On "Illusionism" (+)

[Celebrim]

Except for the beyond exceptional Improv artist, a pure improv game won't be cohesive or make sense. It will just be a bunch of non connected encounters and events.

And random tables don't really work as "prompts to the imagination", Unless you make massively complex tables. And this goes right back to massive prep time.

Illusion smooths everything out to make the game work.

Well, first of all, at no point in this clarification did you actually answer my question. You made no appeals here to the need to deceive the players about the nature of the game that they were playing or to give them a false choice. I'm willing to except pretty much any clear definition of Illusionism however you would like to state it, but it's not really clear from your response that you have a definition of Illusionism at all. Your statements work equally well and perhaps better if you are talking about improvisation or imagination. They miss what I think is the key idea people are trying to capture when they talk about "Illusionism".

As for the three clarifications, while it's true skill with improvisation is required to make a cohesive and non-contradictory setting, Illusionism itself doesn't make that easier. One of the problems with illusionism that allows it to be detected by the players is that if the DM is inventing things on the spot all the time, it's hard to keep the story straight. Even if you have everything written down, it's hard sometimes to remember how all the things should impact a scene. But it's much worse when you are inventing and improvising (whether Illusionism or not). For example, you may forget that the elf was owed a chance to automatically detect a secret door or that 30 minutes a go the party flicked a wand of secret door detection and create a secret door whose existence should have had an impact on the game earlier.

I think lots of people do find that random tables do work as "prompts to the imagination" so your assertion seems like it needs explanation. And in any event it's not clear how Illusionism will successfully fill any gap in the GM's imaginative abilities if a random table isn't capable of doing so.

The purpose of Illusionism is to fix the drama so that the GM gets the story they want regardless of what the players do. That can either be to smooth the way forward when obstacles might otherwise get in the way of a particular story, or else it might be put obstacles up that steer the players back onto the desired story when they start doing things that are unexpected. An example of Illusionism might be if early in a story the PC's decide they are going to murder the NPC that you intended to be the BBEG and you decide to fix this in someway so that it doesn't change the story either because the NPC ought to be able to easily kill the PC's at this point in the story or because the PC's are unwantedly successful in their murder plot, so you decide on the spot that the NPC is actually a simulacrum of the real NPC and chuckle to yourself that now that the PC's think that that NPC is dead they'll never suspect that he's the evil mastermind of events. What Illusionism fixes is anything going wrong with the story you the GM want to have happen. That story can be one you planned out, or the story you think the PC's have signaled that they want and you've decided is a good story so you'll validate it. Either way, Illusionism lets you decide what really happens.

 

[Krachek]

Some thought on future AI DM.

Maybe in the future an AI DM will read players moods, needs, interests and produce the right events, encounters, dungeon rooms, just in time, balancing all players satisfaction in an optimal manner.

An AI Dm can produce much more easily believable events, and use players knowledge from previous session to justified any contest about it.
The AI can also make next encounters made in a way to reinforce its new plot if he detect that the players dont believe enough to new plot line.

 

[bloodtide]

As for the three clarifications, while it's true skill with improvisation is required to make a cohesive and non-contradictory setting, Illusionism itself doesn't make that easier. One of the problems with illusionism that allows it to be detected by the players is that if the DM is inventing things on the spot all the time, it's hard to keep the story straight. Even if you have everything written down, it's hard sometimes to remember how all the things should impact a scene. But it's much worse when you are inventing and improvising (whether Illusionism or not). For example, you may forget that the elf was owed a chance to automatically detect a secret door or that 30 minutes a go the party flicked a wand of secret door detection and create a secret door whose existence should have had an impact on the game earlier.

That is also the exact reason it is done.

Some GMs are good, some are bad, and most of the bulk fall into the middle of average. So some two thirds of all games are going to have flaws, deiscripences, errors, and such. And RPG is a hard thing to GM, taking lots of skills and experience.

Now if it's a casual game, or the GM is playing with their "best buds", it's not such a big deal. The GM can just say "Woopsie Daisy, My Bad" and the players will just say "It's no big deal" and mean what they say truly.

Now if it's any other sort of social game, or if every single player is not the best of "best buds" with the GM or if any player has an agenda, then it can be a big deal. One or more of the players can make little spiteful jokes, backhanded jabs, outright insults, scathing commentaries, and down the path of even worse things.

So it is much better for a GM to get caught doing some "illusionism". A great many players will "accept" that the GM did some illusionism as many think it's "ok from time to time". But a huge number of players will be ready to go down that dark road as soon as they think the GM is "not good".

I think lots of people do find that random tables do work as "prompts to the imagination" so your assertion seems like it needs explanation. And in any event it's not clear how Illusionism will successfully fill any gap in the GM's imaginative abilities if a random table isn't capable of doing so.

Randomness can be a whole thread. But a random table only gives you so many results. And you can only get the same results over and over again. What you really need are a huge number of tables with a huge number of results. And premade tables only have "whatever some person somewhere thought of" and even if a person makes thier own tables they will still often fall under "only what they like" or "only what they can think of".

The purpose of Illusionism is to fix the drama so that the GM gets the story they want regardless of what the players do.

Well, maybe not the ONLY reason.

Either way, Illusionism lets you decide what really happens.

I wonder what you think of the reverse illusionism?

The GM has a nice set encounter planned with a werebear. The player is nicely moving right towards that encounter. But then the character spots a nearby pack of wererat. The player jumps at the chance and has the character attack. The third round of combat, a wererat strikes with what will be a killing blow to the character.

Is it all right here for the GM to invalidate the players choice of "unwisely attacking a pack a wererats alone", with some illusionism of "no character death" because the GM wants the character at the big werebear boss fight?

 

[soviet]

GMs use illusionism because if they don't their players will bully or maybe even beat them?

I roll to disbelieve.

 

[tomBitonti]

That is also the exact reason it is done.

Some GMs are good, some are bad, and most of the bulk fall into the middle of average. So some two thirds of all games are going to have flaws, deiscripences, errors, and such. And RPG is a hard thing to GM, taking lots of skills and experience.

Now if it's a casual game, or the GM is playing with their "best buds", it's not such a big deal. The GM can just say "Woopsie Daisy, My Bad" and the players will just say "It's no big deal" and mean what they say truly.

Now if it's any other sort of social game, or if every single player is not the best of "best buds" with the GM or if any player has an agenda, then it can be a big deal. One or more of the players can make little spiteful jokes, backhanded jabs, outright insults, scathing commentaries, and down the path of even worse things.

So it is much better for a GM to get caught doing some "illusionism". A great many players will "accept" that the GM did some illusionism as many think it's "ok from time to time". But a huge number of players will be ready to go down that dark road as soon as they think the GM is "not good".

Randomness can be a whole thread. But a random table only gives you so many results. And you can only get the same results over and over again. What you really need are a huge number of tables with a huge number of results. And premade tables only have "whatever some person somewhere thought of" and even if a person makes thier own tables they will still often fall under "only what they like" or "only what they can think of".



Well, maybe not the ONLY reason.

I wonder what you think of the reverse illusionism?

The GM has a nice set encounter planned with a werebear. The player is nicely moving right towards that encounter. But then the character spots a nearby pack of wererat. The player jumps at the chance and has the character attack. The third round of combat, a wererat strikes with what will be a killing blow to the character.

Is it all right here for the GM to invalidate the players choice of "unwisely attacking a pack a wererats alone", with some illusionism of "no character death" because the GM wants the character at the big werebear boss fight?

Maybe.

But, this seems a system problem. When a system permits random deaths, and if a random death can upset a night of activity, I place blame on the system. A system which contains the possibility of large mishaps should have mechanisms to keep players in the game.

This is a problem of criticals, which introduce more random mishaps, and which some folks tone down. This is probably why dying is harder in 5E.

If death is easy, recovering from death and getting back into play should also be easy.

TomB

 

[Celebrim]

That is also the exact reason it is done...So it is much better for a GM to get caught doing some "illusionism". A great many players will "accept" that the GM did some illusionism as many think it's "ok from time to time". But a huge number of players will be ready to go down that dark road as soon as they think the GM is "not good".

I am struggling to follow you or discern what you are trying to say here.

But a random table only gives you so many results.

Yes, but if you are only resorting to it when players go off the map or to add some variety and action, you probably don't need to generate more than a dozen results or so. A table with say 40 results where you roll twice and combine the results (repeating the process if you can't think of a memorable way to run the suggested encounter) will give you more ideas and variety than you'll probably ever be able to use, much less need.

Well, maybe not the ONLY reason.

I wonder what you think of the reverse illusionism?

Reverse? What does that mean?

The GM has a nice set encounter planned with a werebear. The player is nicely moving right towards that encounter. But then the character spots a nearby pack of wererat. The player jumps at the chance and has the character attack. The third round of combat, a wererat strikes with what will be a killing blow to the character.

Is it all right here for the GM to invalidate the players choice of "unwisely attacking a pack a wererats alone", with some illusionism of "no character death" because the GM wants the character at the big werebear boss fight?

Why don't you tell me what you think? Previously I've said this might be OK if you were doing it to protect players that were inexperienced or new to the setting, but in general I think players should receive the consequences of their own choices or else their choices don't matter.

But it's not "reverse Illusionism" to protect the players from their choices. The default is not "players vs. DM" as if RPGs were some sort of PvP game. DMs generally are not trying to kill the PC's. A TPK absolutely sucks for a DM. Remember, even the most plot driven DM needs to have the players survive to be in the plot, so it's not like a DM prone to using Illusionism is only doing it to make things harder for the players. It's still Illusionism whether you do it to make things easier for the players or harder for them. A DM can start pulling their punches to avoid killing PCs just as much as they can decide to give the BBEG bonus hit points so they can escape to become a reoccurring villain.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Not enough random tables? Now I wonder how many random tables makes you can get from the DM guild??

 

[bloodtide]

I am struggling to follow you or discern what you are trying to say here.

Bad or average GMs often use illusionism to hide the cracks in their game.

Yes, but if you are only resorting to it when players go off the map or to add some variety and action, you probably don't need to generate more than a dozen results or so. A table with say 40 results where you roll twice and combine the results (repeating the process if you can't think of a memorable way to run the suggested encounter) will give you more ideas and variety than you'll probably ever be able to use, much less need.

Randomness is a huge topic. Just for this: In some Old School Styles a GM gives up nearly all power to the dice. If the GM makes no decisions, there is no need for illusionism.

Reverse? What does that mean?

Illusonism that the players want and will accept.

But it's not "reverse Illusionism" to protect the players from their choices. The default is not "players vs. DM" as if RPGs were some sort of PvP game. DMs generally are not trying to kill the PC's. A TPK absolutely sucks for a DM. Remember, even the most plot driven DM needs to have the players survive to be in the plot, so it's not like a DM prone to using Illusionism is only doing it to make things harder for the players. It's still Illusionism whether you do it to make things easier for the players or harder for them. A DM can start pulling their punches to avoid killing PCs just as much as they can decide to give the BBEG bonus hit points so they can escape to become a reoccurring villain.

This is my point. The vast majority of GMs today will refuse to kill characters. It's a big deal to most GMs. And a lot of those GMs have "game plans". They want the characters to encounter monster x. So when the players make a choice, is it ok for the GM to apply some illusionism in FAVOR of the players, even though it invalidates their (bad) choice?

 

[Celebrim]

This is my point. The vast majority of GMs today will refuse to kill characters.

I didn't say GMs refuse to kill player characters. I said that GMs don't want to kill player characters. There is a difference. In my last D&D campaign we went through about 10 PC's in a nine year period. I didn't want to kill any of them, but at some point you have to break the game to protect a player from their mistakes.

So when the players make a choice, is it ok for the GM to apply some illusionism in FAVOR of the players, even though it invalidates their (bad) choice?

I think that's up to the individual GM and probably depends on the circumstances. There is a judgment call to be made. But speaking as a player, if my PC can't actually die no matter what I do, then I have no idea why we are bothering to use rules.

 

[Lanefan]

I didn't say GMs refuse to kill player characters. I said that GMs don't want to kill player characters. There is a difference. In my last D&D campaign we went through about 10 PC's in a nine year period. I didn't want to kill any of them, but at some point you have to break the game to protect a player from their mistakes.

If killing a character is now equated with breaking the game there's been a shark jumped somewhere along the line.

I think that's up to the individual GM and probably depends on the circumstances. There is a judgment call to be made. But speaking as a player, if my PC can't actually die no matter what I do, then I have no idea why we are bothering to use rules.

More to the point, there's a huge jump (over a shark!) between a "new school" player being able to assume a character will live and an "old school" player assuming a character will die and playing to see how long it lasts before said death occurs.

IMO D&D plays best - and certainly with far more entertainment value - when approached as a rogue-like by both players and DM; particularly at low levels.

 

[Umbran]

But speaking as a player, if my PC can't actually die no matter what I do, then I have no idea why we are bothering to use rules.

PC Death is not the only meaningful consequence folks can care about - one may want rules to manage those other consequences. Surely you've seen this stated before?

Now, you may or may not care about anything other that death. That's within your rights, but it makes it a you thing, not a we thing. But if you really don't care about anything other than death, yeah, maybe you can dispense with rules, and go to total freeform storytelling.

Though, to be frank, cooperative storytelling practices also tend to have rules and guidelines to keep stories flowing well - humans often need some rules for cooperative endeavors.

So, ultimately, that's why you may want rules - they generally help humans keep things on track for their mutually agreed upon goals, whatever they may be.

 

[Celebrim]

PC Death is not the only meaningful consequence folks can care about - one may want rules to manage those other consequences. Surely you've seen this stated before?

Yes, but in the context other sorts of consequences weren't really relevant. I was responding to: "This is my point. The vast majority of GMs today will refuse to kill characters..."

Now, you may or may not care about anything other that death. That's within your rights, but it makes it a you thing, not a we thing.

"We" in this context would mean "myself and the players that I'm playing with at the time".

But if you really don't care about anything other than death, yeah, maybe you can dispense with rules, and go to total freeform storytelling.

This comment seems to undermine the thrust of your prior comments. If you are wanting to raise the objection that there might be meaningful failure states other than death, it seems strange to suggest that we can go to freeform story telling if we only dispense with death. Surely we can only go to freeform storytelling only if we don't care about consequences or agency at all? Which you seem to conceed immediately, so not sure what your point was.

Though, to be frank, cooperative storytelling practices also tend to have rules and guidelines to keep stories flowing well - humans often need some rules for cooperative endeavors.

I don't know why you'd need to think you'd need to preface this disclosure with a qualifier like "to be frank" since I'm one whose position is that we need rules.

A deep discussion of consequences other than death would be forking the thread pretty hard if we get into that. "Death of a PC" is a pretty unambiguous failure state particularly if this is a "hardcore" situation where coming back from death is impossible or unlikely. Something meaningful gets taken away from the player that almost every player is going to care about.

Other sorts of consequences don't generally have the same consequences on play unless they equivocally take away the player's ability to play. Long term incarceration without possibility of escape is effectively death, particularly considering how short of an in-game time frame most campaigns cover. Permanent loss of collected gear often strikes players in some systems as a sort of death, as does permanent mutilation of the PC. Even if the PC is still playable in theory, death might be arguably easier to recover from and so things like that which retire a PC or tend to cause players to retire a PC do matter.

In theory lots of things could matter to a player that represent some sort of undesired failure state, but in practice for most players things that don't take away their character are always a trade they'll take over anything that does. Martyring a PC for the sake of some cause I've never seen, except in one case with a player that I think was looking to exit the group anyway and was "taking one for the team" in a touch and go situation with a spectacular "retributive strike" sort of thing where he nuked his own position to take out the BBEG. But since the vast majority of players just want to keep playing, a lot of more subtle sort of consequences just aren't universally perceived as failure. Players may not like when NPC retainers die and may have a certain amount of fondness for them, but they also tend to refer to them as "Meat Shields". Losing a retainer is seen by many as roughly equivalent to losing some of your disposable/replaceable gear like money, potions, or scrolls. And many players treat any battle they walk away from intact as a victory, even if the goal of the fight wasn't achieved.

My point being that - even if I wasn't responding to a particular post and was talking about illusionism in the service of protecting PC's from consequences, there aren't a lot of consequences as simple, understandable, and universal as "death" and if I start talking about them it only muddies the waters. If I was stating the quoted sentence as some sort of rule or something, I might write:

"But speaking as a player, if my PC can't actually enter into a meaningful failure state no matter what I do, then I have no idea why we are bothering to use rules."

But without a longer explanation I'm not sure that the meaning of that is clearer.

 

[Celebrim]

If killing a character is now equated with breaking the game there's been a shark jumped somewhere along the line.

In case it wasn't clear, I was saying that if I refused as a GM to let a PC die as a result of their actions, then that would be breaking the game. At some point you end up in a choice between, "A PC dies" and "In this game I'm by fiat deciding what happens." where the PC dying is the lesser of the two evils.

 

[hawkeyefan]

In case it wasn't clear, I was saying that if I refused as a GM to let a PC die as a result of their actions, then that would be breaking the game. At some point you end up in a choice between, "A PC dies" and "In this game I'm by fiat deciding what happens." where the PC dying is the lesser of the two evils.

What if the game allows the player to decide a PC's fate at some point? Let's say at the point when death would normally be on the table, instead the player gets a choice between letting the character die, or some other significant consequence?

 

[Celebrim]

What if the game allows the player to decide a PC's fate at some point? Let's say at the point when death would normally be on the table, instead the player gets a choice between letting the character die, or some other significant consequence?

Then I'd guess that PC's in that game never die or almost never die, they just suffer minor inconveniences a lot that the table dubs significant.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Then I'd guess that PC's in that game never die or almost never die, they just suffer minor inconveniences a lot that the table dubs significant.

Why would you assume that the significant consequence would actually only be a "minor inconvenience"?

 

[Pedantic]

Why would you assume that the significant consequence would actually only be a "minor inconvenience"?

We're all on the precipice of doing the thing where we conflate ludic and narrative agency and everything gets messy.

Speaking ludically, either you can keep playing, or you can't. Other consequences can at best limit your available set of choices until you eventually wind up in a failure state. To avoid a game with a player elimination failure state you need to set a strict limit on the game duration. Then you can evaluate some other victory condition for success/failure (classically "who has the most victory points after round 4?"), which is a pretty rare thing to do in most long-form RPGs and more of a one-shot or short game thing.

Narratively, a consequence can be significant and significantly limit or alter the course of a events a character (or player, depending on the game) wants to occur, but that doesn't have ludic impact. The two aren't interchangeable.

 

[MichaelSomething]

PC falls off a high building
DM grabs their hand to save them
PC: Why did you save me?
DM: Cause I'm not TROUGH with you yet!

 

[hawkeyefan]

Speaking ludically, either you can keep playing, or you can't.

Do most character deaths result in players not being allowed to play?

This is one of the things that, for me, always renders the idea of death being a severe consequence in RPGs far less certain than many claim.

 

[Celebrim]

Why would you assume that the significant consequence would actually only be a "minor inconvenience"?

Because every time I've had this discussion in the past that's how it has worked out. I outlined the sort of things that I would consider significant based on 40 years of gaming with people and observing what they cared about. If you have some contrary suggestions I'd love to hear them.