Illusionism: Where Do You Stand?

[UngainlyTitan]

This is going to sound kind of odd, but I think it depends on sequence of events.

1. Party is wandering around in the forest. Picks one path in a split up ahead. GM decides its about time for something to happen, drops an encounter they made up right then and there. Not really illusionism (though can make it questionable whether the players' choice at the fork was meaningful).

I would agree with this.

2. Party is wondering in the forest. Decides the next time the players pick a path, that a particular encounter they've thought of will happen. Players try to listen and maybe scout the paths to avoid hitting any trouble. Encounter happens anyway. Very much illusionism (and probably railroading).

I have issues with this. I would agree that, if the DM drops an encounter on the party irrespective of the parties efforts to avoid one then the DM is negating the parties choices. Unless the party clearly fails in the scouting/evading efforts.
I maintain: that there is no functional difference between content generated by an algorithm (i.e., random tables) and content on a stack.
By the stack, if the DM has a list of prepared encounters (similar to what one would get from a table) and just picks the next one on the stack when it is appropriate in the fiction to present an encounter.

 

[billd91]

This is going to sound kind of odd, but I think it depends on sequence of events.

1. Party is wandering around in the forest. Picks one path in a split up ahead. GM decides its about time for something to happen, drops an encounter they made up right then and there. Not really illusionism (though can make it questionable whether the players' choice at the fork was meaningful).

2. Party is wondering in the forest. Decides the next time the players pick a path, that a particular encounter they've thought of will happen. Players try to listen and maybe scout the paths to avoid hitting any trouble. Encounter happens anyway. Very much illusionism (and probably railroading).

Unless the DM is deliberately negating the efforts the PCs are actually taking to mitigate the danger of an encounter (scouting, etc) in order to plop them right into a planned combat - which would make it a railroad - how are the two points actually different? These steps are true for both situations:
1) Party picks a path at the fork
2) DM decides it's time for something to happen
3) encounter ensues

 

[Lanefan]

I am a player in Dragonlance: Shadow of the Dragon Queen ...

It is very railroady ...

Dragonlance...railroady...no surprise those two words appear in the same place.

That railroady-ness is by far the worst feature of the (old) Dragonlance modules, which is saying something as many of their other aspects aren't so great either.

 

[TheSword]

I use curated tables to fill in those gaps when needed.

What is the virtue of 1d4 ogres over 1 ogre?
What is the virtue of 50% 1d4 ogres, 50% 2d4 orcs over just 1d4 ogres? In terms of player agency.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Dragonlance...railroady...no surprise those two words appear in the same place.

That railroady-ness is by far the worst feature of the (old) Dragonlance modules, which is saying something as many of their other aspects aren't so great either.

I never played the original modules but I have read about them. This is nothing like that. It is just right out of the gate there are 3 encounters that are "things that must be done".

 

[Lanefan]

But consider the following very common scenario.

GM makes an extrapolation --- "I've decided, based on my extrapolations, that A, B, C, and D are the available action vectors through which the players can encounter game state factor X."

Okay. But what if as a GM I decide 10 minutes later, "Nope, nevermind, I'm now deciding that the available vectors to encounter game factor X are now D, E, F, and G."

So, how do you describe the process of what just happened?

Are you referring to this course change happening during play, or well ahead of time?

If it's well ahead of time, say while writing the adventure in the first place, then who cares - it;s just a part of the design process.

But if it's an on the fly change during play, that's different; and there's some illusionism going on there (not to mention a concern about unforeseen downstream knock-on effects e.g. if some later aspects of the module are based on the PCs' choice between A-B-C-D and now A-B-C aren't options any more but there's nothing tied to choices E-F-G).

Is it the GM's job to maintain absolute integrity to the previously devised fictional frame, even knowing that adhering to that decision will lead to hours of meaningless, boring gameplay, when revising the available player action vectors will provide much better overall gameplay, but "break faith" with the necessity of the illusion of a "living world"?

Yes. The integrity to the fiction comes first, and if boring gameplay (no play is meaningless) results then while some of that's on you some of it's also on the players, as IMO good players can make anything interesting.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Is there a functional difference between making stuff up on the fly and making it up 10 minutes, 10 hours, 10 days or even 10 years before?

I would say yes. That's what prep is for, and IMO you can't create a world that stands on its own without prep.

 

[Micah Sweet]

What is the virtue of 1d4 ogres over 1 ogre?
What is the virtue of 50% 1d4 ogres, 50% 2d4 orcs over just 1d4 ogres? In terms of player agency.

None in terms of player agency. I don't see your point.

 

[MichaelSomething]

But if it's an on the fly change during play, that's different; and there's some illusionism going on there (not to mention a concern about unforeseen downstream knock-on effects e.g. if some later aspects of the module are based on the PCs' choice between A-B-C-D and now A-B-C aren't options any more but there's nothing tied to choices E-F-G).

It would not be illusionism if those on the fly changes were made in response to PC actions. Then you would be taking the PCs actions into account.

It would be illusionism if you kept to A-B-C-D even if PC action would change them in some way.

For example, if option C was a Orc war band and the PCs previously took great care in removing Orc war bands from the area, not not changing C could be illusionism. After all, the DM would then be putting in an encounter despite PC efforts. Negating the impact of PC actions for no in fiction reason is illusionism in practice.

 

[Lanefan]

It would not be illusionism if those on the fly changes were made in response to PC actions. Then you would be taking the PCs actions into account.

It would be illusionism if you kept to A-B-C-D even if PC action would change them in some way.

For example, if option C was a Orc war band and the PCs previously took great care in removing Orc war bands from the area, not not changing C could be illusionism. After all, the DM would then be putting in an encounter despite PC efforts. Negating the impact of PC actions for no in fiction reason is illusionism in practice.

Ah, I see what you mean.

Yes, if Orc bands were option C yet the PCs had previously stripped the area bare of Orcs, C would cease to be an option and any downstream coneqeunces of their choosing C would also be made redundant.

However, it would IMO be illusionism were I to then replace choice C with a new choice E just so there'd still be four choices. Instead, there's now only A-B-D.

And taken to its extreme, should the PCs somehow make all four of choices A-B-C-D redundant in this way then that choice point simply ceases to exist.