work it in the game somehow when an opportunity for it arises." Perhaps if it would involve the same scene for the Fell Chasm if it would work with that too. Perhaps the GM firmly decided beforehand to do so, perhaps they just considered the possibility or perhaps it spontaneously popped in their head at the moment. And again, why does it even matter?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Except in practice it is not so clear cut. It might be more like "oh something like this would be cool, I try to work it in the game somehow when an opportunity for it arises." Perhaps if it would involve the same scene for the Fell Chasm if it would work with that too. Perhaps the GM firmly decided beforehand to do so, perhaps they just considered the possibility or perhaps it spontaneously popped in their head at the moment. And again, why does it even matter?

You're not talking about Illusionism, though. You've confused it for prep. If I, as a GM, prepare a cool forest encounter, but leave it on the shelf until and unless the players choose to go to a forest, this isn't Illusionism. I didn't offer them a choice that isn't, I've just prepared some material in case the players make that choice. Anticipation isn't Illusionism.

Again, Illusionism is only the case where you appear to offer the players a choice but the outcome is already decided. My earlier example was actually a clear example of Illusionism. The GM is offering the players a choice of how they will traverse the Dark Forest. The players weigh the options and decide that their going to sneak through the forest so as to avoid encounters. However, the GM wants to run his Orc encounter, so he has the players be caught out by the orcs even though they tried to sneak through to avoid encounters. Had the players just gone through the forest normally, the same would have happened. This is Illusionism -- the choice to sneak by the players is meaningless because the GM determines the outcome is the same as the other option.

Now, had the GM just prepared an orc encounter in the Dark Forest, and then asked the players how their going to traverse the Forest and followed through on that choice, this is prep, not Illusionism. If the players, in this case, decide to sneak through the Forest, they can avoid the orcs entirely. Their decision matters. That you prepped the orcs beforehand is irrelevant, because Illusionism is not about prepared material or improved material, but about whether or not the offered choice matters or not.

If you're, instead, asking what the difference is between preparing an orc encounter and using it if the players choose to sneak and fail their checks or inventing the orcs on the spot after the players fail their sneaking checks, then, yeah, you're right, there's little difference in outcome. A good bit in where the GM's work occurs, but that's a different discussion, and largely depends on the game.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

You're not talking about Illusionism, though. You've confused it for prep. If I, as a GM, prepare a cool forest encounter, but leave it on the shelf until and unless the players choose to go to a forest, this isn't Illusionism. I didn't offer them a choice that isn't, I've just prepared some material in case the players make that choice. Anticipation isn't Illusionism.

Except if that same forest encounter appears in any forest the players might go that is illusionism. They might choose to whether to go to Grim Woods, Ghastly Forest or the Nasty Grove but the same encounter will still be there. Reskinning that same forest encounter to different environs that the characters might decide to go to would also be illusionism.

Again, Illusionism is only the case where you appear to offer the players a choice but the outcome is already decided. My earlier example was actually a clear example of Illusionism. The GM is offering the players a choice of how they will traverse the Dark Forest. The players weigh the options and decide that their going to sneak through the forest so as to avoid encounters. However, the GM wants to run his Orc encounter, so he has the players be caught out by the orcs even though they tried to sneak through to avoid encounters. Had the players just gone through the forest normally, the same would have happened. This is Illusionism -- the choice to sneak by the players is meaningless because the GM determines the outcome is the same as the other option.

So what does 'decided' mean in this context? If I write on my notes "this happens no matter what" that seems to be pretty firmly decided. What if I just thought about it? What if I instead though "I try to get this thing to happen"? What if I merely think "it would be cool if this thing would happen?"

Now, had the GM just prepared an orc encounter in the Dark Forest, and then asked the players how their going to traverse the Forest and followed through on that choice, this is prep, not Illusionism. If the players, in this case, decide to sneak through the Forest, they can avoid the orcs entirely. Their decision matters. That you prepped the orcs beforehand is irrelevant, because Illusionism is not about prepared material or improved material, but about whether or not the offered choice matters or not.

And if you had not decided sneaking DCs, the number of checks required etc beforehand, can you guarantee that you spending a significant amount of time preparing that orc encounter wouldn't affect how hard you decide to make the sneaking? This is what I mean, the difference between illusionism and the GM gently tipping the scales towards the outcome they want is really flimsy.