On "Illusionism" (+)

[dersplotter]

The standard definition of “Illusionism” is GM’s offering player’s a game choice which appears to matter but which does not in fact matter because the GM uses his role as secret keeper and as narrator of the fiction to hide the player’s lack of agency from them. This isn’t a bad definition, but I tend to use the term more broadly for any situation...

I have neither IMO redefined Illusionism...

You expressly redefined illusionism in paragraph 1 of the opening post to one used solely by you.

 

[HaroldTheHobbit]

I usually only use a very moderate amount of Schrödinger tools, just enough to keep campaign framing and broad plot in sight. That is only because improvisation and on-the-spot creativity is part of what make GMing fun for me.

But in principle, the GMs proficiency in using scharlatan, acting/lying and heist tools to keep up the illusion of free will is perhaps the most tangible evidence of GM skill. As long as the player have the subjective experience of his character and the rest of the party being firmly behind the campaign wheel and encounters seems to be decided by tactics, dice luck and relative strength, what the GM really do behind the screen doesn’t matter a single bit.

 

[Celebrim]

You expressly redefined illusionism in paragraph 1 of the opening post to one used solely by you.

I'm aware of the two definitions I offered. I feel the two definitions are largely synonymous and above all are intended to describe the same thing. Since it is clear that I'm intending to describe the same thing, I don't think it's fair to call this a "redefinition". One description, mine, is just clearer and cleaner in my opinion. If you were to quibble with my phrasing because you feel it is too broad, then I'd be happy to just use the "text book" description for just about anything that has come up so far.

But an example which shows why I think my definition is superior is one poster suggested that it was no longer Illusionism if you didn't offer the players a choice, something my definition doesn't really consider central to the issue. Under my definition for example it would be Illusionism if, even if the player doesn't think he has a choice, the player was asked to make a saving throw but the outcome of the roll didn't actually matter because the GM wasn't actually using the saving throw system but a different system or a fiat resolution. There is no real "choice" offered here, but the quality of the game not being the one the player thinks they are playing remains the same.

Perhaps you could explain why you think my way of looking at what Illusionism is in error or differs dramatically from the more commonly used one? In what way was my definition unfair?

And in any case, it's not true that my definition was intended to redefine Illusionism such that it is targeted at a particular game system. As I see Illusionism is a process of play applicable to any game system. Specifically, it is a process where the game that is occurring in front of the GMs screen is not the game occurring behind the GMs screen. Which is yet a third description or definition, but again, that's intended to bring clarity to what I'm talking about and not pull a fast one on anyone. It's like defining a RPG; lots of definitions or descriptions are possible and valid, and some common ideas like "uses dice" while explanatory exclude cases unnecessarily.

 

[bloodtide]

Some of the benefits of illusionism

1. There is no longer a need to prepare as many outcomes as possible if you are not well-versed in improvisation.
2. It can take pressure off of DMing and allow for narrative or descriptive development. Release those quirky NPC one-liners.
3. Worldbuilding immediately becomes a lot easier; there are a limited amount of places you can and will end up.
4. Generally speaking, it saves hours of preparation time.
5. It’s a wonderful tactic for lighthearted, action-packed, casual games

 

[Celebrim]

Some of the benefits of illusionism

1. There is no longer a need to prepare as many outcomes as possible if you are not well-versed in improvisation.
2. It can take pressure off of DMing and allow for narrative or descriptive development. Release those quirky NPC one-liners.
3. Worldbuilding immediately becomes a lot easier; there are a limited amount of places you can and will end up.
4. Generally speaking, it saves hours of preparation time.
5. It’s a wonderful tactic for lighthearted, action-packed, casual games

I think that you are describing the benefits of improvisation generally. And while I have argued that there is a lot of overlap between improvisation and illusionism, I have also said that there is improvisation that is not illusionism and illusionism that is not improvisation. For an example of the first, a random encounter table is improvisation but not illusionism. For an example of the second, if you prepare and record the intended illusion as the process of play, something I would do in the write up of I3 Pyramid if I was telling someone how I would run it, then you have illusionism that isn't improvisation (and hence doesn't save prep time or do much anything of the above).

As such, given the above benefits, could you explain to me exactly how offering a false choice or illusionary game experience enhances those benefits compared to say improvising with random tables to give prompts to the imagination?

 

[hawkeyefan]

I said: "I've seen this idea coming from everything from old school CoC, to Indy gaming, to OSR." But you feel the need to ask questions that could be answered from the text if you cared to have them answered.

You named one game that few would argue involves GM force of one sort or another, and then two schools of games that basically came about in response to the GM force, seeking to actively prevent it.

So yes, I read what you wrote. And it's sufficiently vague enough for me to question it. What OSR games are you talking about? What indy games are you talking about?

Can you back up your argument rather than just state your argument?

I didn't say I think it is necessarily wrong to be explicit about the process of play. I said that there was a trade off between clearly describing the game you intended the audience of your rules to play, and giving freedom to the players to develop procedures that suited different sorts of situation. But again, you are asking questions that have their own answers within the text. I wrote:
"...rigidly encoding the processes of play to produce that one game means that the game probably isn't going to have the flexibility it needs for long form stories unless the GM is consciously or unconsciously ignoring processes of play."

I could elaborate on that, but the fact you are pointedly ignoring what I actually wrote is not anything new. Maybe cool off and listen to what I actually wrote rather than trying to play gotcha with me.

I'm not ignoring what you wrote. I asked what is the tradeoff. Is flexibility what you meant? Is that all? Are there any other tradeoffs?

What specific games do you think lose flexibility due to the rigidity of their processes? How?

If there are other tradeoffs, what specific games do you think make those tradeoffs? How?

I have neither IMO redefined Illusionism, nor defined it as a feature exclusive to "games that I don't like". To the extent that you actually think I have redefined Illusionism and want to quibble with my definition feel free, but that doesn't seem to be your intention here. I have defined "Illusionism" as a feature of all RPGs, but you are here willfully misinterpreting me and lying about what I have said.

Your OP, as has been pointed out, takes the standard definition of Illusionism and then redefines it more broadly, to include "players believing they are playing one game but actually playing another, and also GMs thinking they are running one game, but actually running another."

That's redefining the term.

 

[bloodtide]

As such, given the above benefits, could you explain to me exactly how offering a false choice or illusionary game experience enhances those benefits compared to say improvising with random tables to give prompts to the imagination?

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.

 

[Celebrim]

What OSR games are you talking about? What indy games are you talking about?

To throw out some examples, Monty Cook's 'Numenera' rules seem to openly encourage Illusionism through the concept of DM Intrusions, and in the playthrough of FATE by one of the's systems co-creators on Wil Wheaton's youtube channel, the decision of the GM to decide that the cloaks the mooks were wearing were actually independent sentient monsters seemed to me as a viewer to be a clear case of Illusionism in that the existence of the monsters seems to have come about as a result of the party's success and the GM's decision that it's just more interesting if the PC's don't succeed easily having overcome the initial challenge.

I'm not ignoring what you wrote. I asked what is the tradeoff. Is flexibility what you meant? Is that all? Are there any other tradeoffs?

In terms of hard encoding the processes of play of a system? No, primarily I mean flexibility. Any other problem just is the ubiquitous problems you get with rules smithing, extended into the realm of processes of play (that normally aren't described and so normally don't have the issue). To give you a specific example of the later, I was going to give this as an example in another thread, but consider the Dungeon World SRD when it tries to codify the processes of play writes:

"Always be honest. If the rules tell you to give out information, like the Spout Lore and Discern Realities moves, do it. Don't lie or give half truths; be open and honest —generous, even."

Now, on the surface that sounds like good advice. GMs shouldn't be trying to screw over the players and they should reward success and even be "generous". But if we take this as a rule rather than a guideline and follow it rigidly, then you run into a problem I've already tangentially referenced in the thread. Maybe, if you closely read the thread and are familiar with the rules of Dungeon World you might have even noticed. There are times when there are truths about the situation that it isn't possible that the player character could know, and instead the player character as a member of his society would know as "truth" only what typical knowledgeable and learned members of his society believe. For example, I cited the case of the King having been usurped by his twin brother at some point in the past and having been turned into a toad. If you take the above agenda as a rigid rule and not a guideline, then a novice DM is like to say, "Well, the PC successfully Spouted Lore about the King, so I need to tell him that the King is in fact not actually Louis the heir but a twin brother whose existence is not even generally known outside of the royal family." I don't think that's actually the intention of the writer of the "rule", but merely he hadn't considered the sort of edge cases that are going to come up (which is a common problem with a lot of tersely written rules) where the useful facts and known information everyone believes is actually wrong. If Prince Humperdinck plans to kill his bride before the wedding night, the useful information that Prince Humperdinck is a master tracker who can track a falcon on a cloudy day, a superb fencer, and is planning to wed Buttercup in three days' time is false, but it isn't wrong to give IMO. Later investigations might uncover the truth behind what everyone knows to be true, but it's not wrong to hide some of that truth until the player actually has some way of uncovering it.

Your OP, as has been pointed out, takes the standard definition of Illusionism and then redefines it more broadly, to include "players believing they are playing one game but actually playing another, and also GMs thinking they are running one game, but actually running another."

That's redefining the term.

I disagree that I have redefined the term. See the prior discussion a bit above this and an example of why I think my broader definition is the more accurate one. However, for the purposes of the sort of statements you are making, I don't need my broader definition and can just happily use the "standard" definition of the term.

 

[Lanefan]

As I have said, a great fix for this version definition of Illusionisim, is to simply not give the players any choices. No choices and the DM can't "invalidate them".

Perhaps, but I fear that would lead to a rather dull game - I mean, sure, each bead on the string could be interesting in itself; but when the game's set up as no more than a string of beads where at any given point the only choice is to either go on to the next bead, or go back, or stop, that doesn't sound very engaging in the long run.

 

[Lanefan]

Some of the benefits of illusionism

1. There is no longer a need to prepare as many outcomes as possible if you are not well-versed in improvisation.
2. It can take pressure off of DMing and allow for narrative or descriptive development. Release those quirky NPC one-liners.
3. Worldbuilding immediately becomes a lot easier; there are a limited amount of places you can and will end up.
4. Generally speaking, it saves hours of preparation time.
5. It’s a wonderful tactic for lighthearted, action-packed, casual games

You seem rather determined to hold to the idea that illusionism and DM improvisation (a.k.a. winging it) are one and the same.

They are not.