On "Illusionism" (+)

[Celebrim]

For example, three paths are in front of the PCs, and all three eventually lead to the BBEG.

This doesn't really have to be illusionism. It can be. If you look at something like Mass Effect the video game, where you don't have a GM, then there is a lot of this sort of illusionism going on by necessity. You get a lot of choices in the game that seem to be important, but if you do multiple playthroughs you quickly realize that the vast majority of your decisions didn't have any real import or change the outcome in any meaningful way. In fact, part of what undermined the series as it went on is that the Devs had been publicly announcing "your choices will matter" but the longer things went, the more obvious the illusionism was. This doesn't mean that Mass Effect wasn't a great cRPG - I consider Mass Effect #1 maybe the best cRPG ever made. But it does mean that even in the context of a cRPG where you don't have any reason to believe that the game can adjust to your choices, pulling back the curtain to show the illusion can eventually undermine the experience.

But, conversely, if you think about it the "Three Clue Rule" is an example of making sure that three paths eventually lead to the BBEG and in this case you don't have illusionism even though the roads lead to the same place. It's generally realistic that there is more than one way from A to B. Unlike the Mass Effect case, no one is being tricked into thinking that they are being offered a train ticket to station B or station C, when in fact they go to the same place. In this case, the party is really trying to get to station B and if they get there on foot, by road, or by rail it is a different story created by the player choice. If I pull back the curtain here the response of the party is, "I can't believe we missed that!" and not "You tricked me!"

Illusionism in this case would be presenting the players a mystery game where they are encouraged to do investigation and are led to believe that they solved the case, but having a back up plan where the players are ultimately involved in solving the case even if they put together no clues at all. And I have seen this in a published adventure and it was absolutely as lousy as you might think. We dutifully did all the investigation and had all the pieces together and knew the backstory, but none of it actually helped point the way to a resolution or garnered you any advantage leaving us confused as to what we'd missed or where we were supposed to go from there. And when the resolution arrives, it arrives quite without any of the adventure to that point actually mattering. And that was one of the worst RPG experiences I've ever had, and it was the designer's fault, because the GM was normally a very good and reliable GM - he just failed to evaluate the scenario well and put too much faith in the designer.

 

[Haiku Elvis]

What everyone above said mostly.

Given such a freeform format of game you can't avoid shifting things around a bit.
I can only come up with so many ideas. If the group zig rather than zag and miss out on my cool encounter I will repurpose it at some point, in some way. I think like lots of these issues it's the motivation for what you do as much as what you actually do.

If you are shifting things round to preserve your GM vision or force certain beats on the players to override their choices that's bad.

If you are just juggling things around to respond as best you can to keep the game moving so that the players choices
lead to something interesting or meaningful that's fine even if it does mean things the players haven't seen yet move around in the background.

 

[payn]

This doesn't really have to be illusionism. It can be. If you look at something like Mass Effect the video game, where you don't have a GM, then there is a lot of this sort of illusionism going on by necessity. You get a lot of choices in the game that seem to be important, but if you do multiple playthroughs you quickly realize that the vast majority of your decisions didn't have any real import or change the outcome in any meaningful way. In fact, part of what undermined the series as it went on is that the Devs had been publicly announcing "your choices will matter" but the longer things went, the more obvious the illusionism was. This doesn't mean that Mass Effect was a great cRPG - I consider Mass Effect #1 maybe the best cRPG ever made. But it does mean that even in the context of a cRPG where you don't have any reason to believe that the game can adjust to your choices, pulling back the curtain to show the illusion can eventually undermine the experience.

Gotcha. Yes I loved ME, and think the 3rd game's fatal flaw was pushing everything into the illusionism bucket. I didn't really mind the ending (I have my complaints) but it was minor in comparison to the illusionism damaging the entire experience.

But, conversely, if you think about it the "Three Clue Rule" is an example of making sure that three paths eventually lead to the BBEG and in this case you don't have illusionism even though the roads lead to the same place. It's generally realistic that there is more than one way from A to B. Unlike the Mass Effect case, no one is being tricked into thinking that they are being offered a train ticket to station B or station C, when in fact they go to the same place. In this case, the party is really trying to get to station B and if they get there on foot, by road, or by rail it is a different story created by the player choice. If I pull back the curtain here the response of the party is, "I can't believe we missed that!" and not "You tricked me!"

Illusionism in this case would be presenting the players a mystery game where they are encouraged to do investigation and are led to believe that they solved the case, but having a back up plan where the players are ultimately involved in solving the case even if they put together no clues at all. And I have seen this in a published adventure and it was absolutely as lousy as you might think. We dutifully did all the investigation and had all the pieces together and knew the backstory, but none of it actually helped point the way to a resolution or garnered you any advantage leaving us confused as to what we'd missed or where we were supposed to go from there. And when the resolution arrives, it arrives quite without any of the adventure to that point actually mattering. And that was one of the worst RPG experiences I've ever had, and it was the designer's fault, because the GM was normally a very good and reliable GM - he just failed to evaluate the scenario well and put too much faith in the designer.

If this is the definition and execution of illusionism, then I can say I do not like illusionism and will vacate the discussion to keep it +

 

[Celebrim]

If this is the definition and execution of illusionism, then I can say I do not like illusionism and will vacate the discussion to keep it +

The '+' on the thread is not to keep people from debating the merit of illusionism. If you'd go back and read my post, it's to keep people from claiming that criticizing illusionism is bogus because illusionism isn't real or isn't a meaningful term. I don't really care how much illusionism you think is good for the game, as long as you are willing to concede that analyzing a process of play from the standpoint of whether illusionism is involved is a valid critique.

 

[Celebrim]

If you are just juggling things around to respond as best you can to keep the game moving so that the players choices
lead to something interesting or meaningful that's fine even if it does mean things the players haven't seen yet move around in the background.

Suppose you had a Gygaxian tactical scenario where you had some complex terrain and waves of humanoids with various tactics they'd employ.

How would you feel about scaling the number of "orcs" that attack the party to how well the party is doing? If they don't use good tactics then very few orcs attack, but if the party is using good tactics like employing cover, creating obstacles, working together in a formation, prioritizing targets, etc. then more and more orcs attack to keep it exciting?

 

[payn]

The '+' on the thread is not to keep people from debating the merit of illusionism. If you'd go back and read my post, it's to keep people from claiming that criticizing illusionism is bogus because illusionism isn't real or isn't a meaningful term. I don't really care how much illusionism you think is good for the game, as long as you are willing to concede that analyzing a process of play from the standpoint of whether illusionism is involved is a valid critique.

Gotcha. Under said definitions and examples I'm not seeing the distinction between railroad and illusionism. In a long term campaign I think illusionism should be avoided at all costs. However, in a one shot or bespoke session, I think there is room for an experience that lies within illusionism that can still be a good one.

 

[Digdude]

As I analyzed this post, I thought how much of illusionism is due to style or DM ego. If I am a DM that despises improvising, is it not easier to just Schroding my way through whatever parts I need to keep things moving? I see some of you have elluded to lack of time as the main reason to do this. Recently in my 5E game, I have found myself doing the stat block for epic portions of the campaign so there is not that quick let down after a big build up. But part of me also wonders for those DMs with huge egos (and we all have encountered them). Do they use illusionism as a "Oh NO YOU WONT" to counter pcs that defeat their well thought out plans? Anyway, just some thoughts on it.

 

[Celebrim]

Gotcha. Under said definitions and examples I'm not seeing the distinction between railroad and illusionism.

Going back to my post on railroading, I make a distinction between using a railroading tool like 'small world' or illusionism or 'the handwave' and a campaign which relies heavily on the use of such tools to the point of being 'a railroad'. Every game is going to use some amount railroading tools simply because of the limitations of the game, even when the GM isn't consciously trying to get their own way. For example, all games are to some extent "a small world" because it's impossible to describe the whole game universe or to prep an unlimited number of equally interesting alternatives. I even suggest that there might be times that employing a railroading technique is warranted and could serve when done correctly to increase player agency. It might be worth reading the linked essay if you haven't just to get an idea of where I'm coming from.

But what I call "high illusionism" is a technique where the GM is fudging and improvising everything all the time to achieve some desired story or desired emotional impact, and that technique is I agree indistinguishable from a pre-planned railroad. The players have no real agency, they are just tricked into believing that they do. Even if the GM is responding to player input, ultimately the GM is making all the decisions. You might as well play such games without dice at all as the only purpose the dice serve is to deceive the player about how the game really works.

 

[payn]

As I analyzed this post, I thought how much of illusionism is due to style or DM ego. If I am a DM that despises improvising, is it not easier to just Schroding my way through whatever parts I need to keep things moving? I see some of you have elluded to lack of time as the main reason to do this. Recently in my 5E game, I have found myself doing the stat block for epic portions of the campaign so there is not that quick let down after a big build up. But part of me also wonders for those DMs with huge egos (and we all have encountered them). Do they use illusionism as a "Oh NO YOU WONT" to counter pcs that defeat their well thought out plans? Anyway, just some thoughts on it.

I think there is also an element of wanting the PCs to succeed and press on with the campaign story no matter what. So, it becomes, "oh YES YOU DID!" Maybe this is lack of system knowledge and/or GMing experience, but some folks just wont accept a failure state and/or TPK campaign end.

 

[Deset Gled]

If all of your group have spent a long time on optimisation and tactics, do you expect the GM to do likewise? Or do you expect a "standard" difficulty adventure where you succeed easily?

Usually the GM doesn't have the time to optimise stats and tactics for all the NPCs.

If the GM realises (too late) that they should have used a 10 HD grue instead of a 7 HD grue do you mind if the "lesser" grue suddenly seems to have more hit points than you might have expected? Or would you rather have a fair (but easy) victory?

Is it okay if the grue then turns out to have foul symbols branded into its flesh, indicating it had made a pact with some unknown entity in order to gain fiendish resilience? (Even though the GM has made that up on the spot as well.)

Optimization is not binary. I do not judge GMs nor players by how well they optimize their characters, but I expect them both to try to create something effective. There is a lot of space between fudging a couple of numbers to avoid a TPK, and ignoring HP altogether.

I realize I didn't quote it, but I was specifically referring to OP's comment on hit points:

"For example, instead of giving the BBEG a fixed number of hit points, you can just simply decide when the BBEG goes down and then mark that down as the BBEG’s hit points retroactively."

I have seen this style of play discussed other places on the internet, as well. I don't like it. IMNSHO, it is a very extreme dive into illusionism. So extreme that it effectively nullifies many points of character building and tactics. After all, if the DM doesn't keep track of HP and the BBEG only and always falls when it is dramatically important for it to do so, what is the point of any modifier that you had to work for? Any strength increase that adds to damage, any tactic that gives a to-hit bonus, any spell buff, or any attempt at a save-or-die effect becomes pointless. Once a player realizes they're in a game that works this way, it completely changes the way the game is played.

Suppose you had a Gygaxian tactical scenario where you had some complex terrain and waves of humanoids with various tactics they'd employ.

How would you feel about scaling the number of "orcs" that attack the party to how well the party is doing? If they don't use good tactics then very few orcs attack, but if the party is using good tactics like employing cover, creating obstacles, working together in a formation, prioritizing targets, etc. then more and more orcs attack to keep it exciting?

I don't like it. IMNSHO, this is effectively punishing players for doing well. My suggestion is to reward them for doing well, then give them the option for more difficult challenges.

If the party wins the first orc battle easily, they are they are given gold, XP, etc. The party is then given an opportunity for another battle, where the number of orcs is increased, and the rewards are higher. This not only gives them positive feedback for winning, it gives them more interaction in the story/plot, and it's much more realistic for the orcs to retreat and regroup rather than just run into death like lemmings. This makes it a better option from the trinity of gamist, narrativist, and simulationist perspectives.