RPGs are ... Role Playing Games

[Celebrim]

That's one of the reasons I linked the illusionism definition I did upthread; the Forge is often a model of obscurity and pedantry masquerading as erudition.

Agreed. In my opinion, if you cut through all the Derrida crap and philosophical pretension, what you usually find underneath is someone who is saying that every one else is doing it wrong.

Personally, I find the term Illusionism useful, because its something I've done and something that I've had done to me, but had no umberella term for discussing the technique.

I'm not even necessarily saying that a railroad is 'doing it wrong', because there are players out there (I've got one in my current group) that want to ride a railroad and are open in hoping that you've got a nice train and that its going to roll through beautiful scenery.

 

[The Shaman]

You missed the rather important part that followed immediately after the part you bolded: "...for them." I'd say that makes a difference.
​

I'm sure you would.

I don't.

 

[The Shaman]

I thought I was...

And in what way is the springing of a particular tavern with particular NPCs and an interesting situation (as I was referring to in my post) "stringing those together into a complete ballgame"?

The veil of ignorance - hold that thought, and I'll come back to that in a moment.

When you create those interesting people, situations and curveballs - prior to game time, going by the next quote, in what way are you disagreeing with my practice of creating interesting people, situations and curveballs?

I'm not disagreeing with it; in fact I'm agreeing with it, but my process and motives may be, or at least appear to be, different from yours.

I'm not saying that the characters have to respond to them in a certain way - my notes are full of "contingencies" as it were: all the information I think I might need no matter which way they decide to play it. If they plan to fight, fine, I've got the stats for that, if they want to get information, I have that, too - and so on.

Same here, but the $64,000 question is, is the encounter an "adventure hook" intended to snag the players and their characters, is it in the furtherance of your sweat- and blood-stained plot, or is it complete in and of itself, with no strings attached save the ones the adventurers give it?

And a "random" encounter worked out prior to the game differs from what I was discussing in what respect?

Still holding that thought? Okay, here we go.

The difference is the veil of ignorance. The veil of ignorance is a legal philosophy of justice designed to promote equality and fairness by advancing a social contract in which , " . . . no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status; nor does he know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence and strength, and the like . . ." (John Rawls, A Theory of Justice). The idea is that if no one knows if they will be rich or poor, educated or ignorant, healthy or infirm, competent or inept, it's possible to fashion a social contract which provides the highest degree of justice and equality for all.

When I'm behind the screen, I set out to create a game-world which emulates a particular genre: for Traveller it's the space traders of Poul Andersen and CJ Cherryh, for Flashing Blades it's the 17th century swashbucklers of Alexandre Dumas, Rafael Sabatini, Baroness Orzcy, and Arturo Pérez-Reverte, for Boot Hill it's the comic-westerns of Pete Dexter and Larry McMurtry, and so on. The genres provide the 'facts' of the setting.

The veil of ignorance as it applies to my gaming is to presume nothing about the assets and abilities of the adventurers in preparing the setting. My goal is to provide the players and their characters with a shared world which emulates the game-genre but makes no assumptions about the adventurers' course within it. The setting reflects the themes of the source lit and reacts to the adventurers in ways consistent with the genre - and that's where I stop. There are no daisy-chains of encounters, no adventure paths, no referee-written story to act out.

This allows me to keep the lightest possible touch on the 'controls' of the game and maximizes freedom of action for the players and their characters. In my experience increasing stochasticity keeps the game always a little off-balance, forever tilting in unexpected directions, which for me is what is most fun about roleplaying games.

Now you may be nodding along and saying to yourself, "But that's what I do, too!" If so, that's great; we may not be so far apart in our gaming styles as it seems at first blush. But when you talk about a preparing a "perfectly good plot" involving the players and their characters, or creating a specific encounter or location to spring on the adventurers when you think it's appropriate or amusing, well, that's where you lose me, W#.

You seem to be assuming that because I said I have no problem with a situation or an NPC being sprung on the PCs, that they are expected to respond to it in a set way.

That is not the case at all - I provide the "stories" that are running in the place they are in - "stories" (lives of NPCs who have goals within the game world) that the players can interact with as they like - or not if they so desire, they can wander off elsewhere. But I see nothing wrong with springing one of those stories - in the form of those NPCs or their actions - on the PCs, wherever and whenever might reasonably fit in with the game world.

Again, not so far off from my approach. The difference is that you perhaps put a heavier touch on the collective than I do, since my random encounters are designed to reflect the setting and not to present a specific challenge to a known group of adventurers.

And likewise, creating a world with a large number of "known quantities" in it, ready made NPCs with their own agendas and goals bustling around in that world and striving to get what they want is "setting-building" as well.

Agreed.

There's a world of difference, as previously noted, between a "false choice" of whether or not they encounter a situation or character (which, going by your post you seem to have no problem with) and a false choice of whether or not they succeed (all doors lead to the magic sword or whatever).

No, I very much have a problem with, "All roads lead to my super-133+ encounter!" That's illusionism, and I don't like it one bit.

 

[Fifth Element]

Never mind - misread post.

 

[jaerdaph]

RPGs are... Rocket Propelled Grenades.

Just like AD&D is... ...Accidental Death & Dismemberment insurance....

 

[Doug McCrae]

TS, doesn't your choice of system and genre already tell you a lot about who the PCs are and what they want? They won't be farmers. They won't be female. They're going to be young, physically capable, highly motivated men seeking fame and/or fortune and quite prepared to put their own life and liberty at risk, as well as the lives of others, in pursuit of those goals.

Armed with that information you can make pretty accurate predictions about how they'll behave. For example, dangle a reasonable opportunity for adventure in front of them and they will bite the hook.

Really, this is how the vast majority of rpgs work. It's an, often unspoken, assumption that the PCs will be adventurers, prepared to take quite extraordinary physical risks in pursuit of glory, treasure and going up levels.

 

[Fifth Element]

I wonder if part of the disagreement in what should be called illusionism in this thread has to do with the separation between players and characters.

It seems to me that Celebrim's definition of soft illusionism could also be called player illusionism, while hard illusionism could be called character illusionism. A true false choice (no matter what the characters do, they end up in Encounter X) has to do with making character action irrelevant.

Some people, me included, would argue that since we all know we're playing a game when we play, soft illusionism isn't avoidable, nor should it be avoided. That it's very different from hard illusionism, and really shouldn't be included in the same category.

Soft illusionism is almost always there, and does nothing to harm the typical game, often improving it in fact. Hard illusionism can be avoided entirely if desired, and if overused (or used at all for some groups) can be a very bad thing for the game. Lumping them both together under "illusionism" doesn't seem right to me.

 

[The Shaman]

TS, doesn't your choice of system and genre already tell you a lot about who the PCs are and what they want?

Great question, McC.

My answer is, I hope it does. I try to pick a system which I think reflects the genre conceits; it's one of the reasons I moved away from generic systems toward games which are more purpose-built. I encourage the players to think in terms of the genre when they're creating their characters.

But "swashbucklers" is also a pretty diverse genre. Peter Blood, Sakr-al-Bahr, D'Artagnan, the Scarlet Pimpernel, Captain Alatriste - similar milieu, different characters with very different life-histories, in my opinion.

They won't be farmers.

Gentleman-farmers with an estate, perhaps, but not tillers, no.

That's one of the big differences between Flashing Blades and Maelstrom. Maelstrom characters may be cobblers and tinkers and swordsmiths and merchants; Flashing Blades characters may be bravos and pirates, but the system provides more support for soldiers or gentlemen or nobles.

They won't be female.

I'm willing to accept a bit of anachronism there. A female adventurer is quite exceptional, and that will be reflected in how the setting treats her, but exceptional women are found in all eras and all places, so while it may be genre-bending, it's not genre-breaking.

They're going to be young, physically capable, independent men seeking fame and/or fortune and quite prepared to put their own life and liberty at risk, as well as the lives of others, in pursuit of those goals.

Again, I hope so.

But consider the goals of three different FB characters: one wants to succeed Richelieu, one wants to be the captain-lieutenant of the King's Musketeers, and one wants to be a masked avenger righting wrongs on behalf of the downtrodden.

All may be "young, physically capable, independent men seeking fame and/or fortune and quite prepared to put their own life and liberty at risk," but that's pretty much the view from twenty-thousand feet; zoom in a bit and distinctions come into sharp relief.

What I prefer to do is let the players sort out how these characters are going to merge their goals and act in concert to achieve them. I'll ply them with all the information they ask for, through their Contacts, their friends and allies, to help them achieve their aspirations. But I won't try to lead them there by weaving a daisy-chain for them. The players and their characters generate encounters more than I do.

Armed with that information you can make pretty accurate predictions about how they'll behave. For example, dangle a reasonable opportunity for adventure in front of them and they will bite the hook.

And if I've done my job the way I hope to, they are surrounded by adventure in every direction. All they have to do is push, and the world pushes back.

Really, this is how the vast majority of rpgs work. It's an, often unspoken, assumption that the PCs will be adventurers, prepared to take quite extraordinary physical risks in pursuit of glory, treasure and going up levels.

That's how it should be, in my humble opinion. Some players seem to forget that from time to time.

I agree that the overwhelming majority of roleplaying games are run with the referee providing a plot and the players hunting about for the plot hooks then buckling in for the ride.

But what do you suppose would happen if those same characters, "prepared to take quite extraordinary physical risks in pursuit of glory, treasure and" personal advancement, found themselves in a world where a hooded stranger in a tavern didn't offer them a map one evening? What would they do then?

That's the game I run right there.

 

[Hussar]

I wonder if part of the disagreement in what should be called illusionism in this thread has to do with the separation between players and characters.

It seems to me that Celebrim's definition of soft illusionism could also be called player illusionism, while hard illusionism could be called character illusionism. A true false choice (no matter what the characters do, they end up in Encounter X) has to do with making character action irrelevant.

Some people, me included, would argue that since we all know we're playing a game when we play, soft illusionism isn't avoidable, nor should it be avoided. That it's very different from hard illusionism, and really shouldn't be included in the same category.

Soft illusionism is almost always there, and does nothing to harm the typical game, often improving it in fact. Hard illusionism can be avoided entirely if desired, and if overused (or used at all for some groups) can be a very bad thing for the game. Lumping them both together under "illusionism" doesn't seem right to me.

At the end of the day, you're probably right. Being a bit more specific - introducing the idea of hard vs soft illusionism is probably a good thing. As you say, soft illusionism goes on in the game all the time. It's practically unavoidable unless you try really, really hard. Hard illusionism, like railroading, is more likely to be objectionable, since it's so heavy handed.

Then again, if the players don't know, then if done right, there likely is no problem.

Two similar examples:

Running an adventure, the players get stuck at a point. They have analysis paralysis, or just fixate on one thing, or whatever, but, in any case wind up spending far too much time navel gazing and the game is dragging.

We've likely all run into this from time to time.

The Dm looks down, and immedietely blows something up. Not literally of course - it could be a "random" encounter, it could be an NPC popping up, it could actually be a large explosion nearby - just to get the action rolling again.

This, to me, would be hard illusionism. But not necessarily bad.

Another example:

A poster on the boards and I misremember who (Bullgrit? Crothian?) recently posted about an OSR one shot he ran for his group using the Basic D&D rules and the B1 module. During his post, he talks about how the party chose the most boring route through the dungeon. They hit just about every empty room while randomly avoiding all the interesting stuff. At the end of the session, the players were less than excited about the game because it was boring. Not through anyone's fault, it was just random.

Now, imagine instead, after about twenty or thirty minutes of empty rooms, the DM sees that they are coming up to yet another empty room. Quickly scanning the adventure, he switches the empty room for the similarly sized room full of giant rats. Again, hard illusionism. The players didn't choose that room. They in fact, chose a totally different room.

And, probably the right thing to do.

Which brings us back to the Door of Doom example. While I agree that this could be a very bad thing, it could be exactly like the situation above. The game is dragging, energy is low, enthusiasm is low, and the DM moves the Door of Doom to spice things up.

Totally hard illusionism, I think. But, probably justifiable.

 

[Wolf1066]

Running an adventure, the players get stuck at a point. They have analysis paralysis, or just fixate on one thing, or whatever, but, in any case wind up spending far too much time navel gazing and the game is dragging.

We've likely all run into this from time to time.

Gods, have I ever! Generally fixed as you suggest, with the GM throwing something into the mix to stir up the pot a bit and get the players moving.