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.