Illusionism: Where Do You Stand?

[MGibster]

I don't see how this is illusionism.

They're going to encounter the merchant no matter where they go.

 

[Reynard]

They're going to encounter the merchant no matter where they go.

That is an interesting question: how does illusionism interact with "the hook." I feel like it might be a special case since "the hook" is a necessity (at least for games where adventures happen rather than wanderings).

If, for example, you opened the session with the scene with the merchant, would that somehow count as illusionism or railroading, as opposed to if you had it happened 10 minutes into the session?

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I don't see how this is illusionism.

(I know, I said I was not going to get involved in this again but Will check failed) This, I think supports my belief that the play agenda and table style (social contract ) matters.
There is a spectrum of play where at the one end illusionism (and railroading) are completely an anathema and the other end where they are sometimes necessary tools to serve the play agenda.
Published adventures are case in point. Once a decision is made to play a published adventure then in my opinion there is an obligation on the part of the players to engage with the written material. Sometimes that will involve riding on the adventure writer's rails and if the players/characters miss a connection then some illusionism may be needed to connect the characters back with the adventure.
In those circumstances, in my experience the players do not mind, the illusion or the rails. They knew what they were buying into in advance.

 

[ART!]

I do this regularly and have no problem with it. As a GM, if I think ogres are cool and I have a neat idea for how to run them and use them to move things forward, I'll get them in there somehow, regardless of the PC's decisions. I'm there to have fun, too, and if I think my ogre encounter is fun, I'm going to put my prep to use.

 

[bloodtide]

A lot of illusionism - or advocacy for illusionism - seems to rest on a premise that all the "engine" for play has to come from the GM.

That can be the case, but it doesn't have to be the case.

Yes, this is true: The GM is the Engine of the whole Game Word. It's really a basic part of being a GM. There is no one else in the game to do it.

A player, in a traditional game where they only control their one character, can only...at best...make vague suggestions. And then the GM has to step in and do all the work and make the Engine go. For many players the "saying a random vague suggestion" every once in a while makes them "feel good", so a lot of GMs just let this slide.

In the traditional game the GM makes up a lot of stuff before the player even encounters it: making at least a rough adventure framework. And maybe most of all a reality based, sane world that 'works'. A GM can make nothing, let the player make their vague suggestions, and then just improv the world right in front of the player. Though this really puts the burden of creation on the player, and they maybe unwilling or unable to handle it. The player is often unwilling or unable to keep track of created things, so they will just randomly create things on their whims. This can make for a crazy, unrealistic mess of a world. Unless the GM steps in to fix every mistake a player makes: it would just be easier for the GM to create everything with rational, common sense.

But even if you do the above, once your immersed in a single plot story, the GM really has to be the Game Engine. The plot and story must move forward in a game based on reality. If you don't, your playing the worst version of some of the worst video games ever: no matter what the PC does Everything resets to default as soon as they leave an area.

This is where I am. I don't believe I railroad players, rather I set up the situation, I know exactly what's going to happen if the player's don't interfere, and I leave them free to decide how best to handle things. Like I said earlier in the thread, it's only railroading if you don't allow players to make meaningful choices. If I want to introduce an adventure hook, it's necessary for me to contrive a situation where it's introduced. Instead of ogres, maybe it's a merchant with a broken wagon. It doesn't matter which direction the PCs go in, they're going to encounter this merchant, but it's up to them what they do at this point.

I know Railroading has a "bad name", and I'm trying to change it. Like most things it can be used for good and bad.

A lot of things in a game the players "have" to do with no choice. If the players want to destroy the undead of the lost ruins....well, then they have to take some sort of directed action towards that goal.

And while some things to have more then one way or "path" you can take towards a goal.....really like more then half of the time the pathway is really just a simple straightforward one. The players want to destroy the undead of the lost ruins: they go to the ruins and attack and destroy the undead in combat. While there are other paths, most often they are not open to the characters. A Wave of Holy Water could destroy all the undead....but the PCs can't summon 100 billion gallons of holy water anyway.

You would think so, but I've had occasion to see my players avoid encounters and plot hooks during campaigns and even strangers at one-shots at my local gaming store.

It's normal enough for players with characters "on a mission/quest" to ignore side things. Really a DM should avoid such things.

If, for example, you opened the session with the scene with the merchant, would that somehow count as illusionism or railroading, as opposed to if you had it happened 10 minutes into the session?

This does make my point that: Things Must Happen. The fictional game world in a simulation must move, live and breathe to feel real. If not your left with the video game world where NPC X just "says" to the PCs some boxed text any time the PCs get within five feet of him.

Again, it's exactly like the fiction in media: no matter what bar the hero goes to, the bad guys will be there waiting so there can be a cool bar fight scene. This is 100% fake and an illusion and a railroad: but it MUST happen. The fight scene at the bar is a cool action scene....and it's the type of thing people watching the action movie WANT to see. So the "movie logic" makes it happen, and no one in the movie questions it in-universe.

 

[Reynard]

Again, it's exactly like the fiction in media: no matter what bar the hero goes to, the bad guys will be there waiting so there can be a cool bar fight scene. This is 100% fake and an illusion and a railroad: but it MUST happen. The fight scene at the bar is a cool action scene....and it's the type of thing people watching the action movie WANT to see. So the "movie logic" makes it happen, and no one in the movie questions it in-universe.

I don't think this scene is necessary in an game session unless the PCs' choices require it.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I don't think this scene is necessary in an game session unless the PCs' choices require it.

It depends on what is being played. The nature and style of the campaign matter. For instance, I am a player in Dragonlance: Shadow of the Dragon Queen, and there are (I have not read the actual adventure) 3 key scenes at the beginning that the characters must engage with to progress the adventure. Their engagement and behaviour in these scenes give the PCs the narrative connections to receive the quests that progress the next part of the adventure.
It is very railroady from my perspective (it is also a newbie DM). Now, I and the other player do not mind the railroad so much because we engaged as players to play this particular adventure.
Now, the PCs(player) could not engage with the initial scenes and aside from making a lot of work for the DM, it would be a different campaign. It would be some kind of sandbox game taking place in the same location with the events of the module taking place in the background. This could be a fun campaign, but it is not the one the players and DM initially agreed to play.
It is perfectly legitimate to not like this particular kind of campaign, it is equally legit to like this kind of play.

 

[bloodtide]

I don't think this scene is necessary in an game session unless the PCs' choices require it.

But this is the problem with the Video Game Style of game: The whole world is Frozen in Time, unless the player characters are there to Unfreeze time.

This is the problem with the "player choices" that are the ONLY thing that can Trigger anything ever to happen in the game world.

Take a hungry wild monster lurking near a town.

In the Video Game set up, the DMs hands are tied. The DM can ONLY have the hungry monster attack the PCs if the players give permission for that action to happen. Often by going to an exact spot. A spot the DM HAS to foreshadow and metagame with "oh there is a hungry monster around location x". So the players know if the make the choice to go to location x, they are giving the DM permission to use that hungry monster encounter.

In the Simulation game....the hungry monster can attack wherever and when ever the DM wishes on a whim.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think, like railroading its near kin, its okay if the players have pretty clear buy-in that some of that is going to be going on. But without that explicit buy-in, I consider it pretty bad technique.

 

[Umbran]

I stumbled across this blog post and thought it might be fun to talk to ENWorld about Quantum Ogres and the Illusion of Choice.

If you don't want to click through, the tl;dr is that Illusionism Is Bad. The author is responding to a different blog -- one that advocated for what is being referred to as the Quantum Ogre.

Ugh, the Quantum Ogre.

If the party didn't know about the ogre, or wasn't choosing a path in order to avoid the ogre or encounters in general, or their route doesn't make the placement of the ogre nonsensical, then the placement of the ogre doesn't violate their choice or agency.

The Quantum Ogre has the problem that it logically extends to the idea that the only campaign that does not engage in badwrongfun illusionism is one in which every single location, trap, and monster is placed before characters are generated. We overlook this because the QO presents the choice very close to the encounter, but in its simplicity it provides no guardrails against extending the separation.

So to start: how do you feel about illusionism in your games? Do you feel differently about it as a player versus a GM? Does it vary with the game? With the group? With the session?

I feel the Quantum Ogre is a poor, overly simplistic frame for a discussion around a nuanced topic.

I am not picky, to be honest. My personal definitions of "agency" and "meaningful choice" are often pretty broad. I prefer to have a general sense of how much of this stuff is apt to happen.

As a GM, I inquire of my players how much they will tolerate illusionist shenanigans as part of Session Zero.

As a GM, I don't usually have much need of it, because my games are purposely trimmed down to what's really important - if that ogre is important enough to show up at all, he's important enough to give a reason to be able to show up along either road, and the fact that he can do so is relevant.