RPGs are ... Role Playing Games

[Celebrim]

Well, I was assuming the player had to overcome an in-game challenge for the sword, that actual game play was involved, but I think I understand your point. It still seems like a strange thing to damage a player's suspension of disbelief -- or, rather, it suggests a person who's mindset is stuck in the conventions of AD&D, rather than in more primary sources, or in the fiction of the game.

There is a whiff of 'they are doing it wrong' in that statement that borders on suggesting that players like that must have something wrong with there heads. I don't think you are being charitable enough to the position here, and I think perhaps it would be useful to ask where the conventions of AD&D came from rather than assuming that they are badwrongfun or obselete technology.

The early AD&D players largely came from a wargaming background. They were used to competitive play with the rewards of victory. They were used to 'keeping score' and playing games with the goal of getting more skillful at playing them. Moreover, they were used to playing games were there was a simulation going on which they liked to imagine in some way modeled or reflected the reality that intrigued them, whether it was the 100 Years War, clashes between the Hittites and the Egyptians, or the wars of medevial Poland. They created a game which was intended to do all those things to some degree. It was intended to keep score. The level of the character was to some extent intended to reflect the skill of the player. The game was meant to encourage increased skill at playing it, and the game world was intended to model a reality. The description of the game world was a description of this reality as it actually was, and this was required so that the DM could be said to be 'playing fair' in his role of referee/antogonist.

Now, my silly description of the lurking ambush inn, while intended to be humorous is a description of your world as it actually is. The inn has no fixed abode. It wanders around looking for PC's to ambush, and then settles down when actually interacted with. That's the game world you are describing. The gameworld that the original players/designers of D&D wanted to describe was one that was consistant between groups of players. Everyone knows where the Sign of the Prancing Phony is.

This sounds an awful lot like sophistry (though the funny kind --I'm tempting to create the Ambush Tavern and spring it --literally- on my group). Once the players encounter a place it becomes a fixed part of the game world. But before then, what does it matter?

Maybe it doesn't matter. I already said that in general I approve of wandering inns. But I find it odd that I'm the one accused of sophistry here. You are the one who describes an inn that is always where ever the players are going, and yet seems to want to insist that it doesn't move about. That your players can't see that it moves about is the trick, but the trick is real and anyone privy to 'behind the screen' will see it.

This describes the bulk of every campaign world I've ever built... ideas in a state of flux that don't get fixed in place until I share them w/others (ie, the get observed in play). The whole thing is illusionsim.

Well, yes, I said that too.

Note that wasn't exactly what I said: I meant players would encounter it, not necessarily step inside and engage w/the NPC's.

Well, yes, but, I suspect that if they don't step inside and engage w/the NPC's, the inn will put on a new coat of paint and follow them around until they do.

Yes, in fact I did mean that .

Ok, so this moves the hard illusionism well beyond where I'm comfortable. An NPC that is inescapable is railroad, and he better darn well be a near omniscient diety if he can just pop in like that. And generally speaking, being hounded by a diety/Elmenster figure is a pretty straight forward railroad technique.

Yes, being mindful of the implications surrounding an NPC you create is important, but that in no way implies the need nor desire to force a particular course of action on the PC's who encounter them. There's a leap of logic I'm missing here...

Let me explain then. Remember what I said about 'rowboat settings'. Most adventure path settings, and many so called 'sandbox settings' are really just sparcely populated rowboat settings. What happens is that you get dumped into the setting in your rowboat near something interesting. You can choose to investigate the thing that is interesting, or you can choose to row around looking at nothing and doing nothing. Quite soon you realize that the DM intends you to do this, and that if you don't, no fun is going to be provided, so if you want to have fun you better do what the DM intends you to do. After you go investigate the one interesting thing in the setting, the DM tells you were in the vast ocean to find the next interesting thing, and so on and so forth.

You are a talking about an unavoidable NPC, that can chase me down no matter what I do, and he's going to make me an offer. And chances are, its going to be an offer I can't really refuse because otherwise, I can just diddle around in my rowboat. And you wonder why some people don't like illusionism?

 

[Wolf1066]

Look at it this way, what is the difference between the player choosing to wish for a sword and it being provided by the GM and the GM telling the players, choose a door, one of which leads to a magic sword and the other of which leads to (da da da Dum) Certain Doom and then giving them the magic sword option whichever door they choose?

Well, for a start, the GM didn't ask/tell the player to wish for a magic sword.

And the question is "would the magic sword have existed in story had the player not wished for it?"

Answer: most likely not. The GM is responding to the whim of the players and "letting them win".

Yes, it's railroading in the sense that the players don't have a choice about whether they succeed or fail, but it's the choices and whims of the characters driving the game.

The "two doors" and the false choice obviously did exist prior to the session - the GM decided beforehand that the players were going to win or do something before the game started and then presents a meaningless choice.

In this case, the game is driven by the whim of the GM.

Yes but the former (or my counter example) also provide the "illusion of choice", but they also provide the "illusion of success", so you are 'ok' with that. In other words, what you mind isn't your choices being taken away from you. You are ok with that as long as you get to appear to win. It's like saying, "I'm ok with you providing choices, just so long as no matter what I do they always lead to what I want."

Actually, I didn't make any comment on what I think is OK or what I do or don't mind, I just commented that planning in advance what is going to happen then pretending the players have a choice in the matter and magicking up stuff that the players choose to want are two different very different things in a lot of ways.

For a start, one is "no matter what happens, the characters will win and I will give them what they want" while the other is "no matter what they choose, they will do what I want them to."

And I'm not saying that either is good or bad in and of itself - both can become bad if overused, each has its useful points used in moderation.

A large degree of illusionism and railroading is inherent in adventures just to get the PCs to go to where the action is and solve the problems the GM/module writer has set. The players can wander around in circles all they like but unless they meet certain people and go to certain places, they're not going to achieve a hell of a lot.

Not unless their sole aim is power escalation and going up levels - whereupon wandering around in circles killing random monsters would be sufficient - if a somewhat boring game (for me and a lot of people I've played with over the years, anyway.)

So, if the GM decides they are going to play module X - the premise of which is they rescue the princess from the Dark Tower and learn in the process that it's part of a plot, hatched by the Grand Vizier, to overthrow the king - and the players are doing everything but walking into the tavern right tavern to meet NPC Thrud and read the reward notice on the wall, thus setting themselves on the path to the Dark Tower, the GM is going to make bloody sure that Thrud and the notice are in the next place the players go - even if it's the town's public toilets.

Frankly, I see nothing wrong with that. The players still have scope to do some things their way and there should still be a fair chance of both success and failure.

If they don't wind up going to the Dark Tower, then it's likely to be a pretty short and boring game.

Deciding that the players will meet a particular person, visit a particular tavern and interact with certain PCs etc in the interests of furthering the gaming and setting them off on adventures is perfectly acceptable IMO. Where it starts getting sticky is when the players are railroaded in such a way that they must do things exactly as the GM wants in order to succeed or ensuring there is no possible way they can loose by having every person they need to encounter appear as though by magic no matter which wrong turn they take.

 

[Lanefan]

OK, I'm really confused (which doesn't take much doing) by all this.

First, this new "illusionism" term - new to me, anyway; I'd never heard it before reading this thread - where the bleep did this spring up from?

Second, am I to understand that illusionism is being hailed as The Next WrongBad Thing, right up there with railroading?

Third, and this question hasn't really been answered yet though it's been asked: at what point in both time and thought does "flexible adventure design" turn into "illusionism"? For these examples, please tell me which is which...

- I decide during the week to retroactively change the back-history of my game world, the players are unaware of the change and it does not affect anything that has happened in-game {1}

- I decide on the fly that the next adventure hooks are going to lead to a different adventure than I'd originally planned, the players are unaware of the change but the change has been made due to unintentional player suggestion {1}

- I decide on the fly that the next adventure hooks are going to lead to a different adventure than I'd originally planned, the players are aware of the change (e.g. I'd already told them either in or out of game what the next adventure was going to be) {2}

- the above two again, only the decision was made during the week {1}

- I decide on the fly that something different will be behind the door they're opening than I (or the module) had originally planned, the players are unaware of the change {1}

- Provided they decide to tackle Adventure X, I decide ahead of time that no matter what they do they will meet a particular NPC at some point as this meeting is essential for the plot of Adventure X {1}

- I decide on the spur of the moment that they will meet a particular NPC *right now*, sort of like a random wandering monster only more relevant {1}

- I decide in mid-combat to change the stats of an opponent because it is proving too easy or too tough for what was intended {3}

- I decide in mid-combat to change the tactics of an opponent because it is proving too easy or too tough for what was intended {1}

{1} - I have done this in the past to a greater or lesser degree of frequency
{2} - I have not done this yet but could see it happening in the future
{3} - I have not done this and hope I never will

I suspect some of you will say all of the above are illusionism; I will counter by claiming almost every one of them as part of my right as DM, while throwing in the suggestion that this sort of thing can sometimes go both ways: sometimes the players/characters are determined to do something and-or go somewhere no matter what the DM does.

Lan-"Illusionist"-efan

 

[steenan]

The discussion about the "jumping tavern" made me think:

How can we tell that the tavern was moved? It would need to be somewhere else previously. And if it wasn't encountered (or even talked about) before, how can anybody say that it was somewhere else?

What I mean is that nothing can be said to exist in game (or to exist in a given state) unless it entered the shared imagination of players. To exist, something needs to be described in some way and accepted by others, according to group's social contract and rules of the game. Of course, this description does not need to be done during the session - it may be, for example, in a setting book for the game all participants agreed to play. But if it wasn't shared, how can it "exist" in what is a consensual imagination of all participants?

After something has been established as a part of the game world, it is there. It cannot be changed by a handwave. To contradict something that already entered the game, one needs a good reason, supported by the rules and group's play style. One needs consistency. For example, in D&D, if the PCs encountered a tavern but didn't enter it, it could later be stated as being an illusion (ok by the rules - no interaction, no roll for disbelief) - but then, a question would follow, who created it and why.

The idea of sharing and accepting something as a key for its in-game existence also ties to the topic of meaningful choices. No matter what the consequences are, a choice cannot be meaningful if it is not informed. If there is no way of predicting the consequences, each choice is essentially random.

Thus, if there are two ways, one leading to a treasure and the other to a monster's lair, with no way of distinguishing which is which, there is no real choice there, even though the players are free to say "we go left" or "we go right". Switching the destinations by the GM does not change anything. It's creating such a situation to begin with that may be seen as problematic in some play styles.
But when the PCs search for clues and find them, we have some established facts. The choice is informed now, and it has meaning. If the GM decided to switch the monster and the treasure now, it would both remove the choice from players and create a contradiction with what is already accepted to exist in the game world.

Of course, the contradiction is not always absolute. There are thousands of ways to shape the situation in given way. That is where plausibility comes into play. If, to introduce a new fact without contradicting previous ones, one needs an acrobatic and extremely improbable explanation, it is, in most cases, a bad idea. It will break the suspension of disbelief. And, of course, the "in most cases" clause is important here. A world where nothing improbable happens is just as implausible as the one with too many improbable events.

 

[Argyle King]

One quick note. Let me go ahead and define a term for what I think tends to happen when you try to run to far away from illusionism as a DM - "rowboat settings".

A rowboat setting is when the players are dropped into a (metaphorical) rowboat in an extremely broad superficially detailed setting - like say an ocean or the middle of outerspace. The players are then told to row the boat whereever they want. They can head in any direction they want.

They just can't actually ever get anywhere meaningful. Day after day, session after session, they row the boat furiously. And day after day, session after session, they encounter the same drearily similar universe of random meaningless happenstance. Each session is perhaps filled with furious frantic activity, and each day the rowboat is perhaps in a little bit different of a place than it was the day before. The setting is probably realistic, maybe even hyperrealistic, and the players can make whatever choices they want, but precisely because of this they can't actually do anything meaningful because player agency becomes so tightly constrained by character agency. The characters - as with real people - don't really have infinite choices either, because real worlds don't actually provide real people with infinite choices either much less exciting story structured lives.

Now, as with illusionism, I'm not trying to damn the rowboat either. Frankly, being in the rowboat from time to time is alot of fun. I just would like to get out occassionally and 'take a train' so I can actually get somewhere.

I'm not sure how accurate I feel this is. In plenty of 'Rowboat Settings,' the players are free to build their own 'trains.' In such a game, the plot(s) is driven by character motivation instead of "ZOMG! Orcus is taking over the world. These four strangers who met in a tavern are the only hope. What do you do?"

I'd say that a level based system tends to more favorably run the second style, but not all systems are level based.

I see nothing wrong with the players playing and creating their story instead of the DM's story. I also feel it's possible to do both, and I often do so when I create a campaign. I inform the players of basic information about what is going on in the game world, and many of them use this information to create characters who are involved in the story arcs I have in place. However, those characters also have motivations of their own.

Like I said, in an open ended campaign, the players are free to build their own trains. In a campaign I play in right now, one of my character's motivations is to gain more religious freedoms for people of his faith. Currently, their practices are somewhat frowned upon; in some cases, violently frowned upon. This has lead me to make choices based upon that agenda and seek to further travel the rails of that story instead of making choices based upon cool loot, experience points, and getting the next power when I level up. In this campaign, I made character choices which I feel did get me somewhere, and they also impacted the campaign world and made me feel like my actions had deeper meaning.

 

[Wolf1066]

How can we tell that the tavern was moved? It would need to be somewhere else previously. And if it wasn't encountered (or even talked about) before, how can anybody say that it was somewhere else?

Quite correct. It also has other factors I'll mention below.

After something has been established as a part of the game world, it is there. It cannot be changed by a handwave. To contradict something that already entered the game, one needs a good reason, supported by the rules and group's play style. One needs consistency. For example, in D&D, if the PCs encountered a tavern but didn't enter it, it could later be stated as being an illusion (ok by the rules - no interaction, no roll for disbelief) - but then, a question would follow, who created it and why.[/QUOTE]
And if the the tavern was not talked about or encountered as in the first instance and merely seen but not entered in the directly preceding, how is anyone to know that it's that tavern?

Presuming of course, that "that" tavern is the one that the GM wants the players to enter so they will meet certain NPCs or have a particular adventure.

Taverns are all over the place, people may or may not go into them. Sooner or later, most people do.

And as Steenan points out, unless it has previously been established that "that tavern" is the Duck and Drake, next to the haberdashers on the main street of Thryss in the Kingdom of Mungbean, who is going to know that the tavern (or at least the characters/events in side it) has "jumped" to wherever the PCs happen to be - except the GM, of course, as (s)he is the one who did it.

And if the GM was just waiting for the players to wander into a tavern - any tavern - just so (s)he could spring the events/NPCs on them...

Who cares?

Honestly. What? The GM should throw away a perfectly good plot they've sweated blood over or paid money for just because the PCs didn't wander into the exact tavern the GM initially decided (or module said) the events should happen in? It's better for the players to spend their entire game night acting out the parts of a bunch of travellers who turn up at a tavern where absolutely nothing is going on - so as not to take away their "choice" to be bored out of their cotton-picking minds?

Frankly, if I want the players to meet a certain NPC or find themselves in the midst of a brawl or at the scene of an accident, then I'll happily move the NPC, brawlers or MVA to wherever the players decide to go - I'm not wedded to events having to happen in any particular place. If my original imagining of the character is that he hangs out in the Bricklayer's Arms and the night I want to introduce him to the players they elect to visit the Elephant and Castle, then it's the Elephant and Castle where he appears. In the unlikely event that it's vitally important to the plot that the pub is his usual watering hole, then that's what it'll suddenly become (players won't know I changed it and wouldn't care if they did) - and whenever they go back there, he's likely to be around.

Note that above I said "meet", "find themselves in the midst of" and "at the scene of" - I've said nothing about them agreeing to anything the NPC has offered/said or becoming involved in either situation. Just that the opportunity is there - whether the players choose to do something about it is up to them.

My finding has generally been my players want me to come up with things for them to get involved in - and some have gotten rather disappointed in the past if it is obvious that I am using random variables to determine what happens/who they meet because I have skimped on prep work for the session and not put together a proper evening's gaming for them. Frankly, they expect "a show" - and I'd better give them one, which entails dropping them into a situation. They don't go to the pub/tavern for a quiet drink, they go there hoping something interesting is going to happen there or on the way there.

My players have no desire to sit around my lounge doing nothing and no desire to just beat on random villains that pop out of the woodwork, they want an adventure that takes them places and stretches their boundaries. So even if I candidly said "I've been waiting for you to go to a pub for ages so I could hit you with that scenario", my players wouldn't give a damn.

And frankly, if someone did it to me, I wouldn't care, either - provided the evening's gaming was fun and I got to roleplay in an interesting situation.

However, if I told them in repeatedly and well in advance that Mick the Fink always hangs out at the Lido surrounded by his cronies and then spring an encounter with him on them while they're at the Rose and Crown, they'd certainly have an issue with the lack of consistency - unless I could provide a plausible explanation for the change.

 

[Fifth Element]

How so? How is it different, other than in degree.

The degree is the difference. I can see the argument that it's just a matter of scale. But scale is extremely important, you can't ignore it in anything other than a semantic exercise.

Nearly any method a DM might use to run a game is bad if he uses it too often, or on too large a scale. So the degree is very important, when you're talking about the game at the table.

The player has made a choice - I want X for my character. You deliberately provide X. That has changed the game so that the player's choice didn't actually matter. He could have chosen Y and he'd find Y or Z or XKCD or whatever. No matter what he chooses, he will receive it. Not easily hopefully, and not immediately, but, he's still going to get it.

This seems fallacious to me. Couldn't you just as easily argue that this ensures that a player's choice matters? If the DM decides what the player is going to get, regardless of what the player wants (or chooses), how does that make the player's choice meaningful? Isn't that the definition of hard illusionism we're working with here?

Player chooses A, B or C. DM is only providing B. Player gets B, regardless of what he actually chose.

An illusionism Dm takes the cues from the players that they would really like to find a secret door here that leads into the tower and takes out his Mark II Editing Pencil and quickly sketches in a small passage leading from the tunnel to another secret door in the tower. Poof, the player's now really have no real choice. The world has been changed to fit within a particular aesthetic.

I can see that as an example of hard illusionism, and it is (to me) one technique of many in the DM's toolbox, which can be effective if used sparingly.

 

[Fifth Element]

Yes, it's railroading in the sense that the players don't have a choice about whether they succeed or fail, but it's the choices and whims of the characters driving the game.

The "two doors" and the false choice obviously did exist prior to the session - the GM decided beforehand that the players were going to win or do something before the game started and then presents a meaningless choice.

In this case, the game is driven by the whim of the GM.

This is what I was getting at. If hard illusionism involves giving the players false choices, then the magic sword example is not hard illusionism. There is no false choice there, there is an actual choice made by the player. Now, if it were carried to extremes (the players want the BBEG to suddenly drop dead, so he does and they win the campaign!), that would be a bad thing.

 

[Fifth Element]

I suspect some of you will say all of the above are illusionism; I will counter by claiming almost every one of them as part of my right as DM, while throwing in the suggestion that this sort of thing can sometimes go both ways: sometimes the players/characters are determined to do something and-or go somewhere no matter what the DM does.

They would all fall within the definition of "soft illusionism" presented here. Which to me is simply part of the DM's role in the game. Games where there is no soft illusionism at all would be incredibly rare, I think, especially if you argue that any improvisation done by the DM during a game would fall within that definition.

 

[Celebrim]

First, this new "illusionism" term - new to me, anyway; I'd never heard it before reading this thread - where the bleep did this spring up from?

I assume its a Forgeism. I heard it four or five years ago.

Second, am I to understand that illusionism is being hailed as The Next WrongBad Thing, right up there with railroading?

No, but it looks like that is the way everyone is responding to it. Personally, if you know me, I'm not even one that accuses railroading of a being bad. I'm not a 'there is only one way to do it' sort of player or DM. I admire skillfully done railroads and skillfully done sandboxes. I admire well done high illusionism and well done high simulation. I admire well done power gaming, well done hack n' slash, and well done low melodrama. I like sim play, nar play, and competive gamist play. If anything, I'm the sort that would suggest that far from there being only one way to do it, the skillful DM and the player ought to be sampling from all of these things.

- I decide during the week to retroactively change the back-history of my game world, the players are unaware of the change and it does not affect anything that has happened in-game {1}

I'm not sure that there is a term for that.

I decide on the fly that the next adventure hooks are going to lead to a different adventure than I'd originally planned, the players are unaware of the change but the change has been made due to unintentional player suggestion

You don't give me enough details to comment. Generally in that situation my advice would be to throw out both hooks and see which one they want to bite.

I decide on the fly that the next adventure hooks are going to lead to a different adventure than I'd originally planned, the players are aware of the change (e.g. I'd already told them either in or out of game what the next adventure was going to be)

Well, that is definately not illusionism, and is in fact participationism. The DM sets the goals and the players willingly agree to play whatever the DM provides for them.

I decide on the fly that something different will be behind the door they're opening than I (or the module) had originally planned, the players are unaware of the change {1}

Not enough information to go on. The timing of the event is unimportant.

Provided they decide to tackle Adventure X, I decide ahead of time that no matter what they do they will meet a particular NPC at some point as this meeting is essential for the plot of Adventure X {1}

Ok, so long as you are completely serious about 'no matter what they do', that is both hard illusionism and railroad. This is similar in concept to God ordering Jonah to go to Ninevah (in modern Iraq), Jonah heading in the opposite direction (to Spain), and God insuring that Jonah (by way of storms and giant groupers) ends up in Ninevah anyway. If you mean however, "The NPC will meet the party if they are at a time and place were the event reasonably could happen given the resources, habits, and knowledge of the NPC", then that is (at most) soft illusionism. A soft illusionism example would be the PC's happening to be near the scene of a crime in progress that provides the PC's the first clue about a larger conspiracy, or a close associate of the PC's being a victim of a larger conspiracy. That's a standard trope of the heroic genera and occurs across all fictional mediums. It's such a basic assumption of fiction (heroes are always at the right place at the right time) that its not usually questioned. Batman always happens to be near the scene of any random crime. But of course, in reality, you've probably never been near a mugging in progress, and probably couldn't find one if you tried and Batman would do no better at it. A simulation example (no illusionism) would be picking 4 or 5 places that the NPC frequents on a regular basis and deciding the rules for how the NPC is found or finds the players ahead of time in a way that you feel best approximates how a real person would behave in the NPC's situation. Of course, in the simulation route, you are risking that the NPC doesn't actually find the players which means you better have other oppurtunities for fun in the event that doesn't happen.

I decide on the spur of the moment that they will meet a particular NPC *right now*, sort of like a random wandering monster only more relevant.

Not enough information to go on. The timing of the event is unimportant.

I decide in mid-combat to change the stats of an opponent because it is proving too easy or too tough for what was intended

Illusionism.

I decide in mid-combat to change the tactics of an opponent because it is proving too easy or too tough for what was intended

Probably illusionism. If you hit upon a new more effective tactic for the monster mid-combat and decide that the monster would fight that way because its got a high intelligence, then that's not illusionism. That's simply you RPing the NPC effectively. If you change tactics to achieve some meta-game goal (keeping the players alive, making the fight more exciting), rather than because the NPC is fighting for his life, that is illusionism.

I suspect some of you will say all of the above are illusionism

Why?

I will counter by claiming almost every one of them as part of my right as DM...

You realize I'm an ardent supporter of Rule 0, right? In other threads, I'm frequently accused of being that abusive DM because I strongly support GM empowering system designs. I'm not going to argue with the any assertion of the rights of the DM. So you are in fact not 'countering' me at all, as I fully agree with pretty much any assertion of the right of the DM to control his game. I'll go even further. Not only can the DM alter the setting, the DM has a right to alter the rules of the game in mid-play as far as I'm concerned. The only question is whether doing so represents skillful play by a DM. My initial focus was simply to define the term - not condemn it. My interest isn't in 'dumb' questions like 'isn't that badwrongfun', but rather in questions like, 'What are examples of skillful illusionist techniques, and what are examples of ones that should be used more sparingly or perhaps not even at all?' or 'How much illusionism is too much?'